UPDATED in Brief: Apple Volleys Back
- October 1st, 2008 - 1.03 pm UTC
- Apple Legal News, Psystar
- dizzle
As per yesterday’s deadline, Apple filed a 23-Page Motion to Dismiss Psystar’s Counterclaim rather than filing a Response. It also filed a Request for Judicial Notice with Exhibits. I have not yet had a chance to read these filings but will report further as I do. The relative brevity of Apple’s Motion is more likely due to page number limitations imposed by the Court rather than Apple running out of arguments to make. Many jurisdictions limit the number of pages in responsive pleadings to anywhere between 20 and 25 pages. I note that the Exhibits filed in support of its Request for Judicial Notice comprise approximately 80 pages. On sheer guess, I suspect that many of those Exhibits will be copies of case law in their favour. Or, maybe, just maybe, (Dizz tries not to get too excited), Affidavits from industry professionals.
I will be back to you soon with more details on this as well as a longer article with some thoughts on the whole suit writ large. I have been delayed in writing that piece as I have been engaged in authoring a review on another very powerful Macintosh program: Accordance.
I have the Motion to Dismiss in my grubby paws, and I have only one thing to say: I love lawyers. I mean that seriously. The brain power that has gone into the arguments on both sides of this case has been impressive. I read Apple’s first counter-argument and literally yelled, “Brilliant!” Apple basically argued that Psystar’s Counterclaim and business practices refuted its own argument that there are no viable competitors to the Macintosh system to the extent that it must be considered a separate market. How so? Psystar itself offers choices to its own customers between Macintosh systems and other systems showing that Psystar believes that these are viable and comparable choices.
More later, but I just had to get that out of my system. Whoever wins, both law firms have earned their fees.
Comments
TerryL 1st October 2008, 16.10 pm
Will be nice to see a batch of clones. Let’s think, an affordable and powerful desktop machine.
Dizzle 1st October 2008, 18.46 pm
For the record, I am totally against any Mac clones and hope Apple kicks Psystar’s booty ’til next Tuesday, but I am trying to evaluate the arguments objectively. I was quite impressed by the cleverness of Psystar’s Counterclaim, but in its Motion to Dismiss, Apple gave a very strong rebuttal. Unless the rules are different in that Court, Psystar will be able to file a Response to Apple’s Motion to Dismiss and no further filings will be permitted without Court permission (such as Apple’s Reply to Psystar’s Response to Apple’s Motion to Dismiss–yes the pleading names can get quite lengthy). Apple will not have to file an Answer to the Counterclaim until the Court rules on the Motion to Dismiss.
If the Motion to Dismiss is denied, I would not be surprised to see a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Apple fairly soon.
Dizzle 1st October 2008, 18.48 pm
All is my conjecture – I am not an attorney. I have asked a few attorney friends for their impressions but have not received any response yet.
Mick 1st October 2008, 19.54 pm
I have two home built clones, both faster, cheaper than any Apple alternative and fully functioning. The cost of repairs and upgrades is also way cheaper. I built these for fun but they spend less time down than my official mac’s.
Be nice to see Psystar win for nothing other than make Apple think about releasing machines people want rather than because they look nice. Mini & IMac are a waste of space for me but the Pro is overpriced for the specs.
Dizzle 2nd October 2008, 01.55 am
Hi Mick, your experience is precisely the opposite of the majority. However, let’s pretend your experience is normative. No one should ever want a lawsuit affecting real people, lives, and money for some personal opinion that has no grounding in law. You wouldn’t want someone to think it would “be nice” to see you lose a huge lawsuit simply because they didn’t like something about you?
IOW, I find the talk of people wanting some of jab at Apple without showing that the LAW is on their side, that is irresponsible. The most hated company or person have equal rights under the law. And I believe that the law is on Apple’s side. And if it isn’t – too bad for American business and innovation. We seem to want to punish the successful here in America in ever-increasing numbers without realizing that “eating the rich” saws off the very branch upon which we all sit.
But to address your personal comment, by “people” you mean “you”? Don’t you think that presumptous? I am a “people” too and I own three Macs, so that Apple HAS released machines that “people” want, just perhaps not you. Don’t you then find your comment inherently selfish?
No company exists to please me… or you. If we don’t like one company we take our business elsewhere, that is the free market. Plenty of people are freely taking their business to Apple.
I find all of this disturbingly reminiscent of “Atlas Shrugged” and I am by no means an Ayn Rand fan. My personal opinion is that it is too bad Apple is publicly traded. If they lost this suit and were privately owned, I would love to see them pull an Ellis Wyat, and maybe then we would be asking “Who is Steve Jobs?”
BillG 2nd October 2008, 13.17 pm
Who is this Jobbie bloke?
JJ 6th October 2008, 17.22 pm
“Plenty of people are freely taking their business to Apple” – only a handful compared to those who stay with Windows because it is affordable to the average user and the hardware is easy to upgrade. No-one uses Vista in the real world and XP is still the biggest selling OS by far.