In Brief: Psystar Filed Its Opposition to Apple’s Motion to Dismiss
- October 20th, 2008 - 7.39 pm UTC
- Apple Legal News, Psystar
- dizzle
On October 16, 2008, Psystar filed its Opposition to Apple’s Motion to Dismiss its Counterclaim. You may download the filings here:
Psystar’s Opposition to Apple’s Motion to Dismiss
Affidavit of Christophe P. Grewe, Esq. in Support of Psystar’s Opposition to Apple’s Motion to Dismiss
Exhibit A to Affidavit of Christophe P. Grewe, Esq.
Exhibit B to Affidavit of Christophe P. Grewe, Esq.
One of the most interesting portions of Psystar’s Opposition is its attempt to use language found in U.S. v. Microsoft Corp., 87 F.Supp.2d 30 (D.D.C. 2000) as follows (see page 10 of Psystar’s filing):
The District Court found that consumers would not switch from Windows to
Mac OS in response to a substantial price increase because of the costs of
acquiring the new hardware needed to run Mac OS (an Apple computer and
peripherals) and compatible software applications, as well as because of the
effort involved in learning the new system and transferring files to its format.
Findings of Fact ΒΆ 20.
As far as I understand their arguments as a non-attorney, Psystar is using that statement to support its allegations that the Macintosh is not part of the general PC market but is rather its own market. I am convinced that this will come back promptly to bite Psystar in the rear. This comment of the District Court in the Microsoft case dealt specifically with switchers in 2000, prior to Apple’s switch to Intel chips. The fact is that due to Apple’s switch to Intel chips—the very switch which makes possible the emulation that Psystar is relying upon— this observation is largely moot. Further, since 2000, Linux has become much more user-friendly with many people finding Ubuntu to be a viable alternative to both Windows and OSX.
I do not know if Apple is entitled to a Reply to Psystar’s Response. I will try to find out this information and report back accordingly.
Comments
TB 21st October 2008, 17.12 pm
Looks like Apple’s case may not be as solid as some thought!
Dizzle 21st October 2008, 17.51 pm
TB, eh? Where did you get that from? It certainly wasn’t from my commentary, so it must have been something you saw in the filings themselves. From my admittedly brief review, this last filing by Psystar is the weakest one that they have done so far (and even though I am deeply in favour of Apple winning), and I had been impressed with their prior filings.
This is what frustrates me about these discussions, and forgive me please TB if I am wrong, but did you just post that off the cuff, or did you read the filings? If you read the filings, I would deeply appreciate your insights. I am writing a future article on Psystar and would love to hear what part of this filing impressed you. If I use anything you say, I would definitely credit you. You can post here or contact me privately at dizzle@worldofapple.com.
However my experience has told me that most one line comments like this are just knee-jerk reactions to one’s personal opinion which is usually not based on law but on one’s personal preference.
Please prove me wrong. Have you read Apple’s Motion to Dismiss? I didn’t post a copy here, but I have it and would be glad to email it to you if you don’t have it.
Dizzle 21st October 2008, 17.54 pm
Oh and to update the readers, I don’t know the precise time frames and haven’t read the Local Rules myself, but from speaking to an attorney, I was told that generally speaking, Apple will be allowed a Reply/Response (I keep forgetting which one goes in what order). It will likely be limited to less than the 20-25 pages we have seen so far, and the time frame will likely be short (5 days). Again, this are just general ideas of what usually happens. We will know soon enough.
JB 21st October 2008, 23.11 pm
Other web sites report it’s not such an open & shut case. Dont care either way.
Dizzle 22nd October 2008, 03.15 am
Hi JB, I never claimed it was an open and shut case. My complaint is that nearly everyone who is wearing a cheerleading outfit for Psystar isn’t do so rationally on points of law, just their own selfish interests. I am sure no one else would want to be treated that way in a Court of law.
Other websites have also reported that Apple waived its right to trial. Don’t believe everything you read on teh interwebz.