A Closer Look at a Psystar Filing
- December 22nd, 2008 - 6.16 pm UTC
- Apple Legal News, Psystar
- dizzle
In my past piece on Psystar’s latest Court filing, I was once again highly critical of the grammatical sloppiness found therein. I went through Psystar’s Response to Apple’s Amended Complaint and noted multiple errors line by line. While this case is in stasis at the moment pending an upcoming January hearing on Psystar’s Motion for Leave to Amend and the holidays, I will continue to highlight similar deficiencies. I was quite surprised that after my initial criticisms Psystar’s attorneys did not immediately attempt to rectify these filings with the Court. Out of a regard for the same profession to which I belong, I did not immediately subject the filings to a closer critique. Since Psystar’s attorneys have not found it necessary to correct the incredibly sloppy work product filed with the Court in the intervening weeks and actually filed another deficient pleading, I feel quite free to engage in this amplified scrutiny.
My subject in this article is Psystar’s Notice of and Motion for Leave to Amend. Rather than outlining the numerous grammatical and spelling errors in list format, I took this opportunity to try a product by Smile on my Mac called PDF Pen and marked up this filing in living colour with red annotations describing the errors I found.
You may view this marked-up document here.
I did not have the funds to purchase PDF Pen at this time, so the demo version watermark will appear on the marked-up document. In this short exercise, I did enjoy the product and perhaps will have the pleasure of being able to review it for World of Apple in the future.
Any feedback on whether noting errors in this manner or in a line by line list is preferred would be greatly appreciated.
Comments
Dennis O'Connor 22nd December 2008, 21.07 pm
Good job! I don’t think I could have found all those errors. However, you made a slight one in your comment
“TWO INDEPENDANT CLAUSES JOINED BY A CONJUNCTION REQUIRE A COMMA
ALSO THERE APPEARS TO BE A MISSING WORD IN THE SECOND CLAUSE”
INDEPENDANT should be independent.
dizzle 22nd December 2008, 22.50 pm
Whoops! Thank you!!!! I tend to write these very early in the morning; I did that one at 3am (before I went to bed). I was having a bit of trouble finding a good readable font and colour with PDF Pen, and the red messed me up a bit. I found something similar in my second read-through.
I really appreciate the correction. Whenever people point out errors to me, I make mental note of them so that I can try my best not to repeat them. I just learned that I had been wrong in insisting to my secretary that it was improper to use “CD’s” to describe multiple compact disks because the apostrophe indicts a possessive. I just found out that I was wrong about that, and that style guides find it perfectly acceptable to use an apostrophe in some such cases. I still don’t like it, but I can’t claim it is wrong; it is simply a matter of style. I will not be using apostrophes in that manner, people already screw them up enough.
I am positive I did not find all the errors in that document but that also was not my intent. The only reason I was able to find so many without hardly trying is due to the fact that I proofread legal filings daily; just like one would assume Psystar’s attorneys and support staff do.
Seriously, there would be some serious hell to pay if something like that went out here (though I am still pounding in the en-dash and the em-dash issue here).
Glenn Holland 23rd December 2008, 05.01 am
I’m a pedantic a’hole too when it comes to other writers’ sloppiness but this critique goes too far and contains errors of its own. (Glass houses…stones…)
For example: “Client’s name is spelled wrong” should be “wrongly”.
“Bases” might not be incorrect, if the original author saw more than one “basis for dismissal”.
Also, the critique overlooks some errors I saw: “A series of state law claims were likewise dismissed” should be “was”. Same for “None of those factors are present here.” Should be “is”.
And my favorite grump: “facsimile”. To me, a fax machine is not a facsimile machine, it’s a real machine. Calling it a facsimile is uneducated pomposity.
More examples would be tiresome but there are more.
dizzle 23rd December 2008, 12.14 pm
Ahh Glenn, but you go too far. Do you wish to know why? “Scribbled” proofreading notes on a document, such as might be returned to a drafter, are not formal writing. That is just fact. The purpose of this exercise was to return a document draft as it might be done in a law office. Did you notice that none of my sentences ended in a period, and I only used punctuation when I had to, such as question marks? There are differing standards for informal writing and formal writing.
Thus, I purposefully did not proofread my annotations for those sorts of errors. If you note in my formal writing which is contained in the various articles themselves I NEVER used that phrase.
I try not to misspell words as I find that is unacceptable in both formal and informal writing, but I find that using adjectives when an adverb should have been used is common and acceptable in informal writing. In fact, whether you like it or not, the usage of certain adjectives as adverbs is becoming accepted in American usage. “I feel good” instead of “I feel well” is one such example. If you do a google search on this use of “wrong” instead of “wrongly,” you would discover that. Additionally, “wrongly” just sounds pretentious. You will note when I do use the adverb, I use “incorrectly” rather than “wrongly.”
Plus I take umbrage with your suggestion that my critique was being a pedantic a’hole. As you noted, I didn’t find every error. I specifically noted that I didn’t attmept to. It is not pedantry to try to achieve perfection when filing a pleading in the Federal Court and are getting paid hundreds of dollars an hour to make sure that happens. I would suggest that you may be correct in your own self-assessment when it comes to informal annotations. The informality was intentional. I thought that was obvious enough that I didn’t have to put a note in the document explaining that. I will in future documents.
Actually your sentence is incorrect. Specifically: “Client’s name is spelled wrong” should be “Client’s name is spelled wrongly.”
You made two errors. First, if you are going to put something in quotes, then you need to use the whole part put in quotes in your correction. Second, the period should be within the quote marks. See how silly it is to correct both comments on a post (and I make tons of errors in those) and what was intended to be a demonstration of how that pleading might have been returned to its drafter? Perhaps that is my error in not making that clear as I felt it was obvious. Since I intend upon a similar exercise in the near future, I will make that clear in that piece.
Yes, I know the placement of the period is considered hotly contested in some circles. But the general rule in formal writing is that it would go within the quote marks. Your comment is not formal writing, but I was just trying to show you when pedantry is appropriate and when it is not. I thought it was obvious that annotations do not fall within the former category. Federal Court filings actually submitted to the Judge do!
Once again, I point out the error in your sentence with regards to period placement. Yes, I am doing this to be a–what did you call it?–pedantic a’hole to demonstrate how ludicrous and improper it is to treat informal writing as if it were formal. (Before you try and say that comment should be “as if it was formal,” I chose the subjunctive “were” which is proper.)
All that being said, you are technically correct that “bases” is a plural form of “basis.” However, I suspect you do not work in the legal field. In the context of that statement, that is not the way legal statements are phrased, but you are correct in that it could be technically correct. I still believe this was not an intentional choice on the author’s part and was an error in spelling. In a legal document, you typically would only see “bases for dismissal” in a sentence that made it clear that it was dealing with one basis out of many bases for dismissal. Technical writing has terms of art.
That is a good catch! Bravo! However, even if I saw them, I likely would not have mentioned them. They technically are grammatical errors, particularly the second one mentioned. The first one is highly debatable. Is data plural or singular when choosing the proper verb form? What about memoranda? The subject-verb agreement decision on these types of words (collectives) is a matter of style. I would argue that the word “series” falls within that same sort of grey area and that the author could make a cogent argument for his use of “were” in that first example. However, I doubt his use was intentional as demonstrated by your second example. Good catches. As one grammar nazi to another, I salute you. (Yes, nazi probably should be capitalized. I never capitalize nazi for the same reason I never capitalize the word “satan.” It is a stylistic slap in the face to the literal things I despise.) Obviously I don’t despise figurative “nazis” as I profess to be one when it comes to legal writing.
I believe you are hopelessly incorrect here. Is a copy machine not a real machine? Silly pomposity would be to say something like “the machine that creates facsimiles” and would be ridiculous.
Yes, I suspected there were more. I actually would be interested in the others you found. I did a quick scan in the wee hours of the morning and explicitly stated I was not intending to find them all, but the grammar nazi in me would like to be aware of them all. If you have time, I would love to know any additional errors you found.
You can post them here, or write me at dizzle@worldofapple.com.
Since you did mention you are a pedantic, and pedantics are sometimes hyper-literal, a lot of my comments were intended to be subtle satire. I enjoy riposte. Yes I know “pedantic” is not a noun even though I used it so here.
You might want to join the grammar nazi roundtable at TheologyWeb. We are having a blast telling each other precisely where they can put their semi-colons.
dizzle 23rd December 2008, 12.16 pm
Whoops a spelling error with “attempts.” Damn not having an edit button for comments!!!!
Daniel 24th December 2008, 08.22 am
I find it hard to believe that you did not have funds to buy PDF pen, when your website generates 750,000 page views per month and over $2000 a month in Adsense income.
Toni 24th December 2008, 10.46 am
“$2000 a month in Adsense income” – I love Adblocker!
dizzle 24th December 2008, 12.11 pm
Wow. You surely ASSume a lot. Let me disabuse you of some of your nonsense.
1. I don’t own this site. I don’t get paid to write here. I am a volunteer which means I spend hundreds of hours of my own time and a great deal of my own money to produce my material. I have spent well over a hundred dollars of my own money researching the Psystar case between buying a transcript and paying PACER fees.
Since I am sure you will apologize for your presumption, I will accept your apology in advance.
Have you ever heard of WhoIs? Let me introduce you.
Here is the listed owner: Brooks, Alex webmaster@worldofapple.com
I have never personally met Alex, but I am quite sure he doesn’t look good in a dress. Second, have you ever heard of “About Us” links? Let me introduce you:
http://news.worldofapple.com/about/
And here is the relevant part (since you do appear to be a bit lazy/sloppy – much like Psystar):
Additionally the site is registered to a British address. I have repeatedly said I am American.
Please do your research before making vacuous comments in the future.
And I have no idea what the income for the site is.
Now let’s pretend like I do own the site (which I don’t).
I could have a child with cancer that requires hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills.
I could be laid off from other employment.
It is Christmas, I could (gasp!) be strapped from buying presents.
Macworld is in a few weeks, and I could be (gasp!) strapped from having to save for that.
See how silly you are?
dizzle 24th December 2008, 12.17 pm
Hi Toni, I don’t know if that amount is right. However, the ads here I find quite unobtrusive. As far as Adblocker, I don’t use it. If a site has annoying ads, I stop going to that site. If a site is producing content that is freely available to me, I have no problem viewing their ads as I don’t think it is my “right” to have freely available material, and without such income many great sites would not exist.
I know how much time it costs to run a site. If Daniel had done a cursory amount of research in his “hard to believe” state of my finances, he would find out that I am an owner of TheologyWeb which has NO ads and generates MILLIONS of hits per month. I wonder if Daniel has any idea how much it costs to run a site like that. We depend entirely on freewill gifts to help. I also own:
idrankthekoolaid.com
preteristblog.com
preteristpodcast.com
preteristsite.com
Gee, I wonder where all my disposable income goes.
dizzle 24th December 2008, 12.29 pm
Oh please let me add, that I am starting a video cast. I will let Daniel do the math on how much the following costs:
A HD videocamera
A green screen set-up
A boom mic stand (fortunately I already had on good mic from my podcasting work)
One lapel mic
Lighting
A tripod
Some minimal props (a host’s chair and table)
Somehow finding I don’t have $50 doesn’t seem so unbelievable now does it? Daniel would you like to buy me a copy? I am sure Smile On My Mac is appreciating the free advertising which is worth more than my $50 purchase if I was able to make it.
BTW, here is more free advertising for them, they make great products all around, go and check them out. I would have gladly purchased a copy if I had the funds.
Glenn Holland 25th December 2008, 04.18 am
Dizzle, I guess, since I did return, you don’t include me as a wisecracker.
In my opinion, you made so many new errors in your response to my initial comments, this confirms the tenor of those initial comments. I simply do not accept what you write. But there are too many points to justify a fresh round of typing.
I can’t resist one example though. You write “Is a copy machine not a real machine?” Of course it i. Where did I say it is not? My point was that a machine that makes copies IS, INDEED, a real machine. It is NOT a facsimile machine. Its name is “fax machine”. A perfectly-good noun that stands on its own feet. People who call their copy machines “facsimile machines” are just displaying ignorance and pomposity. And you are displaying haste and inadequate comprehension in responding thus to comments I did not make.
“Before you try and say that comment should be ‘as if it was formal,’ I chose the subjunctive ‘were’ which is proper.” I agree. I would never criticize “was” in such context.
Let me just say this: America is only 3.6% or so of the world population. I think some American writers should stop being so nationalistic and accept that “American usage” does not automatically define “good English”. As a pro or semi-pro writer, you might get a buzz out of hanging out occasionally in alt.english.usage.
Merry christmas.
Toni 25th December 2008, 09.13 am
Yeah, funny how so few people return here.
dizzleq 6th January 2009, 19.29 pm
Glenn, this is an American lawsuit in an American Court. American usage is expected.
As far as the rest, I am at Macworld, and up to my ears in that stuff, and I am content to let the reader judge.
But you still haven’t pointed out an error in bias, which is what we were discussing, and I will say for the second time. I do not treat or proofread comments as I do articles or court filings so you will find them full of errors as I am usually in a hurry.
“Fax machine” is acceptable American usage. You may not like it, but the Courts don’t mind it, and that is what counts here. And no Glenn, I don’t consider you a troll or a wisecracker unlike “Toni” who has nothing meaningful to add, returns to say no one returns, and is in a delusional state of reality since site hit statistics and the analysis of my peers says otherwise, including the ones I met at Macworld. Are you here?
In conclusion, all court filings in this case will be analyzed according to the norms of the country of origin: America. I fully realize that other countries have other norms. I write non-standard American English. I say “colour” and not “color.” But I know it is wrong, and I just like the way it looks.
I am not a high-priced attorney making the errors that were made.
Toni, funny how you do. And funny how the site owners has hits that indicate others.
Tnelson 30th September 2009, 23.57 pm
Your site was extremely interesting, especially since I was searching for thoughts on this subject last Thursday.
The following tweetbacks have been made to this entry: