Comments on: Psystar Files Its Reply to Apple’s Response to Psystar’s Motion for Leave to Amend Its Counterclaim

By: Psystar’s lawyers regroup, try another tactic against Apple | OntoreBangladesh

Thu, 15 Jan 2009 16:34:59 +0000

[...] World Of Apple notes that this argument has been present from the outset, but it sounds like Psystar’s [...]

By: Psystar’s lawyers regroup, try another tactic against Apple | OntoreBangladesh

Thu, 15 Jan 2009 16:34:58 +0000

[...] World Of Apple notes that this argument has been present from the outset, but it sounds like Psystar’s [...]

By: GPS Navigation » Blog Archive » Psystar’s lawyers regroup, try another tactic against Apple

Thu, 15 Jan 2009 03:26:20 +0000

[...] World Of Apple notes that this argument has been present from the outset, but it sounds like Psystar’s [...]

By: Psystar continues to be stubborn | IPHONE NEWS

Psystar continues to be stubborn | IPHONE NEWS — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 02:00:17 +0000

[...] been unloved by the court. solon on this ostensibly unending news as it develops. Thanks to Alex at World of Apple for the [...]

By: dizzle

dizzle — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 00:47:28 +0000

I just went and checked the docket, and a very quick review seems to indicate that the only time that the DOES (and Apple refers to them both as DOES and John Does in their Amended Complaint BTW) are in the caption by either party is in the Amended Complaint and Psystar’s Answer. That seems to led credibility to my above-theory but seems awfully confusing. Perhaps this is some special case since the identities are not yet known? It does seem et al. would be the most elegant way to handle it.

By: dizzle

dizzle — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 00:42:44 +0000

Yes I had considered that as well, but they did neither. I would have thought this was simply some odd California style issue that I was not used to, but Psystar actually DID include the John Does in one of its filings.

Since you are familiar with California procedure (and this is why I had scoured the Local Rules), if a pleading is directed towards only one of many possibly parties is it possible that the caption need only reflect that party? I have never heard of such a thing, but it seems like a more likely explanation than sloppiness and inconsistency from two very prestigious firms.

By: Laurie Stoker

Laurie Stoker — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 20:38:10 +0000

I have one comment about Apple leaving out the DOES in the caption. (They are called “DOES” here (all caps), not “John Does”). Apple only needed to reference the DOES the first time they were added to the complaint. After that, they should have added “, et al.” after Psystar in the caption and then should have changed “Defendant” to “Defendants”. So it would have looked like this:

APPLE INC., a California corporation,

Plaintiff,

PSYSTAR CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, et al.,

Defendants.