Additional Information on Yesterday’s Hearing in Apple v. Psystar
- January 23rd, 2009 - 9.16 pm UTC
- Apple Legal News, Psystar
- dizzle
I just confirmed with a source who is in contact with Psystar President Rudy Pedraza that Judge Alsup told the parties that they could expect his ruling in seven to ten days. This supports my theory that Judge Alsup may be holding off on ruling until after the scheduled mediation at the end of this month as an unresolved important motion hanging out there can sometimes greatly motivate parties to settle their disputes. I do not, however, believe that settlement is likely unless Psystar is willing to settle to for some “go away” sum that makes it a wise business decision for Apple to settle rather than litigate.
I have been promised to be given a quick update after the mediation regarding how the discussions went. Even though I quite obviously do not believe that Psystar has a good case legally (or ethically in my personal opinion); they have appreciated the way that I have been careful to accurately represent what they are actually saying and busting the myth that they would claim something so obviously silly as Apple not copyrighting OS X.
Comments
Jon G 25th January 2009, 00.17 am
I appreciate the factual, brief legal analyses on this case. I’ve been keeping up with it here as you appear to be the only neutral source out there that is regularly covering the developments in this case (the TUAW bias is laid on pretty heavily some days). You ought to take some pride in this fact, but it’s tacky to praise yourself for it in your posts.
Thanks for keeping us informed.
dizzle 25th January 2009, 16.44 pm
Hi Jon, thanks for the post and the outside insight. Let me give you some backstory. I can see how you interpreted that comment that way, and I really appreciate knowing how people interpret things. This is what motivated it. Everyone makes mistakes. However that mistake was pointed out multiple times and on multiple blogs to the guilty blogs, and not one of them has issued a correction or a retraction. That really irks me. When a blog I respect publishes something blatantly false, obviously unintentionally, they should retract it. Here is my personal blog post calling them out. The owners know about this post. How do I know? Because it will show up in their linkbacks which they are surely checking:
http://www.idrankthekoolaid.com/?p=1748
Perhaps it shouldn’t, but they really bugs me. So what seemed like praising oneself, it was really my dry humour way of trying to prod the blogs that posted that to do a retraction. After all, is it really “praise” to say that one says something accurate? We should all be doing that. Do you see how that was dry sarcasm? I wouldn’t praise myself for doing what should be the bare minimum.
Now, all that aside, I can be quite tacky, but Alex edits that stuff out. I have done high-fives and belly-bops when I have been first to a story, and he axes it. So while I am not above being very tacky (OMG you should see what I wear), this time I think it was just a misunderstanding.
I do appreciate the constructive criticism.
Online Stock Investing 29th September 2009, 15.53 pm
Your blog is so informative … ..I just bookmarked you….keep up the good work!!!!