On July 15, 2009, Psystar filed a Motion with the Court requesting allowance for substitution of counsel from the firm of Carr & Ferrell, LLP (the firm where Colby Springer is employed) to K.A.D Camara of Camara & Sibley, LLP of Houston, Texas and David Vernon Welker of Welker & Rosario of Davis, California. No specific reason is given other than that the substitution will be in the interest of justice, and Apple does not oppose the substitution. Such requests are routinely granted when they don’t require the changing of any dates in the Scheduling Order.

Now here is my speculation. It seems apparent that there was some conflict of interest over the outstanding legal bills which were disclosed in Psystar’s Bankruptcy filings, thus, a change was needed on those grounds. However, my attention was drawn immediately to the retention of Texas counsel. It could mean absolutely nothing, but Texas courts are well-known (though this reputation is disputed) for being friendly to Plaintiffs in intellectual property cases. For example:

Juries in East Texas, unlike those in Houston, Dallas or Austin, are much less likely to have a member with any technical training or education, which exacerbates the problem from the defense perspective, but makes East Texas federal courts an attractive venue for would-be plaintiffs, who know that the jury will, instead, gravitate toward softer or superficial issues that are difficult to predict.” The result is to facilitate the activities of what Tyler calls “patent pirates”: enterprises that exist to file patent suits rather than to manufacture products, and which benefit from asymmetrical costs of litigation (discovery in a patent case can cost the manufacturer-defendant a million dollars or more, while the plaintiff license-holder may have few or no documents worth discovering).

(via Overlawyered)

Even though that quote deals more with patent cases, the same reputation is true of intellectual property cases in general. Psystar would definitely benefit from a less technically savvy jury pool. So, you might ask, how is this relevant since Psystar is the Defendant? Well, don’t forget that they are also a Plaintiff in their countersuit, and not liking the cool reception in California, might want to try their hand in Texas. This is sheer speculation. I have no idea or basis as to how it would be possible to get this case moved or a sister case opened in Texas. It may be totally impossible. However, I find it hard to find it merely coincidental that a Texas attorney was retained. Perhaps it was simply for his experience in similar successful cases. I am positive more information will be forthcoming.