Another week, another instalment in the Apple vs. Psystar soap opera. Last week, we left off when Apple was accusing Psystar of destroying evidence, and even though we had a blunt response to El Reg in which the clone maker denied ever having done such a thing, we did not yet have an official court filing from them. Well, we do now.
Post a Comment
Member since:
2005-07-06
I agree that this has become a bit of a circus, and psystar does not seem like a well-run company - at least not in safe business practices.
Anyway, I have this itch that I cannot scratch regarding the honesty and forthrightness of Psystar. Apple is obvious regarding their motive, but Psystar just seems a little shady regarding their own code (is it really theirs), missing documents, just... I don't know, they just seem to raise more questions about themselves with every phase of this lawsuit.
Member since:
2005-07-06
http://news.worldofapple.com/archives/2009/08/25/apple-v-psystar-co...
You can all now go back to your regularly scheduled fantasies that Psystar is in any way legitimate.
Member since:2006-01-26
Member since:2005-07-06
Right, because no legitimate companies have ever had to pay sanctions... $5k? seriously? "
I'm confused. Are you saying that Psystar is an illegitimate company but the sanctions are a not big deal or are you saying that Psystar is a legitimate company but sometimes legitimate companies have to pay sanctions. To me, it sounds like the former.
Which is strange contention because legitimate companies rarely have to pay sanctions directly. Their legal firms might, on occasion, but for a legitimate company to do something that irritates a judge so much that he goes after the company itself instead of their counsel ... well, it isn't much of a legitimate company then.
So, now that the judge is fining Psystar, and all the relevant case law is against them, I am eagerly awaiting the new osnews fantasy of how Psystar is going to come from behind and win. I'm sure it will be very exciting.
Member since:2006-01-26
You fail at sarcasm.
Paying sanctions because of this stupid discovery dispute is nothing. You're making a mountain out of a molehill, and the case will continue anyway.
Member since:2008-04-10
Member since:
2008-04-10
I'm just curious about the laws in this case: The trial seems to be getting way off track, and it's not going to address the issues it was started for. Isn't that usually a mistrial? You can't charge someone with theft and then find them guilty of murder in the same trial can you? If evidence of a murder comes to light, that's a new charge, and a new trial isn't it? I'm certainly no lawyer, so I'm not trying to be sarcastic here, I really want to know.
Member since:2006-09-22
IANAL, but if Psystar actually destroyed evidence, then it's completely relevant to this case.
My question is: Psystar is by no means a big bussiness so the fact that documentation gets lost doesn't surprise me. Can this really be used against them in a trial? Can a bussiness be penalized because they fail at keeping track of their work?
Now, those files that got distributed "by accident" are a different thing alltogether...
Member since:2005-10-19
My question is: Psystar is by no means a big bussiness so the fact that documentation gets lost doesn't surprise me. Can this really be used against them in a trial? Can a bussiness be penalized because they fail at keeping track of their work?
Now, those files that got distributed "by accident" are a different thing alltogether...
As far as I can tell from the article, they're not being pinged for losing documents, but rather the loss of the master images of their computers.
There are countless laws requiring corporations to keep various documents, in Australia for up to 5 years!
However losing or deleting master disk images I think would be pretty much up to the company, as it is just a purge of outdated data.
Member since:2009-08-19
