Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 4th Sep 2009 21:21 UTC
Legal And the Apple vs. Psystar case continues to roll onwards. A lot of mud is going back and forth between the two companies: Apple has accused Psystar of making information public which was under a protective order, and obviously, Psystar denied. In addition, Groklaw's Pamela Jones continues to suspect that this Psystar case is related to the SCO case, and is part of a concentrated effort to destroy the GPL. Update: I've just been emailed (on behalf of Psystar's lawyers, actually) the outcome (in the form of a court order) of the hearing held this morning. Sadly, it's very late here, so I won't be able to analyse it properly until tomorrow.
Permalink for comment 382534
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

>>It's unclear which part of the emails is supposed to be privileged information<<

The problem is not the content, per se, but rather their nature - they are, by default, privileged communications between client and attorney. Ordinarily, they are considered confidential such that Apple would not be allowed to see them. The privilege can be waived by the client, but not by the attorney; however, here it appears that Camara (the attorney) forwarded them to Neeson unilaterally without first getting permission, which is improper.

In a previous filing, Apple pointed out that Psystar had solicited questions to ask during depositions, and then stated that it might not be able to release the answers until after the end of the litigation. Again, that would be improper - any confidentiality restrictions would continue in force.

SCO was not above playing games either - it leaked the contents of at least one confidential IBM document to Maureen O'Gara, who published it in a story.

Disclaimer: IANAL, and the above might be completely wrong.

Reply Score: 1