Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 24th Aug 2009 22:53 UTC
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.
Thread beginning with comment 380445
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Question about the law
by merkoth on Tue 25th Aug 2009 03:26
in reply to "Question about the law"
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...
RE[2]: Question about the law
by HappyGod on Tue 25th Aug 2009 04:28
in reply to "RE: Question about the law"
Member since:2005-10-19
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...
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However losing or deleting master disk images I think would be pretty much up to the company, as it is just a purge of outdated data.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
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.