Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 26th Nov 2009 21:53 UTC
Legal We've got some progress in the other legal case Apple is involved in. The California case, Apple vs. Psystar, is more or less a done deal, but the Florida case, Psystar vs. Apple, is only just beginning. As it promised it would do, Apple has now asked the court in California to either dismiss the Florida case, or transfer it to California. Apple is also asking for a permanent injuction against Psystar. Through this motion, we also gain some juicy insight into Psystar's sales projections - and more interestingly, how many machines the clone maker actually sold.
Thread beginning with comment 397015
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Comment by bongo_x
by bongo_x on Mon 30th Nov 2009 02:59 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by bongo_x"
bongo_x
Member since:
2006-03-21

I wasn't sure, but it seems to me a company could say in court "they didn't stop Company A, why are they trying to stop us?".

bb

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by bongo_x
by rhavyn on Mon 30th Nov 2009 06:22 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by bongo_x"
rhavyn Member since:
2005-07-06

I wasn't sure, but it seems to me a company could say in court "they didn't stop Company A, why are they trying to stop us?".

bb


They can, the legal term is laches.

And, for anyone reading, I'd highly recommend ignoring anything Thom says regarding legal issues since he's almost certainly going to be wrong.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by bongo_x
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 30th Nov 2009 09:08 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by bongo_x"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

I think you need to look up laches before claiming I'm wrong. Laches has nothing to do with the OP's question. You do not have to actively protect IP in order to maintain ownership of it - that is the case for trademarks.

Reply Parent Score: 1