decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more... 		decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.

You won't find me on Facebook

Donate

Donate Paypal

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments

Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Psystar has to pay Apple $5000 for bringing discovery motion
Tuesday, August 25 2009 @ 02:26 AM EDT

Well, Psystar is continuing to hit its head against the wall. There is a minute entry, letting us know that there was a discovery hearing on the 20th, about Psystar's motion to compel, and the judge has ordered the parties to file supplemental briefs, and "Defendant shall pay plaintiff $5,000 in attorneys fees for bringing the motion". Defendant is Psystar:
08/24/2009 - 96 - Minute Entry: Discovery Hearing held on 8/20/2009 before William Alsup (Date Filed: 8/24/2009). Supplemental briefs due by 8/27/09. Deft shall pay pltf $5,000 in attys fees. (Court Reporter Sahar McVickar.) (dt, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 8/24/2009) (Entered: 08/24/2009)

I feel safe in saying that the new strategy is working about as well as the prior strategy, namely not. This was the motion [PDF] where Psystar claimed Apple executive Phil Schiller arrived "totally unprepared" for the deposition, and Apple said that he sat for two depositions, and Psystar walked out of the second one midstream ("Mr. Schiller was fully prepared to discuss the non-quantifiable, irreparable injury to Apple but Psystar's counsel chose to not ask those questions and terminated the deposition instead.")

The judge asking for supplemental briefs is interesting. I'm thinking the judge was disturbed by something he heard at the hearing, but we'll have to wait to find out the details once the briefs are filed on the 27th.

  


Psystar has to pay Apple $5000 for bringing discovery motion | 190 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
OT here
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 25 2009 @ 02:45 AM EDT
Wow I guess I'm the only one up late!

That's off topic not overtime...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections here, please...
Authored by: elronxenu on Tuesday, August 25 2009 @ 02:50 AM EDT
Please place your correction in the title of your comment.

[ Reply to This | # ]

News Picks thread ...
Authored by: elronxenu on Tuesday, August 25 2009 @ 02:51 AM EDT

Please discuss News Picks here.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Official OT Thread
Authored by: JimDiGriz on Tuesday, August 25 2009 @ 03:42 AM EDT
For the non-anony-mice.

JdG

[ Reply to This | # ]

So, how significant is this?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 25 2009 @ 04:37 AM EDT
Having to pay the other side's fees before the final judgement strikes me as a
rather unusual event. I'd go so far as to say that it's predujicial, in the
strict sense.

Is this a judicial equivalent of snapping "Oh no, you did-UHNT."?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Psystar has to pay Apple $5000 for bringing discovery motion
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 25 2009 @ 04:44 AM EDT
Just read Psystar's motion (not that you could read much). What surprises me is
that according to Psystar, what's at the heart of this case is the damage, "if
any",
done to Apple. I thought at the heart of this case was copyright
infringement
and DMCA violation. According to Apple's "Snow Leopard"
advertisements,
Leopard consisted of about 1000 separate projects, each good
for $750 to
$150,000 in statutory damages. And what Psystar has done
seems to be more
significant than what Jammie Thomas did, and she was ordered
to pay $80,000
per item.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • No, you misquote - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 25 2009 @ 07:03 AM EDT
Could you explain what this means, PJ?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 25 2009 @ 07:14 AM EDT

It seems odd to impose a penalty on a party for bringing a motion. That was never done to SCO, although some of its motions looked a lot more unreasonable than this one. What are the criteria?

By the way, would you please adopt a more neutral tone when discussing this case? We gather you think Psystar should lose - and in the absence of any other basis to decide on, I'm inclined to believe you - but that doesn't justify abuse and cheap shots. Like "Psystar's tone has changed from whiny to aggressive", at the weekend, and then today's sneers.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Psystar is sleezy and PJ can say whatever she wants.
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 25 2009 @ 08:32 AM EDT
<blockquote>By the way, would you please adopt a more neutral tone when
discussing this case? We gather you think Psystar should lose - and in the
absence of any other basis to decide on, I'm inclined to believe you - but that

doesn't justify abuse and cheap shots. Like "Psystar's tone has changed
from
whiny to aggressive", at the weekend, and then today's
sneers.</blockquote>

PJ can say whatever she wants.

Obviously, Psystar is a slimeball company that abuses open-software authors'
rights, that endangers the GPL with its abuse of copyright law.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Psystar could still hurt Apple
Authored by: MacUser on Tuesday, August 25 2009 @ 08:39 AM EDT
Maybe Psystar are losing in the courts, but they've hit Apple in other areas.
According to credible rumours, Snow Leopard's installer will check for an
existing 10.5 installation.

This is the first time an OS X installer has had any such restrictions. It may
finish the practice of a clean install -- erasing (after backup!) a hard disk
before installing (or re-installing) the OS.

Over the years, I've found this effective at removing accumulated crud from
computers. Pystar are degrading the Mac user experience -- is that the
whole point of the exercise?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Psystar has to pay Apple $5000 for bringing discovery motion
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 25 2009 @ 11:27 AM EDT
I guess we know which side the judge is on.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Psystar has to pay Apple $5000 for Spoilation
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 27 2009 @ 05:38 PM EDT
It has been pointed out on news.worldofapple.com that the sanction was
imposed as the result of Apple's claim that Robert Pedraza provided false
information during a 30(b)(6) deposition. Psytar's lawyer chose (it has
been suggested wisely) not to contest this claim.

The additional briefs were to address Apple's claim that their margins are no
longer relevant to the case and should be excluded from the discovery
process.

This information was deduced from fragments of the transcript that are
available on the news.worldofapple.com site.

just my view -- ss

[ Reply to This | # ]
Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details ) 		Site layout based on Woodlands theme by Bryan Bell.
Groklaw logo by John Crowley.
News Picks logo by Ted Thompson.
Powered By GeekLog
Created this page in 0.04 seconds