“After Apple allegedly changed its mind on whether to include Snow Leopard in an ongoing suit with Psystar, a U.S. District Court judge has denied the Mac maker’s request,” Neil Hughes reports for AppleInsider.
“In a new ruling issued Thursday, Judge William Alsup denied Apple’s motion to re-open the case’s discovery period, which has concluded, to include Snow Leopard. Alsup said that Apple ‘fought hard’ to keep Snow Leopard out of the trial at first, only to later change its mind,” Hughes reports. “‘Some discovery was permitted on Snow Leopard by Apple, but it was adamant that Snow Leopard was not relevant (due to its status as an unreleased product),’ he wrote.”
Hughes reports, “But after the discovery period in the trial ended, Psystar sued Apple in a separate case, requesting that the clone Mac maker be granted the ability to buy copies of the new operating system to install on non-sanctioned computers. Psystar requested an injunction in a Florida U.S. District Court, along with damages, due to Apple’s “anticompetitive attempts to tie Mac OS X Snow Leopard to its Macintosh line of computers.” Alsup hypothesized in his ruling that Apple was caught by surprise by Psystar’s separate suit.”
Full article here.
Edible Apple reports, “In his ruling, Alsup stated… ‘If Snow Leopard was within the scope of its own complaint herein, as it now suggests, then Apple should have welcomed discovery theron rather than, as it did, object to discovery directed at Snow Leopard and effectively taking Snow Leopard out of the case. Apple even chose when to release Snow Leopard and it chose to do so after all opportunity to take discovery on it had ended. The problem is largely one of Apple’s own making.'”
Edible Apple reports, “Judge Alsup’s ruling, however, doesn’t rule out the eventual possibility of a case consolidation, but it certainly doesn’t make it seem likely. ‘Trial is looming early next year. It would now be too prejudicial and too disruptive to re-open the case on the theory that maybe the other action will come here too… This is without prejudice to any motion before Judge Hoeveler to transfer the Florida action here, as to which this order expresses no opinion and is without prejudice, in the event of a transfer, to a new motion to modify the case management schedule.'”
Full article here.
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “Lynn W.” for the heads up.]
Related articles:
Apple files motion to dismiss/enjoin would-be ‘Mac cloner’ Psystar’s Florida case – September 19, 2009
Snow clone: Psystar ships Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard on knock-off hardware despite Apple lawsuit – September 08, 2009
Would-be ‘Mac cloner’ Psystar’s lawyer denies spilling Apple secrets – September 08, 2009
Would-be ‘Mac cloner’ Psystar’s lawyers du jour get nothing when they lose cases – September 05, 2009
Would-be ‘Mac cloner’ Psystar begins peddling PCs with Apple’s Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard – September 02, 2009
Apple responds to Psystar lawsuit, calls it another delaying tactic – September 02, 2009
Would-be ‘Mac cloner’ Psystar sues Apple for Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard – August 28, 2009
Apple accuses would-be ‘Mac cloner’ Psystar of willfully destroying evidence – August 17, 2009
Psystar claims to soon give Apple ‘a taste of their own medicine’ – August 14, 2009
Judge dismisses would-be ‘Mac cloner’ Psystar’s bankruptcy, blocks stays against Apple – August 10, 2009
Would-be ‘Mac cloner’ Psystar’s Texas lawyer vows to battle Apple with ‘guns blazin’ – July 28, 2009
Would-be ‘Mac cloner’ Psystar vows to battle Apple, plans new ‘Mac clone’ – July 02, 2009
Court lifts stay, allows Apple v. Psystar case to continue to resolution – June 23, 2009
Psystar’s request for permission to use business checks denied by court – June 18, 2009
Would-be ‘Mac cloner’ Psystar owes Apple $75,000 in bankruptcy proceedings – June 12, 2009
Psystar continues taking orders for ‘Mac clones’ despite bankruptcy – May 27, 2009
Would-be ‘Mac cloner’ Psystar files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy; temporarily stalls Apple’s case – May 26, 2009
Court to would-be ‘Mac cloner’ Psystar: Hand over the missing docs – May 09, 2009
Apple seeks court order compelling Psystar to turn over financial information – May 01, 2009
One year on, ‘Mac-cloner’ Psystar continues to defy Apple – April 15, 2009
Would-be ‘Mac cloner’ Psystar unveils $599 mini tower running Mac OS X Leopard – March 18, 2009
What lies at the heart of the would be ‘Mac cloner’ Psystar case? – March 09, 2009
Apple, Psystar seek pre-trial protection order; trial scheduled for November 9, 2009 – February 26, 2009
Apple v. would-be ‘Mac cloner’ Psystar: what’s at stake? – February 20, 2009
Would-be ‘Mac cloner’ Psystar gets go-ahead to continue countersuit against Apple – February 09, 2009
Would-be ‘Mac-cloner’ Psystar: We bought Mac OS X from Apple, so we can do whatever we want – January 13, 2009
Would-be ‘Mac cloner’ Psystar denies Apple’s conspiracy allegations – December 24, 2008
Would-be ‘Mac cloner’ Psystar claims Apple failed to copyright Mac OS X – December 22, 2008
A closer look at would-be ‘Mac cloner’ Psystar’s court filing reveals sloppiness – December 22, 2008
Would-be ‘Mac cloner’ Psystar tries risky allegation against Apple – December 11, 2008
‘Mac-cloner’ Psystar drops antitrust issue, adds ‘misuse doctrine’ in counterclaim against Apple – December 10, 2008
Apple tells court it believes there are other corporations and/or individuals behind Psystar – December 03, 2008
You tell em judge if Apple wanted it in the case they should have released snow leopard before it was finished!
Moron with a robe anyone???
The two youts…
What’s a youts?(nice quote)
Simple,
Open up that 2nd attack against Psystar, drag them through the mud even longer, force their lawyers to work without pay even longer yet, and bankrupt them the lot of ’em
That sucks! Psystar changes it’s mind and gets there way, why can’t Apple. OSX is OSX so it should be included and I don’t know why Apple didn’t fight for that in the first place.
…”What’s a youts?(nice quote)”
Or, to be exact:
Vinny Gambini: It is possible that the two yutes…
Judge Chamberlain Haller: …Ah, the two hwat? Uh… uh, hwat was that word?
Vinny Gambini: Uh… what word?
Judge Chamberlain Haller: Two hwat?
Vinny Gambini: What?
Judge Chamberlain Haller: Uh… did you say ‘yutes’?
Vinny Gambini: Yeah, two yutes.
Judge Chamberlain Haller: Hwat is a yute?
[beat]
Vinny Gambini: Oh, excuse me, your honor…
[exaggerated]
Vinny Gambini: Two YOUTHS.
I just had to pull the whole quote out there, since the scene is so memorable…
Why would Apple not include all versions of OS X past, present, and future?
“Why would Apple not include all versions of OS X past, present, and future?”
Because older versions are not being sold by Psystar, and Apple did not trust Psystar’s attorneys to keep undisclosed information about Snow Leopard from being publicly released before it was released for sale.
After the release of SL for sale, that information was no longer private, and Psystar had started selling copies of SL as well, so it then became germane to the case.
So prior to the release of SL, it was not appropriate to include it in the case, but afterwards, Apple felt it was.
GO PSYSTAR GO! Take Apple down a notch.
The crime is that it is taken so long to get this case to trial that Apple has already released its next gen OS.
This is great news in the battle against Apple. Psystar has won and incredible victory here. Soon they can get back to making top notch hardware that runs OS X.
I’ve been pondering this subject for some time. Apple isn’t wrong in protecting OSX, but having it licensed out to PC makers like Pystar opens the window (no pun intended) for Microsoft, doesn’t it?
@ Moo Latte/Ishkabibble
All I can say is “short term minds”. You are not looking at the bigger picture of infringement, nor the ramifications it may have for others (not just Apple) in the software industry. Yeah, keep up the good work………… 🙁
I support Psystar in their efforts to win this court case. They pay for OS X and should be free to do with what they want with it. I hope VERY much that Apple completely loses this case. And considering how long the case has gone on, Psystar has some heft behind it. Otherwise it would have been tossed out!