Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Intellectual Property Law Blogs -> Groklaw

Intellectual Property Law

: Groklaw

Here's Psystar's Answer with Counterclaims - Updated as text

By Pamela Jones et al.

Here it is, fresh off the docket, Psystar's Answer with Affirmative Defenses with Counterclaims [PDF] to Apple's complaint. We'll read it together. And I'll work on a text for you, so we can all discuss it in detail.

Update: I have the first half done as text. You can be reading it as I finish, and I'll tell you a couple of things to explain what I'm seeing.

First, there are styles of lawyering. Some lawyers, when responding to a complaint, deny everything, like Jimmy Cagney in a gangster movie being interrogated by the coppers. They don't admit nuttin'. Lawyers in that school, if there is an allegation that states that the defendant is a human, will respond with something like, "The phrase human is undefined and vague and on that basis defendant denies the allegation." This law firm is apparently in that category.

Second, my suspicions have been further aroused that this litigation is perhaps more gunfire aimed at FOSS, like the SCO litigation and the Jacobsen case and the Wallace antiGPL lawsuit, all strange and all using a surrogate who either sues on its own initiative or who seems to deliberately behave in a way to ensure litigation, followed by attacks on one of more FOSS license. Psystar is raising as defenses the "Apple Public Source License" and "other open source licenses" and the first sale doctrine, a topic dear to the heart of anti-GPL trolls. I think it's time to research who the Psystar people are and play Where's Waldo, just in case.

Third, I'm glad we have a trademark/trade dress case to follow. Why? Because as it plays out, I think you'll see why trademark law matters and how you can proactively defend your project from any barracudas out there.

Full post as published by Groklaw on August 29, 2008 (boomark / email).