In the fight for the right to party sell unauthorized Mac clones, there may be a victor declared sooner rather than later -- if not legally, then fiscally. Psystar, which has been playing with fire for quite some time, recently hit a snag in its battle with Apple. The Mac Observer is reporting that Psystar has filed for bankruptcy in Florida on Thursday thereby slowing Apple's case against the Mac clone vendor.

As TMO points out, this action seems to indicate that the financial supporters of Psystar are seeing the writing on the wall and believe Apple will likely be the victor in the legal battle for distribution rights of OS X-running Macintosh clones.

One outcome of Psystar's decision to file Chapter 11 is that its equity creditors will be revealed, finally pulling the curtains off of the secret of who has the (possibly) deep pockets in Psystar's legal battle. Another outcome is that Apple's case against Psystar will be temporarily delayed as the bankruptcy proceedings require all other legal action involving Psystar to be put on hold.

Currently Psystar is still selling its 'wares online, however, once the Federal judge presiding over the bankruptcy filing lifts the stay of legal actions, it is likely that Psystar will fold under the financial pressure. Psystar's chutzpah notwithstanding, the bankruptcy hearings are set to begin on June 5; stay tuned folks, this is still going to be messy.

[via Twitter, a tip of the hat to @PaulKent!]

French jeweler / watchmaker Cartier provided some unexpected humor over the long Memorial Day weekend after the company filed a trademark infringement lawsuit against Apple regarding two iPhone apps. The lawsuit and the quick response by Apple were covered by the Wall Street Journal in several posts and noted briefly in our weekend news roundup.

A small iPhone development shop, Digitopolis Game Studio, had created two apps -- Fake Watch and Fake Watch Gold Edition -- that showed the time on a choice of high-end timepieces. Among the "watches" were images of Cartier's luxury "Tank" watch. Although the free Fake Watch app had first appeared in January of 2009, Cartier apparently didn't notice until Friday, when lawyers representing the company filed suit against Apple for allowing the apps to be sold in the App Store.

Apple's response was quick; they pulled the apps from the U.S. App Store almost immediately. Cartier responded late Friday by withdrawing their lawsuit, stating that their "concerns had been addressed".

What do you think? Did Cartier have a valid concern that their trademark was being infringed upon or do you think they ought to spend more time chasing down the guys selling Cartier knockoffs in Times Square? Leave your comments below.

It was just a few days ago we were talking about hacked MagSafe connectors, and now a lawsuit seeking class action status claims the innovative connectors are a fire hazard and a risk to life, limb, and property.

As an example, here's a link to some Flickr images of what is claimed is a melted MagSafe connector.

The complaint, filed last week in San Jose, California says that eventually the cord will fray from heat or wear, with a resulting danger of fire and injury. The suit, filed by plaintiffs Tim Broad, Naotaka Kitagawa and Jesse Reisman says Apple is aware of the problem and has done nothing about it.

The suit also claims when people demonstrate the problem to Apple, the company suggests they buy another $80.00US cable. Actually, we reported in August that Apple was replacing damaged or worn cables if they were not subject to abuse.

Apple has not commented on the lawsuit. It will be interesting to watch this one wind through the courts.

The power connector was introduced at Macworld in January, 2006. It has not always received positive reviews, even at the Apple Store.

We were just fine with letting this story dissipate right into the air like so many bad smells, as it's not exactly the most impressive thing to ever happen in the App Store. But in the interests of completionism, we'll bring it to you anyway.

First, there were two apps that made fart noises, called Pull My Finger and iFart. Then, there was allegedly some inappropriate twittering (and shady iPhone reviewing -- we seriously doubt that tons of people want to give five stars to an app about MC Hammer), $50,000 of damages were requested, a "Social Media Expert" (read: "tool") got angry, and eventually a lawsuit was filed, and now every blog and website everywhere is posting that two apps about flatulence are suing each other.

Like we said, not the story out of the App Store that we're most proud to report. But Apple did get mixed up in all of this early on -- Gizmodo reports that the Mothership was approached for a solution, and that it was decided to let the devs fight it out. Maybe if Apple had said early on that applications on the App Store had to do a little more than make fart noises (or that there was already enough farting going on in the store -- what do those other 29 apps have to do with any of this?), the iPhone wouldn't now be known as the premiere device for farting.

But we suppose there's money to be had -- someone out there is buying either or both of these idiotic apps, and as a result, both of these guys are willing to go to court over software that reproduces the sound of passing gas in the hopes of getting even more money, despite the fact that you can simulate the same effect with the human armpit. Can we cut the lawsuits and get to producing some actual software for the platform, please?

Previously in the Apple-Psystar legal battle, the clone maker amended its countersuit to charge that Apple was unfairly leveraging its copyright by binding Mac OS X to Mac hardware.

On Friday, the federal judge assigned to the case ruled that the amendment will be heard by the court, a small victory for Psystar. It's something of a reversal for the company, since they had federal antitrust allegations thrown out in November. Similarly, Psystar's assertion that Apple is in violation of California's antitrust laws was thrown out Friday as well.

Judge William Alsup said, "Psystar may well have a legitimate interest in establishing misuse [of copyright] independent of Apple's claims against it -- for example, to clarify the risks it confronts by marketing the products at issue in this case or others it may wish to develop." This isn't to say that the judge necessarily agrees with Psystar's point, but just that it's legally reasonable enough to be argued in court.

Apple has also not yet revealed its 10 "John Doe" defendants: alleged conspirators who worked on Psystar's technique for loading Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware.

The case will decide whether or not Apple can disallow other hardware makers -- including Psystar -- from including Mac OS X on computers shipped to end users. Last week, a company in Germany claimed that Mac OS X's End User License Agreement didn't apply to them, and is selling Mac clones to customers.

The case is scheduled to go to trial on November 9.

[Via Macworld.]

A Northern California man is not happy with his iPhone. AppleInsider reports that Jason Medway thinks his iPhone performs poorly, and believes Apple advertising is tricking people into purchases the device can't live up to.

Medway, through his attorney, is seeking US $5 million dollars in damages. The suit argues that, because of Apple's misrepresentations, "thousands of customers who purchased Apple's iPhone 3G and accompanying 3G service from AT&T have experienced broken promises regarding the phone's transmission speeds."

This is not the first lawsuit over the 3G iPhone. The legal fireworks began last August with a suit claiming the iPhone performance was not up to par. That suit, was followed by other legal claims complaining about performance, download speeds, and badly written programs available at the App Store.

Last year, Wired magazine commissioned an independent study that found most of the speed related problems on the iPhone had to do with networks, and not the iPhone hardware.

Apple has not commented on any of these lawsuits, other than in a brief legal response in a similar lawsuit in September. Apple seemed to imply that people should not believe everything they hear or see in ads. Apple's attorneys said "Plaintiff's claims, and those of the purported class, are barred by the fact that the alleged deceptive statements were such that no reasonable person in Plaintiff's position could have reasonably relied on or misunderstood Apple's statements as claims of fact."

The first generation of iPod nano models may have been small and sleek, but they also apparently had an image problem -- mainly, that it rapidly grew difficult to see the screen after the nicks and scratches began to accumulate on the face of the player. As far back as 2005, users expressed their displeasure over the nano's likelihood for damage, including cracks in the screen in some cases.

Thanks to a now-settled class action lawsuit, nano owners who experienced the scratchies can apply for a refund of $15 (if the iPod shipped with a slip case, as later ones did) or $25 (for no-case shipments). You can get all the details from the settlement website. Refunds may take up to a year (!) to arrive.

[via AppleInsider]

In what might be the most outlandish claim yet to surface in the case, Psystar now claims that Apple never registered Mac OS X with the U.S. Copyright Office, rendering its copyright invalid, according to InformationWeek. Note that registration isn't a condition of protection, but it is a condition of certain types of infringement actions and damages.

Psystar argues, thus, that since Apple doesn't own the copyright, there's no way for Apple to enforce its claims that Psystar violated its copyright. The claim was filed in U.S. District Court last week.

Although copyright registration number TX0005401457 describes a "computer program" named Mac OS X, it's unclear how Psystar argues this isn't the copyright Apple owns on its operating system. Moreover, contrary to what Psystar appears to argue, copyright is secured automatically in the United States when the work is created, and registration is not a condition of copyright protection (although it can help in fighting infringement). Our Engadget colleague Nilay Patel sums up this latest Psystar legal stratagem as "desperate." Plus, you can file suit while registration is pending, so even if there was some technical defect in the Mac OS X registration, Apple could fix it while pursuing its lawsuit.

If this long shot claim were true, it could undermine Apple's ability to restrict third parties from selling generic clones that run Mac OS X. The back-and-forth arguments are part of a lawsuit Apple originally brought against Psystar for selling Mac OS X with its clones, allegedly in violation of Apple's license agreement. According to InformationWeek, Apple now suspects that a larger company interested in selling Mac OS X-compatible computers is bankrolling Psystar's legal battle.

[Via Engadget.]

You have to admire Psystar's tenacity. Since Judge William Alsup's decision to disallow federal antitrust claims against Apple in Psystar's countersuit, Psystar is amending its countersuit, alleging the misuse of copyright based on different antitrust claims.

It boggles the mind.

Apple is already suing Psystar, of course, claiming that they are violating Mac OS X's End User License Agreement (EULA). Psystar, in its new set of counterclaims, says that Apple is improperly extending the scope of copyright law to include its argument that Psystar broke the EULA.

Psystar claims that -- while admitting that it can't make arguments based on federal antitrust law -- Apple has "leveraged" the power granted them by the Copyright Act and extended it to lock in users post-sale. This, Psystar says, is unlawfully monopolistic, and makes Apple's copyrights unenforceable.

Psystar is also seeking to prove that Apple's behavior is illegal under California's unfair competition statute.

The judge will decide in January if the new claims can be argued in court.

[Via Ars Technica.]

In yet another new facet to this already-draining legal battle surrounding Psystar's sales of non-Apple hardware that runs Mac OS X, Apple has amended its original suit after it discovered "additional information," according to Computerworld.

Apple now claims Psystar circumvented Apple's copyright protection code, in violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Apple said in its original filing that Psystar was in violation of the Mac OS X End-User License Agreement, but tacked on this additional charge last week.

The amendment also names 10 "John Does" -- persons who were not part of the Psystar company, but broke the copyright protection scheme. Apple doesn't know who they are yet, but plans to name names when its lawyers find out who they are.

In other Apple legal news, Apple won a trademark infringement case in China against New Apple Concept Digital Technology Co., Ltd., based in Shenzen. Judges decided that the Chinese company had a logo too similar to Apple's. New Ap -- aw, eff it -- NACDTCL was ordered to pay 400,000 yuan (≈ US$58,000) to Apple, Inc.

[Via Cult of Mac.]

Yesterday brought about a bit of disappointing news for Mac-clone maker Psystar. Ars Technica is reporting that Psystar's countersuit, which alleged that Apple violated an anti-trust act by tying their operating system to hardware, was thrown out of court. US District Judge William Alsup made the decision, stating that Apple did not, in fact, violate the Sherman Antitrust Act, Clayton Act, or Cartwright Act.

AppleInsider notes that crucial to Psystar's claim was the definition of the "Mac OS Market." Judge Alsup agreed with Apple's right to sell their OS to their customers with the understanding that it may only be used with their hardware.

Last month, Apple and Psystar were ordered to undergo "private arbitration and mediation" by the court. As far as we know, Apple still has a case against Psystar for violating the shrink wrap license and trademarks. Apple has also alleged copyright infringement.

It would appear that Apple has the upper hand at the present time, but it looks like we'll have to wait a bit longer to find out the final verdict.

[via Ars Technica]

CNET and The Mac Observer noted a legal filing on Friday that suggested Apple and Psystar were looking to bypass the normal lawsuit process and enter a phase of private arbitration and mediation.

The filing notes that Apple and Psystar will participate in the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) process, a way to keep legal costs down -- and the outcome private. For famously secretive Apple, this agreement seems right up their alley.

The agreement means the two companies will enter non-binding arbitration, present their case to a neutral party, and work out a deal through mediation.

This all probably comes down to one thing: cash money. Psystar has nowhere near the cash reserves that Apple has, so this less-expensive option is attractive to them. It's attractive to Apple because if they lose, the decision is kept under wraps. As CNET's Tom Krazit notes, if Apple is guilty of Psystar's antitrust accusations, it could hurt their other cases where they're accused of the same thing.

Of course, we'll know for certain the outcome simply by seeing if Psystar continues to sell their computers (or not) after January 31, when the ADR sessions wrap up.

[Via AppleInsider.]

Update: According to Psystar's attorneys, Apple and Psystar were ordered into the mediation by the court. According to several of our commenters, ADR is a common practice. Soulbarn says: "It is practically mandatory. It would be a surprise if it didn't happen, no matter who the case involved, big or small, famous or not famous, precedent-setting or non-precedent setting. It is part of the normal legal process." Thanks, everyone!

Northern California District Judge James Ware rejected arguments for dismissal in a class-action case surrounding Apple and AT&T's exclusivity deal for the iPhone.

The lawsuit alleges Apple unfairly maintains exclusivity with AT&T, preventing owners from unlocking and jailbreaking their handsets. It also argues that both companies disguised some post-sale costs of ownership.

Ware dismissed Apple's and AT&T's requests for dismissal -- a normal, routine part of the lawsuit process -- ruling they either weren't lawfully arguable or they didn't address the nature of the lawsuit.

Apple said that since customers were still under the terms of their two-year contract, they couldn't legally argue the status of that contract: Ware said that wasn't true. The company also said that they have since added support for third-party applications, but Ware said that wasn't the whole story, since Apple knowingly limits access to certain areas where it has a "financial interest."

All parties in the case will next meet November 17, where the court will try to find out more information about the nature of the deal between Apple and AT&T, including the exact duration of their exclusivity agreement.

[Via Macsimum News and AppleInsider.]

Apple is asking the judge presiding over the company's lawsuit against Psystar to dismiss the cloner's antitrust lawsuit "with prejudice."

IGM notes that a motion to dismiss is a very normal part of the lawsuit process. Asking to dismiss "with prejudice" is a little more severe, but not necessarily uncommon, and if the motion is granted it would make it impossible for Psystar to re-file the case in the future.

"Defendant Psystar Corporation is knowingly infringing Apple's copyrights and trademarks, and inducing others to do the same. ... In an obvious attempt to divert attention from its unlawful actions, Psystar asserts deeply flawed antitrust counterclaims designed to have this Court force Apple to license its software to Psystar, a direct competitor. The Court should reject Psystar's efforts to excuse its copyright infringement, and dismiss these Counterclaims with prejudice," Apple's lawyers wrote in a court filing September 30.

The next hearing in the trial is schedule for November 6, when judge William Alsup will hear the motion for dismissal.

[Via ZDNet and MacsimumNews.]

If you remember when the first, first-generation iPhone launched, Jose Trujillo sued Apple over the fact that the handset has a non-removable battery. That lawsuit has now been dismissed.

U.S. District Judge Matthew Kennelly said in his opinion, "Apple disclosed on the outside of the iPhone package that the [battery has] limited recharge cycles and may eventually need to be replaced by [an] Apple service provider."

"Under the circumstances, no reasonable jury could find that deception occurred."

Trujillo sued Apple in Illinois state court in July 2007, accusing the company of consumer fraud.

[Via MacRumors and Bloomberg.com.]