Skip to Content

Free TUAW iPhone app -- try it now!
AOL Tech

suit posts

Filed under: Apple Corporate, Hardware, Apple Financial

Psystar gets countersuit dismissed, case heats up

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]

Filed under: Apple Corporate, Hardware

Psystar countersues Apple

The Psystar saga continues. Back in April, Psystar went public with the first commercial Hackintosh clones. For US$554, they'd send you a Core 2 Duo minitower with Mac OS X preinstalled. In June, they released rack-mount servers with Leopard Server preinstalled in both 1U (starting $1599) and 2U (starting $1999) configurations.

Last July, the inevitable happened and Apple filed a lawsuit against Psystar citing copyright infringement, and demanded that they recall all machines. Psystar responded by acquiring legal representation from Carr & Ferrell, who previously settled with Apple in another case.

Still with us? Good. This week, Psystar seems to be preparing to countersue Apple, citing anticompetitive business practices. Specifically, the suit alleges that Apple's practice of restricting OS X to Apple hardware is "...an anticompetitive restraint of trade."

We think that's a stretch, but this story sure is fun to follow. We'll keep you updated as soon as anything changes. If you want a claim-by-claim breakdown of Apple's suit against Psystar, check out Nilay Patel's full accounting over at Engadget.

[Via Electronista]

Filed under: Apple Corporate, Hardware, Apple Financial

Psystar fights back, hires attorney

The Apple vs. Psystar battle continues to heat up as Psystar has hired a "well-known" attorney to handle the case. Attorneys at Carr & Ferrell (who won settled the 2006 burst.com lawsuit against Apple) have filled for an extension to the suit, which gives Psystar until August 18th to make a reply to Apple. Both Apple and Psystar agreed to the extension.

You may recall that Apple filed the lawsuit in a California court earlier this month, and later demanded that Psystar issue a recall for the Mac clones. When Apple filed the suit, they claimed that Psystar had violated their license agreement and committed copyright infringement by shipping "hackintosh" PCs with Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard.

[via ComputerWorld]

Filed under: Apple Financial

Class action lawsuits filed against Apple

Just when you think Apple's financial woes have begun to recede, Forbes.com alerts us to a slew of recently filed class action lawsuits that all have the big fruit in their sights. First up is yet another complaint alleging that Apple has created a monopoly by tying iTS purchases to the iPod and only the iPod. Even though suits like this have come and gone, the court has interestingly denied Apple's motion to dismiss.

Next in line is a suit over the MacBook's iBook G4's "abnormally high rate" of logic board failure. This suit was filed Nov. 7th, and Apple still has time to respond.

A third suit is coming from PhatRat Technology LLC, who is calling patent infringement on the Nike+iPod product. A response from Apple is still pending here as well.

Last (though possibly not least?) is a securities class action suit against the company and "certain current and former officers and directors" over all this backdated stock option grant business.

That's about everything Forbes has on the Apple lawsuit list for now. Think it's still worth it to wish Apple a happy new year?

Filed under: Apple Corporate

Full Apple v. Apple decision available online

As you probably know, Apple Computer emerged victorious (for now) in their suit with Apple Corps, The Beatles' record label. Today, the full version of the final decision has been made available online. It's very extensive, and outlines not only MR Justice Mann's recent decision but the details of the 1991 agreement between Apple and Apple Corps. There's a lot to read, but it should be interesting to anyone who was following the case.

[Via Macworld UK]

Filed under: Apple Corporate, iPod Family, iTS

Apple wins legal battle with The Beatles

Wow. As you may know, Apple (the computer company) was sued by Apple Corps (the Beatles' record label) for use of the apple logo and name in conjunction with iTunes, the iTunes Music Store and the iPod. The two groups came to a tentative agreement back in 1991 which stated, briefly, that Apple Computer would not go into the business of creating music. The iTunes Music Store and iPod got Apple Corp's ire up, and they took Apple to court. Today, Mr Justice Edward Mann ruled in Apple's favor:

"I conclude that the use of the apple logo ... does not suggest a relevant connection with the creative work. I think that the use of the apple logo is a fair and reasonable use of the mark in connection with the service, which does not go further and unfairly or unreasonably suggest an additional association with the creative works themselves."

As a result, the iTunes Music Store and iPod will be able to use the name "Apple." Plus, Apple Corps has to pick up Apple Computer's legal bill, to the tune of £2m. Now that's a sour note.

Thanks, Jake!

Filed under: Apple Corporate, iTunes

Apple sued for iTunes interface

itunesLately it seems like filing suit against Apple is quite in fashion. Today I read that Contois Music Technology is seeking damages against Apple for alleged patent violations in the iTunes Music Store. The suit is seeking monetary compensation and requests that Apple stop distributing copies of iTunes. According to Apple Insider, Contois Music Technology claims that "...19 interface aspects of the iTunes software...are in direct violation of Contois' patent. These areas include iTunes' menu selection process to allow the user to select music to be played, the ability of the software to transfer music tracks to a portable music player, and search capabilities such as sorting music tracks by their genre, artist and album attributes."

It feels like every time I turn around someone is suing Apple. What's going on?

[Via AppleInsider]

Tip of the Day

Reply in the Mail.app with a specific quote.
Select the text you want quoted and then hit the reply button.
Only your selected text will copied to the reply email.


Follow us on Twitter!
 TUAW [Cafepress]

Featured Galleries

DNC Macs
Macworld 2008 Keynote
Macworld 2008 Build-up
Google Earth for iPhone
Podcaster
Storyist 2.0
AT&T Navigator Road Test
Bento for iPhone 1.0
Scrabble for iPhone
Tom Bihn Checkpoint Flyer Briefcase
Apple Vanity Plates
Apple booth Macworld 07
WorldVoice Radio
Quickoffice for iPhone 1.1.1
Daylite 3.9 Review
DiscPainter
Mariner Calc for iPhone
2009CupertinoBus
Crash Bandicoot Nitro Kart 3D
MLB.com At Bat 2009
Macworld Expo 2007 show floor

 

More Apple Analysis

AOL Radio TUAW on Stitcher