Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corporation

Filing 4

Filed (ECF) Appellant Psystar Corporation Mediation Questionnaire. Date of service: 01/22/2010. [7205736] (KDC)

Download PDF
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pple Inc. USDC - CA - Northern District - San Francisco RO Psystar Corporation .U79P7'W217<UY'87P321W7'5=7'81PK457'5=95'Q9R7'21P7'5:'5=1P'U9NP415O Psystar is a technology startup that manufactured and sold non-Apple personal computers capable of running Apple's OS X operating system. Psystar sought to provide a lower cost, higher quality alternative to Apple's hardware. Apple sued Psystar for copyright infringement and violations of the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA, claiming that selling hardware capable of running OS X (and hence competing with Apple in the market for personal computers) is illegal. "#$%&'%!()*+,*-%!+)!*%.+!/&0%12 _217<UY'87P321W7'5=7'K2:378429U'=1P5:2Y\'5=7'27P4U5'W7U:N\'9;8'5=7'S91;'1PP47P':;'9KK79UO Apple won summary judgment and an injunction below. The district court sealed large parts of the summaryjudgment papers. Psystar believes that the summary judgment was error, inter alia, because the district court erred in holding that Apple's efforts to use its copyright in OS X to control the hardware on which purchasers of OS X run OS X did not constitute copyright misuse. Psystar further believes that the district court's sealing orders were error because the sealed material reflected only material that is already available in the public record and because Apple failed to comply with the district court's local rules regarding motions to seal. Psystar further believes that, even accepting the district court's conclusions on the merits, the district court's injunction was overbroad in that it decides issues that are presently in litigation in an antitrust case in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Psystar v. Apple) --- a case that the California district court declined to dismiss or stay despite Apple's request that it do so. &7P321W7'9;Y'K2:37781;QP'27S91;1;Q'W7U:N':2'9;Y'27U9578'K2:37781;QP'1;':5=72'521W4;9UPO The district court invited Psystar to seek a declaratory judgment that a new, unlitigated software product, Rebel EFI, does not violate the district court's injunction. Psystar has not yet taken the district court up on its invitation.! ! A separate antitrust case, Psystar v. Apple, is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. A motion to transfer is pending in that case. Apple's motion in the California case to dismiss or stay the Florida case was denied. "#$%&'%!()*+,*-%!+)!*%.+!/&0%12 .2:R187'9;Y':5=72'1;<:2S951:;'5=95'S1Q=5'9<<735'5=7'P4159W1U15Y':<'5=1P'39P7'<:2'S781951:;O Both Psystar and Apple agree that this case is not suitable for mediation. The parties have previously participated in mediations to no avail, including a mediation immediately preceding the district court's ruling on summary judgment. Nothing material has changed since then. The parties simply disagree about the determinative law and seek this Court's ruling to resolve their dispute. ."-&$/$.%&$'()'/).'+(,"0 #'37251<Y'5=95L 9'34227;5'P72R137'U1P5'N15='57U7K=:;7'9;8'<9H';4SW72P'9;8'7S91U'98827PP7P' 1P'95593=78'>P77'F5='*123415',4U7'CD[BO #'4;872P59;8'5=95'<91U427'5:'K2:R187'5=7'*:425'N15='9'3:SKU7578'<:2S'9;8' P72R137'U1P5'S9Y'27P4U5'1;'P9;351:;P\'1;3U481;Q'81PS1PP9U':<'5=7'9KK79UO (1Q;95427 /s/ K.A.D. Camara >`PM`'KU4P'955:2;7Y';9S7'S9Y'W7'4P78'1;'U174':<'9'S9;49U'P1Q;95427':;'7U7352:;139UUYD<1U78'8:34S7;5POB *:4;P7U'<:2 Psystar Corporation (1234)!P7':<'5=7')KK7UU957'%*-'PYP57S'1P'S9;895:2Y'<:2'9UU'955:2;7YP'<1U1;Q'1;'5=1P'*:425\'4;U7PP'5=7Y'927' Q29;578'9;'7H7SK51:;'<2:S'4P1;Q'5=7'PYP57SO'/563)2758)91:;<3=2)363:2>1=5:?66@)1;')KK7UU957'%*-'WY' 3=::P1;Q'-:2SPM":5137PM&1P3U:P427'a'-1U7'9'6781951:;'b47P51:;;9127O SERVICE LIST COUNSEL FOR PSYSTAR CORPORATION K.A.D. Camara Kent Radford CAMARA & SIBLEY LLP 2339 University Boulevard Houston, Texas 77005 713-893-7973 713-583-1131 (fax) COUNSEL FOR APPLE INC. James G. Gilliland TOWNSEND AND TOWNSEND AND CREW LLP Two Embarcadero Center, Eighth Floor San Francisco, California 94111 415-576-0200 415-576-0300 (fax) George Riley O'MELVENEY & MYERS LLP Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor San Francisco, California 94111 415-984-8700 415-984-8701 (fax)

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?