dizzle
140 posts
Legal News: Baltazar v. Apple, Case No. C10-03231, Northern District of California
Here comes another class action Complaint against Apple, this one filed July 23, 2010 and involving the iPad. There are three named Plaintiffs standing as representatives of a putative class. I had read in a blurb on the Apple web that the case was about…
Legal News: Christopher Corsi v. Apple, CV10-03316PVT, Northern District of California
This is yet another class action complaint and was filed on July 28, 2010. The claims are nearly identical to those involving the liquid submersion indicators in the Gallion v. Apple case reported on here . Thus, I will only note where this plaintiff nuanced…
Legal News: Gallion v. Apple and DOES 1-100, United States District Court Northern District of California, Case No. 3:10-cv-01610-RS
A Class Action Complaint was filed on April 15, 2010 against Apple and 100 Doe Defendants. With regard to the unnamed Defendants, Plaintiff states: Plaintiff is unaware of the true names and capacities of Does 1 through 100 and dues them by fictious names. Plaintiff…
Legal News: McCaffrey and Wrinn v. Apple and ATT
This is a Class Action Complaint filed on June 30, 2010 in the District Court of Maryland, Case No. 1:10-cv-01776-RDB and amended on August 2, 2010 only to provide the correct corporate name for AT&T. The subject matter of the suit is allegedly defective iPhone…
Latest on Eastman Kodak/Apple Dispute
In reminder, there is a whole constellation of pending actions involving Apple and Eastman Kodak. Here is a summary list (with details on status to follow): International Trade Commission Investigative Report Number 337-703, Eastman Kodak v. Apple. Complaint involves patent no. 6,292,218 ("the '218 patent'")…
Psystar Files Reply Brief
Hot on the heels of my last report , Psystar has filed its Reply Brief in response to Apple . Copyright Misuse Psystar asserts that copyright only governs copying and not restrictions on use. Even at first blush, this appears absurd. I cannot play a…
Status Update: Apple v. Psystar v. Apple
The Florida Court has granted Apple’s request for a stay of proceedings pending the outcome of the Appeal. This is typical and expected. The Florida Court had not yet ruled on Apple’s Motion to transfer the Florida case to Judge Alsup in California. On the…
Review: EyeFi Connect X2 4GB
For the past few months, I have had the opportunity to play around with an EyeFi Connect X2 in order to prepare this review. My hardware comprises a Pentax X70 and a current generation iMac running the latest version of iPhoto on Snow Leopard. So…
Apple v. Kodak (and vice versa): The Latest Developments
There is a whole constellation of pending actions pending involving Apple and Eastman Kodak. Here is a summary list (with details on status to follow): International Trade Commission Investigative Report Number 337-703, Eastman Kodak v. Apple. Complaint involves patent no. 6,292,218 ("the '218 patent'"). International…
Apple v. Psystar Appeal: Extension granted to Apple to File Reply Brief
As discussed here , Apple was due to file its reply to Psystar's opening brief in the appeal. However, on June 15, 2010, the following docket entry is noted: Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk:CAG): The appellee's motion for an extension of time in which to…
Apple v. Kodak: More Details on the International Trade Commission Investigation
On April 15, 2010, concurrent with the filing of its lawsuit discussed here , Apple also filed a complaint with the United States International Trade Commission requesting an investigation against Kodak regarding patents identified as 6,031,964 and Re38,911. A copy of the Complaint, sans exhibits…
Apple v. Psystar: Psystar Files Opening Brief in Appeal
As per the agreed extension between the parties, Psystar filed its Opening Brief with the Ninth Circuit yesterday. However, the entire thing was filed under seal. Here is the actual filing including the parameters of the Protective Order. Apple's response is due June 16, 2010…
Picture Imperfect? Eastman Kodak v. Apple v. Eastman Kodak ad nauseam
As promised, I have taken a look at the suit filed on April 15, 2010 by Apple against Eastman Kodak. While Apple is sued all the time, it is actually relatively unusual for Apple to be the aggressor. Even in this instance, Eastman Kodak had…
Apple v. Psystar: Psystar Receives Extension of Time to File Opening Brief
Here is the latest docket entry in the Psystar appeal: 04/30/2010 14 day oral extension by phone of time to file Appellant Psystar Corporation's opening brief is granted. Appellant's opening brief is due May 17, 2010. Appellee Apple Inc.'s answering brief due 06/16/2010. The optional…
Getting Ready for the Psystar Appeal
This case is about to get moving again with Psystar’s Opening Brief in their Ninth Circuit Appeal due on May 3, 2010. The last significant event was Apple’s victory in its Motion for Summary Judgment before Judge Alsup in November 2009. The transcript for that…
Apple v. Psystar Update
The appellate case is moving along with both parties having filed their mandatory Mediation Questionnaires. Other than both agreeing that mediation would be futile, the filings are pretty vanilla with the exception of the following unintentional humour ( from Psystar's filing ):
Psystar Files Appeal
As its attorney had previously indicated, Psystar is appealing Judge Alsup's Order effectively ceasing all of their operations. What is a bit surprising is that Psystar has also filed multiple Orders regarding the sealing of confidential documents. A copy of the docket entries may be…
Apple v. Psystar: Report of Compliance with Injunction
On December 31, 2009, Psystar filed a Report of Compliance with Injunction ( you can view the filing here ). There are a few points of interest. In paragraph 4, Pedraza makes a statement that seems to be contradictory to Psystar's stated position in the…
Psystar v. Apple: Where Are We Now?
Things are quiet in the California action since Judge Alsup entered a permanent injunction in Apple's favour regarding Psystar's Mac clones, no matter which version of OS X is being used. Although Judge Alsup invited Psystar to bring a Motion containing specific details about this…
Psystar: Mostly-Dead
Miracle Max: See, there's a big difference between mostly dead, and all dead. Now, mostly dead: he's slightly alive. All dead: well, with all dead, there's usually only one thing that you can do. Inigo: What's that? Miracle Max: Go through his clothes and look…