toggle

AAPL Stock: 100.96 ( -0.83 )

Printed from http://www.macnn.com

Psystar lawyer defends against leak accusations

updated 10:10 am EDT, Tue September 8, 2009

Charged with sharing secret case details

Psystar's chief lawyer, K.A.D. Camera of the firm Camera and Shipley, is protesting allegations that he broke an order against sharing details of the company's legal battle with Apple. He is said to have leaked information to Charles Nesson, a Harvard Law School professor and the founder of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society. "The accusation that I have somehow violated the protective order is nothing more than an attempt to distract this Court from what is at issue in this round of supplemental briefing -- namely, Apple's complete failure to provide testimony from a corporate representative on damages," claims Camera in a recent court filing.

Camera does admit to approving a recent "circus" event, timed to coincide with an Apple visit to Psystar's offices. Nesson posted a copy of a July e-mail exchange in his blog, revealing discussion of the event between Camera and Psystar CEO Rudy Pedraza. "I've also been thinking about the upcoming visit from Apple during depo[sition] week (which in my opinion is akin to letting Terrorists visit the Pentagon)," Pedraza originally wrote. "Although the idea makes me uneasy, I figure that if we let them in, we might has well have an *event* for the public the same day showcasing our products and letting customers touch and feel them first hand. How do you feel about that?"

"The theme of this day would be something like 'The circus comes to town,' with everyone knowing Apple was also coming and at the same time making the public aware of how ridiculous Apple is behaving," Pedraza added. "Of course, the key to pulling this off is planning, so we would need to get the visit date nailed down ASAP to ensure we get good media coverage."

In approving the event, Camera provided some caution. "We need to make sure that our circus day doesn't vary in any material way from how we do business ordinarily, other than that lots of people plus Apple are also roaming around the office," part of the reply reads.

The discussion is proof, Apple alleges, that Camera let slip confidential information, and that the company has every reason to worry should it be legally obligated to expose profit margins to Psystar. Apple has been extremely protective of its internal profit figures, going so far as to drop a demand to recover lost profits from Psystar for fear it might have to share the margin data.

Camera disputes Apple's claims, saying that engagement with the press is a right under both the US Constitution and the protective order. "There is no secret about the fact that since our firm's engagement, a part of Psystar's strategy has been to engage with the press and attempt to clear up some of the very negative and, in our view, mistaken coverage that has appeared about Psystar's business and this litigation," Camera comments in his latest filing. "Apple has attempted to draw a veil of secrecy over this litigation and over the conduct at issue in this litigation that, in my view, goes well beyond what is warranted."

Since August Psystar has been upset with a deposition of Apple's VP of worldwide product marketing, Phil Schiller, who was unable or unwilling to provide figures on quantifiable damages suffered as a result of Psystar's Mac clones.




by MacNN Staff

POST TOOLS:

TAGS :

toggle

Comments

  1. lockhartt

    Joined: Dec 1969

    +1

    missing something?

    Is there a corporate trial lawyer in the house?

    I'm confused as to how Apple would be obligated to discuss "quantifiable damages" during deposition when neither Psystar's nor Apple's suit involve any discussion of material harm caused to Apple.

  1. climacs

    Joined: Dec 1969

    +1

    K.A.D. Camera???

    I could have sworn Psystar was represented by Lionel Hutz of "I Can't Believe It's A Law Firm!"

  1. testudo

    Joined: Dec 1969

    -1

    Hutz

    Hutz is dead.

    Then again, it does answer a bunch of questions.

  1. QualleyIV

    Joined: Dec 1969

    +2

    re: missing something

    The scope of discovery is generally pretty extensive. It is not generally necessary that something be admissible in court (or even relevant) for a party to be obligated to answer questions regarding those issues. Although that might sound strange, there are good reasons for that rule...

Login Here

Not a member of the MacNN forums? Register now for free.

toggle

Network Headlines

toggle

Most Popular

MacNN Sponsor

Recent Reviews

Autodesk Smoke 2015

Since May of this year, Autodesk has been shipping the highly anticipated update to its high-end post-production video editing suite, ...

Crucial MX100 256GB SATA-3 SSD

While the price-per-gigabyte ratio for magnetic platter-based hard drives can't be beat, the speed that a SSD brings to the table for ...

Narrative Clip

With the advent of social media technology, people have been searching for new ways to share the events of their daily lives -- be it ...

toggle

Most Commented