AAPL Stock: 118.03 ( -0.85 )

Printed from

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



  1. lockhartt

    Joined: Dec 1969


    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


    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



    Hutz is dead.

    Then again, it does answer a bunch of questions.

  1. QualleyIV

    Joined: Dec 1969


    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.


Network Headlines

Follow us on Facebook


Most Popular


Recent Reviews

Ultimate Ears Megaboom Bluetooth Speaker

Ultimate Ears (now owned by Logitech) has found great success in the marketplace with its "Boom" series of Bluetooth speakers, a mod ...

Kinivo URBN Premium Bluetooth Headphones

We love music, and we're willing to bet that you do, too. If you're like us, you probably spend a good portion of your time wearing ...

Jamstik+ MIDI Controller

For a long time the MIDI world has been dominated by keyboard-inspired controllers. Times are changing however, and we are slowly star ...


Most Commented