Apple sees junta of conspirators behind Psystar

Oh, Apple. Always seeing a conspiracy everywhere! The spying cogwork vermin of the Illuminati scurry in the corners, controlled by the machinations of the murky, omnipresent Man.

The latest junta of bogeymen Apple descry? A conclave of mysterious accomplices of Psystar, makers of cheap, third-party Mac clones. According to Apple's latest court filings:

On information and belief, persons other than Psystar are involved in Psystar’s unlawful and improper activities described in this Amended Complaint. The true names or capacities, whether individual, corporate, or otherwise, of these persons are unknown to Apple. Consequently they are referred to herein as John Does 1 through 10 (collectively the “John Doe Defendants”).

In essence, they are reserving the right to add additional defendants to the suit later. It seems wildly paranoid, but Apple might not be wrong that Psystar is getting support from other parties, though I doubt it is as dastardly as Apple makes it sound. There's a lot riding on this case: if Apple loses, it will open the floodgates on third-party Mac clones, and also set a precedent against their EULAs. There's a good number of people who'd like both things to happen, either for financial gain or just for the principle of the thing. But my guess is that any help Psystar may be getting from such unnamed third parties comes by way of advice and funds for their legal defense... which hardly makes them accomplices in a crime.

Apple's also added a charge of DMCA violations against Psystar, which is almost certainly true... of course, under the utterly misguided DMCA, almost any kind of hacking is a crime, from installing custom firmware on your PSP to hackintoshing your MSI Wind.

Apple Tells Court It Believes Someone Is Behind Psystar; Adds New Claims, Including DMCA Violation [Groklaw]

Join the Conversation


  1. I’ve been told — but I have no idea how true it is — that if you pay for someone’s lawsuit against a party, then that party can include you in their counter-suit. (This is not the same as paying into a “legal defense fund” — this is paying for the offensive moves, not defensive. And, again, no idea how true it is.)

    That’s what I read this as.

  2. I don’t see how this is paranoid… I think everyone following Psystar from the beginning has wondered about their funding sources and motivations.

    The whole company, from the start, has reaked of a scheme to get Apple to sue them or buy them. That kind of audacity only comes from deep pockets.

    I don’t know of anyone that actually has been able to get one of their computers. It seems the only purpose of their company, ever, has been to get Apple to take action against them either by suing or, as the Microsoft model, buying them out.

    How does that make Apple anything but a business “properly” protecting their assets.

    This post is needlessly paranoid…

  3. Regardless of whether creating “seats” for yet-to-be named defendants is conventional or proper in the legal world, it does seem somewhat excessive and abusive from my perspective. Any legal experts out there know if this kind of thing is the norm?

  4. I have very little trouble imagining that M1cr0$0ft would help fund something like this, given their past history of astroturfing, the ongoing clusterfuck that is Vista, and Apple’s increasing market share.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *