Psystar granted court deadline extension again

Psystar granted court deadline extension again

Summary: Mac clone vendor Psystar has once again failed to meet a court deadline to formally respond to Apple's claim that the company violates Apple's copyright.

TOPICS: Hardware, Apple

Mac clone vendor Psystar has once again failed to meet a court deadline been granted an extension by the court to formally respond to Apple's claim that the company violates Apple's copyright.

Psystar had until Monday to file a response with the U.S. District Court for Northern California but it appears that an extension has been granted and the company has now until August 28th to file a response.

No conclusions can be draw as to the reason behind the second extension.

Background here, here, here, and here.

Topics: Hardware, Apple

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.


Log in or register to join the discussion
  • They have NOT failed to meet a court deadline!!!

    "that an extension has been granted"

    They simply had the date moved.
    The court permitted it, so it's NOT a "failed to meet a court deadline" thing.

    Is there no law to stop Bloggers from printing a deliberate lie?
    • Well yes they did that is why the extensions were

      granted. They came hat n hand on not one but two occasions
      and the court then granted them the extension. They would
      not have needed said if they had made the deadline in the
      first place.

      Pagan jim
      James Quinn
      • In the "Court of Law"

        That's just the normal way of doing things.
        It's all about the "Lawyers" remember?
        Why even try to read anything into that?

        Very often it's as simple the lawyer have another case that conflicts due to time requirements of both cases. If it was your lawyer what would want him to do? A sloppy job for you or file an extension? In most insentience's the lawyer just tells the client he's getting an extension and then does it.

        There simply is nothing to read into this.
        • Both sides have huge law FIRM's.

          Not a single Lawyer. All they have to do is answer the
          charges here it's not a trial. I's sure these high priced FIRMS
          can manage that or they are being over paid by a lot.

          I suspect there is something to read into this if after missing
          not one but two deadlines Pystars firm could not come up wit
          ha response to the charges.

          Pagan jim
          James Quinn
          • I'm sure there is

            something to read into it too, but it could be so many different things that it would be unwise to speculate without further information.

            But that doesn't change the original poster's point that there was no failure to meet a court deadline on Psystar's part, the deadline was simply changed. And since the court agreed to extend the deadline, then they must seem to think it is for an innocuous enough of a reason.
            Michael Kelly
          • "Answer the charges"...not that simple in civil litigation

            An answer in a civil case is not as simple as pleading "not guilty" in a criminal case. Civil defendants stand to lose many defenses if not pled in their original answer. Copyright and trademark cases are among the most complex in the American legal system. Therefore, it's imperative that the lawyers get the answer done right the first time. And I'm sure that with a case of this magnitude, Psystar's law firm has their their entire copyright and trademark litigation department working on the answer, or at least brainstorming, doing research, etc., to get the answer filed correctly. One or two attorneys may have their names on the pleadings, but I bet twenty more are working behind the scenes in some capacity.

            I agree with some of the earlier should never read too much into a party in a legal case missing a deadline or asking for an extension when lawyers are working on a case. In all but the most vitriolic litigation, the attorneys generally have a working relationship, and when one side needs a little more time to get something done, they just call up the other side and ask for an extension. And for the most part, the other attorneys will consent, because they will probably need more time themselves for something down the road. And even if the other side won't agree to an extension, judges are usually willing to grant one for a reasonable period of time, unless the party has continually delayed the progression of the case and there is no good cause for the extension.
          • Lawyers are negotiators, too

            My guess is that some form of agreement will settle this suit
            with Apple dealing from a position of power. Both parties'
            interests may be better met out of the courtroom.
        • words

          Very often it's as simple the lawyer have [has]another case that conflicts due to time requirements of both cases. If it was [were]your lawyer what would want him to do? A sloppy job for you or file an extension? In most insentience's [instances] the lawyer just tells the client he's getting an extension and then does it.
    • Well, yeah they did...

      ...but there's not really anything wrong with that. Think about it from another aspect: if you are given an job to get done by August 31, and then on August 30, someone comes in your office and hands you 5 or 10 pages of all the additions and changes that need to be implemented in the August 31 work product, then you are going to fail to meet that deadline, through no fault of your own, and will have to have more time to get it done properly, right? Same basic concept here. If they had to get an extension, then they were unable (for whatever reason) to meet the original deadline. Thus, they failed to meet that deadline. The wording does make it seem shady, and that's perhaps not a fair interpretation, but in all reality, it's 100% accurate. It's the implication that's a little shaky. There is no reason at this time to think that their inability to meet the deadline is reflective of their guilt/innocence, or incompetence, or inability to answer the charges. For me, it's not an indictment of them, but simply the way the system works.

      This is the law. It's going to be a long, convoluted process. Many deadlines will be extended, likely on both sides, because they will be unable to do so.

      So, I think it's probably a poor title not because it's inaccurate, but because people see "fail" and assume that there is some fault in there somewhere, which isn't necessarily true. It seems to be changed now on the main article page...but the title over the talkbacks is still the old one.
  • Not so

    I'm an attorney. Extensions are routinely granted. It does not constitute "failure to meet a deadline".
    • So Adrian Kingsley-Hughes and ZDNet Have in fact committed "libel"...

      So if we understand this correctly....

      They (Adrian Kingsley-Hughes and ZDNet) have, by this "blog", committed Defamation of Psystar.
      They can state opinion to their hearts content.
      They cannot miss-state "facts".

      I guess someone needs to notify Psystar so they choose what corrective action they need to take.

      Might be nice to see a blogger held accountable for what they type.

      Or did I miss something?
      • Grow a few brain cells dude

        Defamation of Psystar??? cannot miss-state "facts??? blogger held accountable for what they type???

        Dude.. having trouble wearing a hat... Perhaps a proctologist can help... Oh wait.. oops.. I just defamed you... ooooooh... are you gonna sue me for defamation of your alias? Perhaps I can counter-sue for exhibition of stupidity.

        Lets see.. hmm... did you miss something... Well dragon@... you have been missing it for quite some time now.. it's called a brain... and you my friend are a medical oddity because you don't seem to have one....

        Defamation of Psystar.... Bwahahaha... Yeah.. Why don't you call the Psystar lawyer and tell him all about it... Moron.
        • Do notice that they changed the Title/text.

          This is not the wild west!
  • Not So so...

    I am not an attorney and an extension is not necessary to meet failure. lol.
  • RE: Psystar fails to meet court deadline again

    Changes in court dates are routine, and do not constitute any failure to meet any deadline. If there is a failure, then the court acts. This is the way of corporate law, and frankly why small claimants cannot suceed against companies with deep pockets. Many cases are won simply because the other party runs out of money paying lawyers to go to show up for revised court dates, not because that party was right legally.

    Pystar's firm is doing the same thing, Apple's would do if the situation was reversed. This action has nothing to do with right or wrong, but much to do with dragging it out.

    dragon, put a sock in it, or change your name to Chicken Little.
    Howard Pierson
    • Do notice that they changed the Title/text.

      This is not the wild west!

      Pystar's just an interesting story to me.
      However, their are clear rules to what anyone can say and print!
  • Motivation?

    Of course, it is just possible that both law firms have a self-
    interest in dragging things out and running the billing clock.
    From my experience, lawyers in such cases are billing at least
    $300/hour and probably more--and Psystar's attorneys must
    believe they will be paid, or have collected up front.

    As always, it will be interesting to watch