Judge Alsup, the Judge overseeing Apple’s case against Psystar in northern California, granted Psystar’s request to replace Carr & Farrell with Camara & Sibley on July 16. Camara & Sibley, along with their local representative, David V Welker, agreed to take on the case even though it has already progressed well into the discovery stage.
An expert familiar with the lawfirm told The Mac Observer “Camara & Sibley is most famous for the dubious distinction of representing Jamie Thomas-Rasset, where they took a $220,000.00 judgment, rejected the Plaintiff RIAA’s offer to settle for a few thousand dollars, and transformed that state of affairs into a $1.92 million judgment against Mrs. Thomas-Rasset at her second trial.”
Apple filed a lawsuit against Psystar in northern California claiming the company was violating the Mac OS X licensing agreement with end users, and that it was violating the Digital Millennium Copyright Act with the steps it used to install the Mac operating system on PCs. Psystar asserted that it should be allowed to build and sell PCs with Mac OS X pre-installed and that Apple is overstepping its bounds by blocking companies from selling Mac clones.
The case in California stalled temporarily when Psystar filed for bankruptcy protection in Florida due in part to its extensive legal bills. According to Psystar’s filing the company owed Carr & Farrell nearly $88,500.
The Florida court granted Apple’s request to lift the automatic stay on its California case, and shortly after Psystar moved to drop its bankruptcy saying it couldn’t deal with the two cases at the same time. The Florida court hasn’t yet agreed to drop the bankruptcy filing.
It’s unclear why Camara & Sibley agreed to take on Psystar, especially since the firm knows that the company has already failed to pay its bills to Carr & Farrell, or why Psystar brought this specific legal team on board knowing how they fared on behalf of Mrs. Thomas-Rasset against the RIAA.
Apple and Psystar are due to appear before a Magistrate Judge on July 30 to discuss the possibility of a settlement in the case, but there is no guarantee the two sides will reach an agreement on that date or before their scheduled trial on January 11, 2010.