Is Psystar guilty of sophistry?

Stephen Withers
Tuesday, 02 September 2008 12:31

Opinion and Analysis

So Psystar has denied Apple's allegations of copyright and other infringements associated with the sale of its Open Computer. Psystar's Open Computer is assembled from generic parts, and offered for sale with Mac OS X preinstalled as one of the operating system options. Is Psystar putting up fallacious arguments in its defence and counterattack or are its arguments justified?

Psystar made waves in the desktop space when it launched the OpenMac - hurriedly renamed Open Computer - in April.

Apple launched legal proceedings against the company in July, alleging (among other things) trademark and trade dress infringement, and inducement to infringe copyright.

Psystar's response to many of Apple's assertions was to say, in effect, "we know nothing about that, so we deny that it is true." That, to me, smacks of wilful ignorance. It may work between lawyers and judges, but if I were serving on a jury, I'd find it very hard to take seriously anyone that floated such a line.

Here's a good example: on one hand, "PSYSTAR admits that BusinessWeek Magazine has identified the PLAINTIFF as the 'World's Most Innovative Company.'" yet on the other, "PSYSTAR is without information or knowledge as to Consumer Reports' ranking of technical support for or by the PLAINTIFF and on that basis denies the allegation."

My reaction to such an assertion would be "go and find out, and only then are you entitled to assert whether the claim is true or not."

Please read on for a somewhat controversial parallel.