Apple looking for Psystar's backers

Apple has amended its lawsuit against Psystar to allow for the possibility that other parties are backing the company.

When companies file lawsuits, they'll often tack something like "John Does 1-50" onto the list of defendants, in order to allow for the possibility that other parties to the case who have yet to be discovered could be added at a later date. Apple did not do that the first time it filed suit against Mac clone maker Psystar, but has tacked such a paragraph onto an amended copy of its lawsuit against the company, as noted by Groklaw.

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"). On information and belief, the John Doe Defendants are various individuals and/or corporations who have infringed Apple's intellectual property rights, breached or induced the breach of Apple's license agreements and violated state and common law unfair competition laws. Apple will seek leave to amend this complaint to show the unknown John Doe Defendants' true names and capacities when they are ascertained.

It's always been a bit puzzling to ponder how Psystar emerged seemingly overnight with designs on challenging one of the tech industry's richest companies, retaining one of Silicon Valley's star law firms along the way. And it made ambitious, expensive claims, such as attempting to argue that Apple was in violation of antitrust law by refusing to license Mac OS X.

With that claim having been shot down by a judge, Psystar appears to be on borrowed time. There's no evidence that has surfaced tying Psystar to anything but the Pedraza brothers of Southern Florida, but if the company is forced to shut down, Apple may try to go after any person or organization that backed Psystar in an attempt to recover damages.

Apple also tacked on a DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) claim onto its complaint this week, alleging that Psystar is improperly modifying the code that prohibits upgrade copies of Mac OS X from being installed on anything but a Mac that has a previous version of the operating system already installed.