Psystar Case Reveals Poor Email Archiving At Apple

Ian Lamont writes "Buried in the court filings of the recently concluded Psystar antitrust suit against Apple is a document that discussed Apple's corporate policy regarding employee email. Apparently, Apple has no company-wide policy for archiving, saving, or deleting email. This could potentially run afoul of e-discovery requirements, which have tripped up other companies that have been unable to produce emails and other electronic files in court. A lawyer quoted in the article (but not involved in the case) called Apple's retention policy 'negligent.' However, the issue did not help Psystar's lawsuit against Apple — a judge dismissed the case earlier this week."

Re:email is for communication... not documentation

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me put it this way - I know of a largeish piece of corporate litigation that turned almost entirely on a Christmas card.

Broadly speaking, anything that is recorded and is able to be read/interpreted/played back/whatever is a "document" for legal purposes and is discoverable if it is relevant to the issues in the case (or whatever your local rules are).

A conversation isn't a document as there is no persistent record of it. That is why you have "pens up" meetings and why some people will never put anything more informative in an email than "come see me".

However, if you do make any record of that conversation - be it five words on a napkin, a detailed minute of the meeting or an audio recording, then that becomes discoverable (provided it is relevant). If you are given a handout of powerpoint slides at a meeting and you make notes on it then that handout becomes a wholly distinct, individually discoverable "document" from a blank printout of the slides.

In most places it is considered contempt of court to destroy a document that is discoverable in actual or reasonably anticipated litigation.

And yes, IAAL.

Re:Time Machine?

[GMonkeyLouie]

That's actually hilarious that you mention that, as I am storing about a half-decade's worth of e-mails using apple products and hardware. Wouldn't call it especially secure or safe, but it's there and it's intuitive to use.

Why wouldn't they at least use the office as a place to field test the product?

Re:If Litigation is required.

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

Erm? Really? You cannot be serious?

You don't recall Apple suing one of its fanbase [thecrimson.com] (a student & lifelong fan), a web design school [pulse2.com] (who mostly used Apple's products), New York [sys-con.com] (for daring to use an apple in a environmental awareness campaign) and of course Psystar [tuaw.com] (attempting to resell OS X).

I could go on & on. Sure. Plenty of people sue Apple (just like any other big tech corp), but Apple's penchant for pulling out the legal guns against small operators (and its fanbase) makes it stand alone in the tech crowd.

Re:If Litigation is required.

[dubbreak]

In the case of the web design school it was a pretty clear case of trademark infringement. The fact that they used Apple equipment made it even more likely.

They have a logo that is very similar to apple's trademarked logo, they deal with computer related tasks/services/education, they use apple hardware... it is quite likely someone may mistake that the company is somehow tied to apple (an official apple web design school or something of the sort). Whether it is "morally" wrong for them to sue this company is a side issue (and debateable) as Apple must protect it's trademark in all cases they are aware of or risk losing it. Plus, gimme a break.. they couldn't find something a little more unique for a logo?! They were obviously "inspired" by the apple logo.

BTW, I am from the city where the school exists. Pretty much all the news coverage was inflamatory and in the mindset of "big guy against the little guy". One news article even made the mistake of stating apple was suing over copyright infringement in the title but goes on to talk about TM infrigement in the article(again too many people don't get copyright != trademark). In reality it is really quite simple. Their logo is too damn close and they are in a similar field. Plain and simple that is a prime case for trademark infringement and not one story I read covered that. I'm surprised no one recognized that while designing the logo ,"Ummm don't you think this is a little close to the apple logo?" They use apple products so they obviously know what the trademarked apple symbol looks like.