Yes, I very much doubt it will be ultimately decided in Miami except for a dismissal with prejudice. It is decided already. Psystar lost.
And what "anti-trust case?" Just because Psystar has changed the product from "OS X.5 Leopard" to "OS X Snow Leopard" and the monopolized economic market from "personal computers that run OS X" to "personal computers that sell for more than $1000," the issue is no different than the one that was already ruled negatively on in the California case and thrown out. That makes it res judicata, "the issue has been decided." It is therefore settled law and the cases the judge relied on to make his ruling span several circuits. The judge ruled that it is not possible for Apple to be found to be an illegal monopoly in its own products. That will not be appealed.
The DC circuit court has nothing to do with it. And Congress has nothing to do with it either unless you are proposing that Congress will pass a law to change the current state of law in re defining monopolies?
Quite frankly, I doubt the Florida case will be "proceeding" anywhere. I think that Judge William Hoeveler will look very poorly on Psystar's forum shopping and repetitive arguments once Apple responds. As of now, the only "proceeding" that has occurred is that Psystar has filed a complaint, summons to Apple have been issued, and Psystar has amended their complaint. In their complaint, Psystar re-iterates the exact same claims they used in the just concluded case in Federal Court in California... that Apple is illegally tying OS X.6 to Apple hardware (ruled against), that Apple is operating an illegal monopoly this time by creatively defining a new market of over $1000 computers, that Apple is illegally copyright to extend its rights (ruled against), that because Apple is illegally using its copyrights to extend its rights, Psystar is within its rights to break Apples technological encryption protections (ruled against). Thus everything in their case, except the product they are infringing in exactly the same manner as the product in the California case—which is essentially different in name only and is therefore irrelevant to their illegal acts—is again, res judicata, already judged. When Apple files its response, including the summary judgements from the Ninth Circuit on the VERY SAME ISSUES, Judge Hoeveler will NOT be pleased that his and his court's time have been wasted.
Legal issues like that are for the courts of appeal.
And they have... Judge Alsup cited several full circuit court rulings on the validity of Software Licenses and their relationship to the Doctrine of First Sale in making his ruling. Just because a lot of people want to believe that EULAs and SLAs have not been properly tested by the courts does not mean that is accurate. In fact, in almost every case, EULAs and SLAs have been upheld and found to be valid if properly written to make it explicit that it is a license not a sale of the software.
. . . but still has some issues that need to be resolved.
Yep... and it doesn't look good for Psystar on those either.
I have no love for them, but I am glad that someone is looking into Apple's practices. Some of them deserve to get knocked down.
Which practices would you knock down?
Say what you will, you are parroting the fanboy line.