In its motion to Hoeveler last week, Apple argued that there were no issues in the case -- including Psystar's focus on Snow Leopard -- that have not already been discussed, and in some cases decided, in the California lawsuit.

"This case is the inseparable twin of the California action, as the legal claims and issues, the technology, the parties, and most of the facts are virtually identical," Apple said in the Nov. 24 motion. "First, the Mac OS X technology at issue in both cases is substantially the same. Apple regularly releases upgrades to Mac OS X to add new features, but the basic structure of Mac OS X remains the same. Psystar's assertion that it 'expressly wishes to make all future versions of OS X ... part of this case' is a concession that there is sufficient similarity among the various versions of Mac OS X to justify their consideration in a single lawsuit."

Apple also said that the technology it uses to lock Snow Leopard to its own hardware was the same as that used to tie Mac OS X 10.5, aka Leopard, to Macs. In his mid-November ruling, Alsup said that Psystar illegally circumvented that technology in Leopard in order to install the operating system, which was replaced by Snow Leopard three months ago.

"There is no reason why these legal determinations [by Alsup] should be revisited in another court, and Psystar should not be permitted to seize upon Apple's release of a new version of Mac OS X as an opportunity to forum shop," Apple said in its motion.

Apple asked Hoeveler to dismiss Psystar's Florida complaint, which Psystar could then refile with Alsup's California court, or to transfer the case to Alsup.