Filed under: Apple Corporate
Apple, Psystar strike a deal
CNET and The Mac Observer noted a legal filing on Friday that suggested Apple and Psystar were looking to bypass the normal lawsuit process and enter a phase of private arbitration and mediation.
The filing notes that Apple and Psystar will participate in the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) process, a way to keep legal costs down -- and the outcome private. For famously secretive Apple, this agreement seems right up their alley.
The agreement means the two companies will enter non-binding arbitration, present their case to a neutral party, and work out a deal through mediation.
This all probably comes down to one thing: cash money. Psystar has nowhere near the cash reserves that Apple has, so this less-expensive option is attractive to them. It's attractive to Apple because if they lose, the decision is kept under wraps. As CNET's Tom Krazit notes, if Apple is guilty of Psystar's antitrust accusations, it could hurt their other cases where they're accused of the same thing.
Of course, we'll know for certain the outcome simply by seeing if Psystar continues to sell their computers (or not) after January 31, when the ADR sessions wrap up.
[Via AppleInsider.]
Update: According to Psystar's attorneys, Apple and Psystar were ordered into the mediation by the court. According to several of our commenters, ADR is a common practice. Soulbarn says: "It is practically mandatory. It would be a surprise if it didn't happen, no matter who the case involved, big or small, famous or not famous, precedent-setting or non-precedent setting. It is part of the normal legal process." Thanks, everyone!
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
alberto mario pernett said 2:05PM on 10-20-2008
I smell some Psystar buytout from Apple...
Reply
Hickeroar said 2:30PM on 10-20-2008
what??!!?? For apple to agree to something like this, they HAD to have been running scared. This is not apple's style at all.
Reply
SpinThis! said 3:18PM on 10-20-2008
How is Apple running scared? It sounds like Psystar got scared, put their tail between their legs, and asked Apple for forgiveness and to go easy on them. Apple obliged. Keeping the results "quiet" was just a side benefit for Apple.
You also have to consider Apple's legal costs hereit would cost Apple more to actually go to trial than what they're potentially squeezing out of Psystar.
I'd be very surprised if Psystar was actually allowed to continue their business as usual.
Hickeroar said 3:22PM on 10-20-2008
@Spin:
Given what Psystar has said thus-far, I can't imagine they'd just "give up" like that. They were quite serious about their anti-trust suit. I think Apple wanted this and I can't see Psystar agreeing to cease and desist.
SpinThis! said 4:17PM on 10-20-2008
Everybody's "serious" about a lawsuit until they find out how much it actually costs to fund. Apple has among the deepest pockets around and could drain Psystar in the discovery process alone.
Simon Arch said 1:28AM on 10-21-2008
I am not a lawyer, but I worked for a law firm for the last eight years. This type of arbitration is pushed by the court and is very common these days. The fact this is a non-binding arbitration means that either party has the option to pursue litigation.
Apple is not "running scared". Apple and Psystar are saving the California courts (and by extension the Californian taxpayers, of whom I am one) time and money, for which I am grateful.
dizzle said 9:07PM on 10-23-2008
Dude, did you READ the article? This is MANDATORY BY THE COURT. I wrote on this when most of the other blogs were still acting like Apple waived its right to trial and aggravated me enough to write a detailed article. I bet neither party wants to do ADR and it has nothing to do with being "scared" on either part.
http://news.worldofapple.com/archives/2008/10/20/in-brief-did-apple-waive-its-right-to-trial-in-the-psystar-suit/
boingboing then picked up on it right away.
Jeff Jungblut said 2:59PM on 10-20-2008
Being ordered to arbitration by a judge is a far cry from "striking a deal."
Reply
Robert Palmer said 3:05PM on 10-20-2008
The parties both agreed to the arbitration, and "deal" is synonymous with "agreement." Nowhere does it say the court ordered them into it.
Cory said 4:35PM on 10-20-2008
That's right Jeff - and it is actually a required part of the litigation process - nothing out of the ordinary going on here and certainly not the end of the process as a whole.
But, think about this, if Apple settles, there is no legal precedent established that will prevent the next cheap hardware maker from doing the same thing as Psystar.
It would be in Apple's best interest to "invest" in a legal decision that would prevent further like-minded attempts circumvent the OSX EULA.
Jeff Jungblut said 4:26PM on 10-20-2008
The site won't let me reply to Robert Palmer's comment, so I'll reply to myself -- see http://www.internetnews.com/government/article.php/3779041/Apple+Psystar+Pushed+Into+Mediation+Talks.htm as to why this TUAW story is speculative, incomplete and misleading.
Robert Palmer said 4:30PM on 10-20-2008
Ah, thanks for pointing out that story with quotes from Psystar's attorneys. I'll add an update.
And thanks for being so nice about it, too.
soulbarn said 3:01PM on 10-20-2008
People will ignore what I'm about to write because it is more fun and entertaining to speculate on whether Apple is caving, whether Steve Jobs is evil, whether this means Psystar is right, whether this means that somebody's testicles have shrunken or grown, and I am glad they will ignore it because I find such speculation an agreeable waste of time on a Monday morning, BUT...
The FACT is that this kind of mediation is nearly ALWAYS done prior to cases like this in many jurisdictions, including the one that this case was filed in. It is practically mandatory. It would be a surprise if it didn't happen, no matter who the case involved, big or small, famous or not famous, precedent-setting or non-precedent setting. It is part of the normal legal process.
If the mediation result is unsatisfactory to either party, the lawsuit will continue. This will also lead to more ridiculous and entertaining speculation, all of which will be equally baseless.
So, personally, I look forward to either Apple or Psystar rejecting whatever the result of this ROUTINE element of the legal process turns out to be, because with the Presidential race, the failing economy, the imminent restart of the Large Hadron Collider, and the new season of 30 Rock all coming up over the next few months, there's very little out there to hold my attention.
-
Reply
Fritz Laurel said 3:21PM on 10-20-2008
"Get 'em while they're hot!"
Reply
Jon said 4:11PM on 10-20-2008
Let me get this straight...Psystar infringed Apple's patents so Apple sued them, them Psystar counter-sued them for anti-trust. Isn't that like someone robbing a bank, getting arrested and then taking the security guards to court for trying to defend the safe?
Reply
Simon Arch said 1:32AM on 10-21-2008
At what point did Psystar violate Apple's patents? Apple is not suing for a patent violation. They are suing because Psystar is making computers capable of running MacOS X and marketing them as such. In addition, they are apparently violating Apple's EULA which states the OS can only be used on Apple-branded hardware. EULAs can be flimsy contracts, and the judge in a court case might find the EULA unenforcible. By taking the case to arbitration they dodge that bullet.
Devon said 7:41PM on 10-20-2008
I guess Apple didn't want to take the chance that they might be ruled against.
Reply
mort said 10:16AM on 10-21-2008
What has everyone gone stupid? OSX is Apple's intellectual property. When you buy a mac you get the right to use it. OSX is software just like any other app. You do not own it, you buy the right to use it and agree to their terms of usage. It is designed and the rights sold to be used on THEIR hardware, this is not windows people. You put it on some other hardware and you violate that agreement, plain and simple. Pystar violated that agreement and had no right to install it, market it, or sell it. It is no different than when you buy a CD or DVD. You do NOT OWN the music or the movie but the right to view it or listen to it. Copy it and sell it and you are just as much of a crook as Pystar. Trying to justify thievery by crying foul is immature and just plain stupid. I hope the courts slam pystar and set the precident that if you want to be a thief, you will go to jail.
One last thought, you cheap pc bastards, if cheaper was better we would all be driving Yugos.
Reply
Adam said 2:47PM on 10-29-2008
Its called trying to keep a monopoly and stifling competition.
Is it fair that I should be forced to use what Apple thinks is best?
How is it Microsoft can be flamed and be thought of as the most evil corporation out there for including a web browser or a media player on there OS but Apple can totally lock down a OS spread lies and sue small companies who make maybe 30 or 40 computers in a week and everyone runs behind them and defends them.