Skip to Content

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!



Categories

Apple Corporate

CNET and The Mac Observer noted a legal filing on Friday that suggested Apple and Psystar were looking to bypass the normal lawsuit process...
 

Add a Comment

*0 / 3000 Character Maximum

19 Comments

Filter by:
twistedarts

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.

October 21 2008 at 10:15 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to twistedarts's comment
Adam

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.

October 29 2008 at 2:46 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Jon

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?

October 20 2008 at 4:09 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to Jon's comment
Simon Arch

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.

October 21 2008 at 1:32 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Fritz Laurel

"Get 'em while they're hot!"

October 20 2008 at 3:21 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Dan

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.

-

October 20 2008 at 3:01 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Jeff

Being ordered to arbitration by a judge is a far cry from "striking a deal."

October 20 2008 at 2:58 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
4 replies to Jeff's comment
Hickeroar

what??!!?? For apple to agree to something like this, they HAD to have been running scared. This is not apple's style at all.

October 20 2008 at 2:29 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
5 replies to Hickeroar's comment
Devon

I guess Apple didn't want to take the chance that they might be ruled against.

October 20 2008 at 2:24 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
alberto mario pernett

I smell some Psystar buytout from Apple...

October 20 2008 at 2:05 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Buy an ad here

Hot Apps on TUAW

Tweets

© 2012 AOL Inc. All Rights Reserved.