Psystar and Apple possible settlement out of court

R0GUE · #1 10-17-2008, 06:33 PM

MacNN reports that the heated legal battle between Apple and the Mac clone manufacturer, Psystar, has taken an unexpected turn that could lead to resolution without a trial, according to the Mac Observer.

An attorney, who wishes to remain anonymous, has reported that the two parties agreed to try an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). Although both parties have agreed to start the process, it is unknown which company initiated the action, or if it was a result of a judge recommendation.

During the ADR process, the parties can meet in non-binding arbitration, where a third party reviews the arguments presented by each side, including their legal arguments and facts. The arbitrator does not have authority to impose a settlement or make an official determination, however.

Another possibility for the process is an Early Neutral Evaluation (ENE), in which an expert evaluates each side's statement of the facts and applicable laws and responds to each party with a report of the merits of their case, at which time a settlement could be reached. The third option would be mediation, where a third party tries to help each side produce a negotiated settlement.

A few of the reasons that plaintiffs and defendants choose ADR include secrecy or lowering of costs associated with the dispute. Any settlement can remain a secret, which is sometimes preferred by corporations that could receive negative publicity, or similar lawsuits, if they lose a case in court. Alternatively, if one party expects to lose a case eventually, and the monetary settlement could bankrupt the company, they may choose to fold and settle for a lesser amount or terms that still allow the business to function.

The dispute between the companies began when Apple sued Psystar for producing Mac clones that operate with a modified version of the Mac OS X operating system, claiming copyright infringement and violation of the End User License Agreement (EULA). Psystar defended itself with a countersuit against Apple, accusing the company of illegally controlling the Mac market and driving prices artificially high. Recently, Apple has filed to have the court dismiss the monopoly countersuit.

The company is under fire from several directions with monopoly charges, including a lawsuit this week filed by a Taiwan-based MP3 player manufacturer that accused the company of monopolizing the media player and music download markets. The iPhone is also involved in several legal battles, such as a class action suit that claims violation of the Sherman Act, Cartwright Act, and Federal Trade Commission Act. Apple's motion to dismiss the suit was rejected.

Links
MacNN: Psystar suit stepping toward resolution outside court

Dies · #2 10-19-2008, 07:21 AM

Who caved?

That's the million dollar question.

nfoav8or · #3 10-19-2008, 08:33 AM

My guess is that it was a partially mutual agreement to partake in this legal action. Both sides don't want to lose their image: Apple doesn't want to be seen as the next Microsoft and Pystar doesn't want to go bankrupt with court fees. I hope we find out more on this soon. Thanks Rogue.

Taisto · #4 10-19-2008, 10:44 AM

But on the other hand, isn`t it getting a little silly ? I understand when you can`t sell PC with Windows, ok, PC manufacturers and MS are not related in any way, But Apple makes their own computers, so why can`t they use their own system with computers they produce ? Isn`t it going a little too far ?

Dies · #5 10-19-2008, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taisto

But on the other hand, isn`t it getting a little silly ? I understand when you can`t sell PC with Windows, ok, PC manufacturers and MS are not related in any way, But Apple makes their own computers, so why can`t they use their own system with computers they produce ? Isn`t it going a little too far ?

Huh?

You want to re-phrase that? Can't sell PC's with Windows?

Personally, I think it would be fine if the box were to say something like "This software is intended to be used on genuine Apple hardware and will not work properly on other systems" in big bold letters. They can do as much as they want to their software to ensure that it doesn't run on other hardware, that's their right.

BUT I don't think it's OK for a company to sell an Operating System to the open public, to anyone willing to pay them for it, but then stipulate that you can only use it on hardware produced by them. That doesn't even make sense. If it's only for their hardware then it should only come with their hardware.

No other company does this, is allowed to do this, at least as far as I know. I can't go to the store and buy the OS from my PS3, or my DVR, or my PSP, etc.

Think about it.

Imagine if Microsoft decided to do that, does anyone think they would be allowed to say after the fact "Oh, by the way you can only use this on hardware made by Dell or HP". Does anyone really think that would fly?

On another note, if Apple ever gets any kind of significant marketshare with an OS they will get killed by all the lawsuits, you can be sure of that.

With their current policies and tactics, staying a niche product is good for that companies health.

nfoav8or · #6 10-19-2008, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Personally, I think it would be fine if the box were to say something like "This software is intended to be used on genuine Apple hardware and will not work properly on other systems" in big bold letters. They can do as much as they want to their software to ensure that it doesn't run on other hardware, that's their right.

BUT I don't think it's OK for a company to sell an Operating System to the open public, to anyone willing to pay them for it, but then stipulate that you can only use it on hardware produced by them. That doesn't even make sense. If it's only for their hardware then it should only come with their hardware.

No other company does this, is allowed to do this, at least as far as I know. I can't go to the store and buy the OS from my PS3, or my DVR, or my PSP, etc.

Nicely said.

Taisto · #7 10-19-2008, 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dies

Huh?

You want to re-phrase that? Can't sell PC's with Windows?

European Union is fighting to forbid ( cause i don`t think they've succeded yet ) selling computers with pre-installed operating system ( as far as it`s not free ) inside the Union, and it hits mainly Microsoft of course. That`s what i had in mind

Dies · #8 10-19-2008, 11:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taisto

European Union is fighting to forbid ( cause i don`t think they've succeded yet ) selling computers with pre-installed operating system ( as far as it`s not free ) inside the Union, and it hits mainly Microsoft of course. That`s what i had in mind

Gotcha.

Sorry, didn't click for me.

Personally, I agree with the EU and really hope they stick it to MS instead of caving in to pressure or worse selling out. Because somebody has to eventually, and as far as I can tell it's not going to happen on this side of the pond.

People shouldn't be forced to buy software when the only thing they want to buy is hardware, just like they shouldn't be forced to hardware when all they really want is software.

yncs22 · #9 10-22-2008, 01:50 AM

Microsoft, nor Apple should be allowed to build their own proprietary systems forcing people to buy their's, or forget it. While MS doesn't and never has, Apple has relied upon antiquated hardware to sell high for huge profits from machines that can't match current technology. Apple needs to realize that people are much, much smarter these days, give into the revolution, get on the bandwagon, raise their price on their OSX's and make them compatible aka MS. Apple can still build their own machines, but at the same time offer an OS to keep them from being taken to court. I see this as the only out for Apple...Steve better plan for the future because it's just around the corner before you and I will be able to purchase a MAC OS that will run on 99% of the homebuilt machines and manufacturers in the world. It's the only way.