Apple, Psystar strike deal to avoid trial in Open Computer tussle
Both seeking to avoid the hassles of a full-fledged trial, Apple and unofficial Mac producer Psystar have entered the Alternative Dispute Resolution process to keep their costs to a minimum and the results of their conflict out of the public eye.
First found by The Mac Observer and elaborated upon by CNET, the agreement shifts the two parties' dispute of Psystar's claimed right to sell Mac OS X systems from a decision through a traditional court case to a mediated, non-binding settlement discussion that sees their individual arguments judged on statements and legal grounds; once the mediator makes a decision, it's up to Apple and Psystar to use that information to negotiate a deal.
The filing, submitted earlier in October to a US District of Northern California court, pushes both of the involved companies to hold their necessary mediation sessions by the end of January next year. Neither is bound to reach a settlement by a specific date, however.
Why the two computer builders have mutually agreed to the alternate method isn't known, though Psystar is much smaller than Apple and so can less readily afford to sustain a drawn out court battle over the operating systems installed on its Open Computers.
Journalist Tom Krazit suggests that Apple's incentive to accept Alternative Dispute Resolution is to avoid public discussion of the affair -- a frequent preference for the Mac maker, which rarely ever comments on lawsuits.
And for Apple, the stakes are higher than for the lawsuits it contends with on a regular basis. In attempting to force Apple's hand, Psystar's countersuit accuses Cupertino, Calif.-based Apple of violating antitrust laws and would potentially press Apple to license Mac OS X to third parties. It would also set a legal precedent for other lawsuits charging Apple with tying customers to products regardless of the quality of the hardware or software.
Whatever the outcome, neither of the involved companies can maintain absolute secrecy on the results of the mediation. While Apple won't necessarily be forced to license Mac OS X to all comers, and a restriction on Psystar may not be absolute, it will still be clear which party ultimately gained an advantage over the other.
"If Apple loses the case, and Psystar is allowed to continue selling Mac OS-based Open Computers, it won't really matter if the outcome is kept private, since the availability of Open Computers will tell the tale," Krazit explains. "[But] if Psystar is forced to stop selling Open Computers with Mac OS, we'll likewise notice that."
First found by The Mac Observer and elaborated upon by CNET, the agreement shifts the two parties' dispute of Psystar's claimed right to sell Mac OS X systems from a decision through a traditional court case to a mediated, non-binding settlement discussion that sees their individual arguments judged on statements and legal grounds; once the mediator makes a decision, it's up to Apple and Psystar to use that information to negotiate a deal.
The filing, submitted earlier in October to a US District of Northern California court, pushes both of the involved companies to hold their necessary mediation sessions by the end of January next year. Neither is bound to reach a settlement by a specific date, however.
Why the two computer builders have mutually agreed to the alternate method isn't known, though Psystar is much smaller than Apple and so can less readily afford to sustain a drawn out court battle over the operating systems installed on its Open Computers.
Journalist Tom Krazit suggests that Apple's incentive to accept Alternative Dispute Resolution is to avoid public discussion of the affair -- a frequent preference for the Mac maker, which rarely ever comments on lawsuits.
And for Apple, the stakes are higher than for the lawsuits it contends with on a regular basis. In attempting to force Apple's hand, Psystar's countersuit accuses Cupertino, Calif.-based Apple of violating antitrust laws and would potentially press Apple to license Mac OS X to third parties. It would also set a legal precedent for other lawsuits charging Apple with tying customers to products regardless of the quality of the hardware or software.
Whatever the outcome, neither of the involved companies can maintain absolute secrecy on the results of the mediation. While Apple won't necessarily be forced to license Mac OS X to all comers, and a restriction on Psystar may not be absolute, it will still be clear which party ultimately gained an advantage over the other.
"If Apple loses the case, and Psystar is allowed to continue selling Mac OS-based Open Computers, it won't really matter if the outcome is kept private, since the availability of Open Computers will tell the tale," Krazit explains. "[But] if Psystar is forced to stop selling Open Computers with Mac OS, we'll likewise notice that."
Comments
Wells looks like there are some weak points or bones in Apples closet that it feels to do so.
Nah. This is the sound of Psystar C-c-c-caving.
It's like we know we haven't a case and we don't have the millions to give you so we'll let you win if we keep it all secret.
"If Apple loses the case, and Psystar is allowed to continue selling Mac OS-based Open Computers, it won't really matter if the outcome is kept private, since the availability of Open Computers will tell the tale," Krazit explains. "[But] if Psystar is forced to stop selling Open Computers with Mac OS, we'll likewise notice that."
And if Apple pays off Psystar to go away, noone's gonna know nothing bout anything.
Actually, I'm more interested in finding out if a company like Dell can sell a system and claim that it is "Mac-compatible". Since Apple distributes Boot Camp, I'm really curious how they can keep PC makers from doing the same. Very interesting in my opinion.
Arbitration can be either Non-Binding, or Binding, depending on what the parties agree on. If both parties have agreed to go to Non-Binding Arbitration, they simply want to see what the outcome may be like, because they can still proceed to trial if one or both of the parties dislike the outcome. It may also open the eyes of the weaker party and they may not want to proceed with trial if the decision is financially devestating. At that point, they may want to continue settlement negotiations. If they have agreed to a Binding Arbitration, then that decision is final and the case will not proceed to trial. I would be surprised if both parties agreed to a Binding Arbitration.
The court system always tries to push parties to resolve their case through Mediation or Arbitration because it is far cheaper than going to trial. This is common with any type of civil case. The court would like to save the taxpayer from having to pay for yet another trial.
Exactly. It's cheaper for Apple and Psystar and Apple has nothing to lose.
Besides, I'm not sure why Psystar would even want to settle. They intentionally invited this litigation so that they could test Apple's mettle. I don't know why you'd come this far and then back down. The only acceptable outcome for Psystar is a verdict in its favor - at least if you believe their mission as stated at the outset.
And if Apple pays off Psystar to go away, noone's gonna know nothing bout anything.
Wouldn't this amount to negotiating with blackmailers? I hope Apple destroys Psystar. With their line of argumentation, the micro OS's embedded in coffeemakers would also violate anti-trust laws. It's a feeble argument and Psystar must be blown out of the water.
I just checked their website, and their computers aren't even any cheaper.
Really!!
Operating System
Mac OS X Leopard v10.5
Processor
Processor
Free Upgrade! 2.53 GHz Core2Duo E7200
Memory
4GB DDR2 800
Hard Drive
750GB 7,200RPM SATA
Optical Drive
20x DVD±RW DL
Graphics Card
GeForce 8600GT 512MB
Mouse and Keyboard
Premium Wireless Keyboard and Mouse
Firewire
3 Port Firewire 400 (PCI)
Wireless
802.11n (PCI-E 1x)
Bluetooth
USB Bluetooth Adapter
Warranty
Standard One Year Parts and Support
All this for $1123.00
What Mac competes with this?
Actually, I'm more interested in finding out if a company like Dell can sell a system and claim that it is "Mac-compatible". Since Apple distributes Boot Camp, I'm really curious how they can keep PC makers from doing the same. Very interesting in my opinion.
I get see the relation. Dell has nothing to do with MS' Windows licensing. If MS sells software, if it get a sale on Macs then it's a sale, and it's a full price, not an OEM version, in many cases. MS did limit Vista installs in virtualized mode to Business or Ultimate or something, but I think they even lifted that.
I hope Psystar wins this. I like Apple and all, but I'm "open" for alternatives.
What would that accomplish? Apple would be forced to sell their OS X versions at the same price as WindowsVista Ultime install discs for around $600? How does that help Mac users, who have been getting it for $129 because they've already bought a Mac.
How does it help Apple, who makes it's money from HW? You vision to force Apple to support any and all HW options which is a major complexity for Windows so we'll see new OS X features and more legacy code, and while Apple will increase their marketshare they won't increase their profit from all the additional R&D, software support, and the loss of profit per sale since Windows has to sell about 10(?) OEM versions of Windows to get the same profit that Apple gets from one sale of a Mac? Not to mention it completely ruins the Apple's Mac brand.
Really!!
[...]
What Mac competes with this?
What Mac does that compare to? Plus you have mentioned some basic specs without considering all the things that make a Mac a Mac. like build quality, attention to detail, better optimized drivers, 1 year support of any parts all in a single, simple package. I use OSx86 too, for fun, and it's not ideal for any main use machine.
I hope Psystar wins this. I like Apple and all, but I'm "open" for alternatives.
See!, THERE IS STILL PEOPLE WHO DON'T UNDERSTAND!!!.
Okay, let me go through this again, long time ago when Apple is not in a good condition, they figure out to make their OS open, what's the outcome? For the consumers its good cause they can get Apple OS at cheaper price but its not good for the company, in fact Apple suffered more by making their OS open. Read my post signature and you will understand.
Oh yea, and you know why Windows is bloated? One of it because they need to make a lot and I mean A LOT of hardware support for the different kind of hardwares in the market. Apple approach to close hardware allows them to decide how long they want their computer to be in the market, like for example they can easily make Leopard not compatible with PowerBook G3 and hence stop having to make drivers for the old model which also makes the OS install disk smaller.
How does it help Apple, who makes it's money from HW? You vision to force Apple to support any and all HW options which is a major complexity for Windows so we'll see new OS X features and more legacy code, and while Apple will increase their marketshare they won't increase their profit from all the additional R&D, software support, and the loss of profit per sale since Windows has to sell about 10(?) OEM versions of Windows to get the same profit that Apple gets from one sale of a Mac? Not to mention it completely ruins the Apple's Mac brand.
This post further support my comment, good job, you understand the problem.
What Mac does that compare to? Plus you have mentioned some basic specs without considering all the things that make a Mac a Mac. like build quality, attention to detail, better optimized drivers, 1 year support of any parts all in a single, simple package. I use OSx86 too, for fun, and it's not ideal for any main use machine.
True, plus with the new manufacturing standard, there is no way a small company like Psycrap and have build quality as good as a Mac. I ran OSX86 and its fun but like he says, its not ideal for any main use machine.
Besides accept it, most people who give reason they want a more powerful desktop is cause they want to play games, I know some pros (for video editing and etc) need more powerful desktop and can't afford for a MacPro, but the number of users who give their reasoning of need a more powerful system for their software is minor compared to the number of users who say they need a more powerful desktop for games. MAC is NOT meant to play games!, It can play games but doesn't mean it MUST play games. If you want to play games that much, go Windows.
Sheesh. There are just people who don't understand the real issue here.
Wouldn't this amount to negotiating with blackmailers? I hope Apple destroys Psystar. With their line of argumentation, the micro OS's embedded in coffeemakers would also violate anti-trust laws. It's a feeble argument and Psystar must be blown out of the water.
image :: http://seoblackhat.com/wp-content/up...battleship.jpg
Hee, hee, hee!
As long as Apple makes their software and hardware a antitrust case will never stick, now if they where to license OS X to another company and then decide to leave everyone else in the dark then that's a different story. The main reason they're going to settle out of court is because if psystar loses and is force to bankruptcy then someone is going to jail if Apple's Army of lawyers are not paid, and then since psystar has nothing to lose, Apple looks bad on the public eye
That's good to hear, you work as a lawyer or something like that?
solipsism, love the pic
If Apple doesn't win at any stage you can see the retail price for a box copy of OS X increase to where the cheapest clone is more expensive than a Mac. Not a desirable outcome IMHO.
Besides, I'm not sure why Psystar would even want to settle. They intentionally invited this litigation so that they could test Apple's mettle. I don't know why you'd come this far and then back down. The only acceptable outcome for Psystar is a verdict in its favor - at least if you believe their mission as stated at the outset.
Maybe it was a weak bluff by someone either naive or out of touch with reality.
Case closed. A year from now, this will all be a memory and hopefully, the whiners will wilt away.
People that support Psystar or feel entitled to an "Open" OSX system are either clueless, ignorant, selfish or all of the above. This is all about a company's right to protect its IP property. Any other company would do the exact same thing but for some reason, the whiners think Apple should be excluded from that.