Apple, Psystar ask court to set trial date for next November

[AppleInsider]

A proposal that would have had Apple and unauthorized Mac clone maker Psystar potentiall settle their legal dispute may not result in an out-of-court deal, with the two firms more recently asking a judge to approve a lengthy discovery and court schedule that would end in a trial next fall.

The timetable was part of a proposed case management order filed by the two companies last Thursday, which requests that initial disclosures begin later this month, fact discovery end late next June, and a trial be scheduled for November 9, 2009.

Apple sued Psystar in July, claiming the small Florida-based firm was violating its copyright and trademark rights -- as well as the terms of the Mac OS X Software License Agreement -- through online sales of its Open Computer, an unauthorized version of Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard running on knock off, non-Apple-branded hardware.

About a month later, Psystar responded with a countersuit that accused the Mac maker of violating federal antitrust laws by unfairly attempting to squeeze potential rivals out of the market. It retained the services of Carr & Ferrell LLP, a Palo Alto-based firm specializing in intellectual property litigation that has successfully taken on Apple in the past.


Outside of Apple's motion to have Psystar's countersuit dismissed, neither of the two companies believe the issues in dispute in the case can be narrowed down or simplified.

"The Parties do not believe that this type of case can be handled on an expedited basis with streamlined procedures," they wrote in the filing. As such, they've proposed the following discovery and court schedule that, if approved, would stretch over the course of the next year:



In the meantime, the extended timetable may afford Psystar more time to grow its unsanctioned Mac clone business with the introduction of new models. In an email reply to one AppleInsider reader last week, an unidentified Psystar representative assured that the company was hard at work on its first Mac notebook clone, which it plans to price competitively.

Last month, it was reported that Apple and Psystar had agreed to pursue a mediated settlement to their legal dispute, though the mediation is non-binding and so doesn't prevent a court battle by itself.

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

[Ireland]

Psystar were hoping to get a payoff, now they'll end up homeless.

[Walter Slocombe]

what the F88K does dispositve mean?

NEGATIVE ?

well why can no americans actually say it? was it passed in law or something?

I hope fakestar burn

[BlackSummerNight]

I'm pulling for Psystar!

[zinfella]

Originally Posted by BlackSummerNight

I'm pulling for Psystar!

Even Hitler had fans.

[Zoolook]

Originally Posted by zinfella

Even Hitler had fans.

Psystar are Nazis because they want to sell affordable upgradable desktops?

I am all for Apple being able to protect their intellectual property, but whatever happened to the free market?

[lfmorrison]

Originally Posted by Walter Slocombe

what the F88K does dispositve mean?

NEGATIVE ?

well why can no americans actually say it? was it passed in law or something?

I hope fakestar burn

"Dispositive motion" == Motion asking the court to preemptively dispose of one or more of the claims (basically a summary judgment in favor of the side making the motion), without the need to present evidence in trial.

[Foo2]

Originally Posted by Zoolook

Psystar are Nazis because they want to sell affordable upgradable desktops?

I am all for Apple being able to protect their intellectual property, but whatever happened to the free market?

The "free" market is Linux, BSD UNIX, OpenSolaris, etc., not ripping off other people's (or Apple's) work.

[zinfella]

Originally Posted by Zoolook

Psystar are Nazis because they want to sell affordable upgradable desktops?

I am all for Apple being able to protect their intellectual property, but whatever happened to the free market?

A free market does not include Pystar infringing on Apple's OS. Nobody said anything about Nazi's. You do speak English? My comment pointed to the fact that even criminals have supporters. Some people want chaos in the marketplace because they aren't smart enough to see the downside. Just give them something cheap, even if it's illegal.

[stonybrookadam]

Originally Posted by BlackSummerNight

I'm pulling for Psystar!

Either you're anti-mac, or simply ignorant as to Apple's business model.

Apple doesn't charge $1170 ($1299-$129) for the Macbook's hardware, nor does it charge $129 for a full license of OSX to be used on any machine. There is a intricate interplay of hardware and software engineering costs which are hidden behind a "product" that is Macintosh. There is NO monopoly, as Apple owns both the software and hardware. This is pears and oranges compared to Microsoft, who used their position as a market leader to coerce OTHER companies (Dell, HP) to sell only their product.

Apple can do whatever they like with their own IP. They can't strong-arm others into using MacOS, but they sure as hell can decide on what machines their software can run. The key difference here is "if you don't like it, don't buy it". If you don't like the Macintosh package, don't buy it. There are plenty of competitive products out there.

Psystar's bottom line would become a lot less padded if they suddenly had to develop and OS (R&D) and support the product. How many people would pay for a $299 copy of MacOS to run on generic x86 hardware? That number was pulled from my seat, but something similar could be justified by Apple, I'm sure.

I'm sure fanboys will decry the lower quality of Psystar hardware. They're right, but that's not the point. I'm sure Psystar supporters will claim overpriced Apple hardware. Many would disagree (I've seen several users buy Macbook(pro)s and use them exclusively for Windows), but the core argument is dead wrong. You're not buying the hardware, you're buying the whole shebang, including the license to use MacOS.

[MJ Web]

As I posted last week...

"I believe AAPL really bungled this case by entering into arbitration. I read it as a legal ploy to exhaust Psystar's legal options but it has backfired on AAPL. Psystar is now rubbing the mediation process in AAPL's face. The tail is wagging the dog!"

Psystar rubbing BluRay and notebooks in AAPL's face bought the company to its senses! Good.

[zinfella]

Originally Posted by MJ Web

As I posted last week...

"I believe AAPL really bungled this case by entering into arbitration. I read it as a legal ploy to exhaust Psystar's legal options but it has backfired on AAPL. Psystar is now rubbing the mediation process in AAPL's face. The tail is wagging the dog!"

Psystar rubbing BluRay and notebooks in AAPL's face bought the company to its senses! Good.

You know there is absolutely nothing stopping anyone from adding a BluRay drive to their MacPro. Nobody needs Pystar fot that. If you're betting on Pystar, you're betting on a dead horse.

[Zoolook]

Originally Posted by Foo2

The "free" market is Linux and BSD UNIX, not ripping off other people's (or Apple's) work.

I find myself on a very weird side of the argument. I am ususually the one getting panned on forums for speaking out against ripping off copyright material (copied movies, music, games ect).

In this case, I do think the market would now benefit from Apple licensing it's OS. Personally I probably would not buy a clone, but that's not the point. Having said that, the answer is not for companies to just go ahead without permission, as Psystar have done, but to negotiate in the propper manner.

[Zoolook]

Originally Posted by zinfella

A free market does not include Pystar infringing on Apple's OS. Nobody said anything about Nazi's.

My bad. I thought Hitler was a Nazi. Sorry for the confusion.

[PG4G]

I agree.

What are the issues here:

1. What Psystar are doing is just plain illegal. Apple has the right to say "we will only allow installation of this product on a machine we make" and by buying a copy of Mac OS X, you are signing such an agreement. You break the EULA by installing a copy of the OS on a computer that is not apple's. You broke a contract you signed. Psystar is deliberately selling computers for this exact purpose and providing the means for people to break the law. Just because they don't install themselves does not mean they are not, at the very least, accessories to it, and at the most, they are as responsible for it.

2. I bought a mac. In that, I didn't just pay for hardware. I paid for an OS on this device. Anyone who thinks that paying $129 for an upgrade is full price? No. Go jump. Thats the upgrade's price. You paid for the complete package when buying a mac, and now just pay an additional fee to get the small upgrade. The true costs are held in the mac. Again, this is part of the EULA. To buy the copy of OS X you must only install on a device previously installed with OS X, thus Apple have received money they deserve for the upgrade, not the full price.

To buy an upgrade, and to install from scratch on a device that never had Mac OS X preinstalled, is illegal. You never paid the full price for the OS. You paid for an upgrade version.
Psystar is clearly acting illegally.

Now, as for the free market?

Um... if I make a painting, should it be ok to create replicas without my permission, and sell them off? No. If I made music, do I get to choose where its sold? Yes. If I wrote a book that I didn't want to be published, but you did without my permission and chucked me a small sum of money and said "here you are, I know you didn't want me to sell your autobiography, but heh, I did, so you deserve a bit of money for it" was that fair?

No.

Apple has the right to control its artistic/creative work under the law.

You do not pay for the OS on your computer. You pay for the right to have it on your computer and use it. Its called a licence.

Everyone's screaming about DRM. I wonder why its there?

*points to the mac situation*

[BlackSummerNight]

I don't give two shits about Apple's business model. I want to load OS X on what I want. It's a monopoly and they should be stopped.

Originally Posted by stonybrookadam

Either you're anti-mac, or simply ignorant as to Apple's business model.

Apple doesn't charge $1170 ($1299-$129) for the Macbook's hardware, nor does it charge $129 for a full license of OSX to be used on any machine. There is a intricate interplay of hardware and software engineering costs which are hidden behind a "product" that is Macintosh. There is NO monopoly, as Apple owns both the software and hardware. This is pears and oranges compared to Microsoft, who used their position as a market leader to coerce OTHER companies (Dell, HP) to sell only their product.

Apple can do whatever they like with their own IP. They can't strong-arm others into using MacOS, but they sure as hell can decide on what machines their software can run. The key difference here is "if you don't like it, don't buy it". If you don't like the Macintosh package, don't buy it. There are plenty of competitive products out there.

Psystar's bottom line would become a lot less padded if they suddenly had to develop and OS (R&D) and support the product. How many people would pay for a $299 copy of MacOS to run on generic x86 hardware? That number was pulled from my seat, but something similar could be justified by Apple, I'm sure.

I'm sure fanboys will decry the lower quality of Psystar hardware. They're right, but that's not the point. I'm sure Psystar supporters will claim overpriced Apple hardware. Many would disagree (I've seen several users buy Macbook(pro)s and use them exclusively for Windows), but the core argument is dead wrong. You're not buying the hardware, you're buying the whole shebang, including the license to use MacOS.

Anti-Mac? I own a iMac, Mackbook Pro, and have bought 2 iPhones. Just because I don't agree with them doesn't mean I'm Anti-anything.

[PG4G]

Originally Posted by Zoolook

I find myself on a very weird side of the argument. I am ususually the one getting panned on forums for speaking out against ripping off copyright material (copied movies, music, games ect).

In this case, I do think the market would now benefit from Apple licensing it's OS. Personally I probably would not buy a clone, but that's not the point. Having said that, the answer is not for companies to just go ahead without permission, as Psystar have done, but to negotiate in the propper manner.

Would the market benefit? Probably. Would Apple? No. Its their right to choose what happens with the OS here.

Just because you want the OS to be licensable doesn't mean its right for Psystar to win in this case. They are clearly in the wrong and should have the law brought down on them. This actual issue is not of licensing, its about the fact that they are breaking the law, and we can't let that happen and get away with it or what would it mean for the entire market? Chaos.

My personal opinion surrounding the issue of OS X licensing?
No way. You wonder why OS X is so stable? Its cos it doesn't need 100000 drivers built in, it doesn't need to run on any hardware. It doesn't need to account for anything except maybe 40 different setups computer-wise.

This keeps OS X running like magic.

Windows fell prey to the idea of it being on every computer...

To remind you of Steve's quote from Alan K: "People who want to make good software make their own hardware."

There are many, many reasons for this.

[teckstud]

Originally Posted by Zoolook

I am all for Apple being able to protect their intellectual property, but whatever happened to the free market?

It died with BHO.

[PG4G]

Originally Posted by BlackSummerNight

I don't give two shits about Apple's business model. I want to load OS X on what I want. It's a monopoly and they should be stopped.

Anti-Mac? I own a iMac, Mackbook Pro, and have bought 2 iPhones. Just because I don't agree with them doesn't mean I'm Anti-anything.

Translation:

"I'm an ignorant idiot who doesn't think of the long term consequences of Apple allowing such things. I don't want to remember that if Apple allows it the cost of OS X will be far more than Windows, and I want to be ignorant to what a monopoly is. I also want my cake and I want to eat it too, and I want full control of something that is not, technically, mine."


The Facts:

OS X is NOT yours. You did not buy it with an upgrade. You bought a license and agreed to its terms.

If you realised what allowing OS X to run on any computer would mean for it, you would not want it so badly.

The only reason you want OS X like that is for a crappy cheap computer. Apple provides a mac mini, and if you wanted no OS on there, it would cost as much as the Psystar offering. You are paying a premium for OS X. Let apple sell the OS separately, licensed to everyone, and the OS price will jump somewhere to around $500-600. Pay for that with the Psystar computer and all of a sudden you see that the mac mini is not that bad a deal after all.

You want control of the OS and where you install it? Control freak.

Monopoly? Apple has the right to control its own artistic work under the law. Monopoly refers to when OTHERS have no choice but to buy your product due to bad business practices. You don't have to buy OS X, just buy another computer. A monopoly is not control over a product in a company's hands, its forcing a product down a consumers throat, from any manufacturer. Go to dell and buy a computer - wait, windows. Go to HP. Wait windows. Thats monopoly. Go to apple. Mac OS X. Go to HP Windows. See, you aren't forced anyway.

You don't want a mac, but want OS X? Sorry, thats apple's choice, not yours.

[zinfella]

Originally Posted by Zoolook

My bad. I thought Hitler was a Nazi. Sorry for the confusion.

Whether or not he was a Nazi, had no bearing on my comment. He was a criminal. I didn't use Nazi, but I could have instead said "even Nazi's had their fans", but I didn't. You replied to something that wasn't said. Did you miss reading comprehension in school?

[zinfella]

Originally Posted by BlackSummerNight

I don't give two shits about Apple's business model. I want to load OS X on what I want. It's a monopoly and they should be stopped.

Anti-Mac? I own a iMac, Mackbook Pro, and have bought 2 iPhones. Just because I don't agree with them doesn't mean I'm Anti-anything.

Yes it does, it means that you don't support the law as it exists. As long as you get what YOU want, you DGAFRA.

[Zoolook]

Originally Posted by PG4G

Would the market benefit? Probably. Would Apple? No. Its their right to choose what happens with the OS here.

Irrelevant - anti-trust laws are there to protect consumers and the market, not companies. Ask Microsoft.

Just because you want the OS to be licensable doesn't mean its right for Psystar to win in this case. They are clearly in the wrong and should have the law brought down on them. This actual issue is not of licensing, its about the fact that they are breaking the law, and we can't let that happen and get away with it or what would it mean for the entire market? Chaos.

I agree, which is why I said "the answer is not for companies to just go ahead without permission, as Psystar have done, but to negotiate in the propper manner."

I know actually reading what a person posted can be less interesting than arguing with what you wanted them to say... but I'm all for giving it a go.

My personal opinion surrounding the issue of OS X licensing?
No way. You wonder why OS X is so stable? Its cos it doesn't need 100000 drivers built in, it doesn't need to run on any hardware. It doesn't need to account for anything except maybe 40 different setups computer-wise.

This keeps OS X running like magic.

Windows fell prey to the idea of it being on every computer...

To remind you of Steve's quote from Alan K: "People who want to make good software make their own hardware."

There are many, many reasons for this.

I totally agree with this. I am not sure that Windows 'fell prey' to anything, as it has 92% of the market and created a $300bn company. I guess success is relative though.

[teckstud]

Just let me know when I can get OSX on a SONY VAIO TZ please.

[Zoolook]

Originally Posted by zinfella

Whether or not he was a Nazi, had no bearing on my comment. He was a criminal. I didn't use Nazi, but I could have instead said "even Nazi's had their fans", but I didn't. You replied to something that wasn't said. Did you miss reading comprehension in school?

Do you have to resort to personal insults? Considering on two threads last night you boasted about your maturity and your Christian morality, you seem very quick to both display incredible lack of maturity, and distinctly unpalatable values.

I think you're allowing your feelings from yesterday's discussions to taint your comments in this thread.

[PG4G]

I was just refering to its instability

[Zoolook]

Originally Posted by PG4G

I was just refering to its instability

I know, and agreed - if clone makers built unstable systems endorsed by Apple, then Apple's reputation could be harmed.

[zinfella]

Originally Posted by Zoolook

Do you have to resort to personal insults? Considering on two threads last night you boasted about your maturity and your Christian morality, you seem very quick to both display incredible lack of maturity, and distinctly unpalatable values.

I think you're allowing your feelings from yesterday's discussions to taint your comments in this thread.

You still can't read and respond to what was posted without inventing things that weren't said.

Moreover, you cannot force Apple to negotiate for the use of an operating system that they clearly own, unless they want to, and by now it should be obvious to you that they don't want to. The Mac OS is 100% proprietary!

[BlackSummerNight]

You are a idiot. I haven't broken any laws.

Originally Posted by zinfella

Yes it does, it means that you don't support the law as it exists. As long as you get what YOU want, you DGAFRA.

[Zoolook]

Originally Posted by zinfella

You still can't read and respond to what was posted without inventing things that weren't said.

I'm trying to be reasonable with you, but you seem to lack the capacity for a normal conversation. A quick glance through your post history shows a very high level of anger and antagonism towards other board members. Perhaps you should take up meditating or something, before you do yourself harm?

Moreover, you cannot force Apple to negotiate for the use of an operating system that they clearly own, unless they want to, and by now it should be obvious to you that they don't want to. The Mac OS is 100% proprietary!

A judge can. The only reason Apple has not been subject to the kind of anti-trust laws that MS has, is because of their relatively small market share. As they grow, this may change. It remains to be seen.

[PG4G]

You are a idiot. I haven't broken any laws.

he didn't say you did... he just said that you disagree with the law as it exists surrounding this issue. The law supports Apple in this case. You disagree with that.

[BlackSummerNight]

How do you know that the law will support apple? Has a ruling been release. I think not.

Originally Posted by PG4G

he didn't say you did... he just said that you disagree with the law as it exists surrounding this issue. The law supports Apple in this case. You disagree with that.

[PG4G]

Apple's sued and been countersued like this before.

[monstrosity]

Originally Posted by PG4G

Translation:

"I'm an ignorant idiot who doesn't think of the long term consequences of Apple allowing such things. I don't want to remember that if Apple allows it the cost of OS X will be far more than Windows, and I want to be ignorant to what a monopoly is. I also want my cake and I want to eat it too, and I want full control of something that is not, technically, mine."
.

heheh so true

Down with this damn parasitic Psystar Nazi company, I hope Apple fry them.

[zinfella]

Originally Posted by Zoolook

I'm trying to be reasonable with you, but you seem to lack the capacity for a normal conversation. A quick glance through your post history shows a very high level of anger and antagonism towards other board members. Perhaps you should take up meditating or something, before you do yourself harm?



A judge can. The only reason Apple has not been subject to the kind of anti-trust laws that MS has, is because of their relatively small market share. As they grow, this may change. It remains to be seen.

Judges aren't supposed to legislate, that's the job of legislators. Judges interpret, and this law is as plain as the nose on your face.

You make dumb remarks, I point them out. Apple has been harmed by the illegal use of it's operating system, which is only intended for Macs. Microsoft makes an OS that can be used on nearly any machine, including Macs. If you can't understand the difference, then this thread is over your head.

[Zoolook]

Originally Posted by zinfella

Judges aren't supposed to legislate, that's the job of legislators. Judges interpret, and this law is as plain as the nose on your face.

Well there are two apparently contradictory laws here, aren't there, hence the sue and counter-sue. In this case, the judge will effectively determine which law is upheld; and for all intent and purpose, effectively decide future disputes such as this.

You make dumb remarks, I point them out.... If you can't understand the difference, then this thread is over your head.

Yesterday you claimed to be 3x older than a 23 year old, putting you comfortably into your late 60's. Given your age, why don't you stick to the points and keep the little snipes to yourself. They don't add to the value of your arguments and make you sound like a 14 year old, rather than a 69 year old.

[zinfella]

Originally Posted by Zoolook

Well there are two apparently contradictory laws here, aren't there, hence the sue and counter-sue. In this case, the judge will effectively determine which law is upheld; and for all intent and purpose, effectively decide future disputes such as this.



Yesterday you claimed to be 3x older than a 23 year old, putting you comfortably into your late 60's. Given your age, why don't you stick to the points and keep the little snipes to yourself. They don't add to the value of your arguments and make you sound like a 14 year old, rather than a 69 year old.

You'll say anything except that your Nazi reference was off the wall, as nobody was talking about Nazis. That must mean that you cannot admit a mistake. If you continue to post irrelevant remarks, than I'll continue to point them out.

As for this case, let me remind you, that anyone can sue anyone else, at any time, but that does not mean that they will prevail. Pystar counter-sued in a defensive move, but the law is still on Apple's side in this. Apple owns the damn OS, okay? Pystar stole it for their own use, got it now? When all of this is said and done Pystar will be little more than a bad memory for those who were gullible enough to buy their machines.

[zinfella]

Originally Posted by BlackSummerNight

You are a idiot. I haven't broken any laws.

Another one that can't read what was posted!

[Walter Slocombe]

Originally Posted by lfmorrison

"Dispositive motion" == Motion asking the court to preemptively dispose of one or more of the claims (basically a summary judgment in favor of the side making the motion), without the need to present evidence in trial.

Ahh. thanks

still an awful sounding word though.

[zinfella]

Originally Posted by Walter Slocombe

Ahh. thanks

still an awful sounding word though.

By any definition, it simply means that Pystar is clutching at straws. A sure sign that they're in panic mode.

[Zoolook]

Originally Posted by zinfella

You'll say anything except that your Nazi reference was off the wall, as nobody was talking about Nazis. That must mean that you cannot admit a mistake. If you continue to post irrelevant remarks, than I'll continue to point them out.

For me, Hitler invokes 'Nazi' much more strongly than 'criminal' and I am sure that if we did an experiment, where we asked people to respond with a single associated word for 'Hitler' that the vast majority would respond with 'Nazi'. So my assuming you meant Nazi, is hardly off the wall, it was an understandable inference. But I was mistaken.

As for this case, let me remind you, that anyone can sue anyone else, at any time, but that does not mean that they will prevail. Pystar counter-sued in a defensive move, but the law is still on Apple's side in this. Apple owns the damn OS, okay? Pystar stole it for their own use, got it now? When all of this is said and done Pystar will be little more than a bad memory for those who were gullible enough to buy their machines.

Oh so close... almost an entire paragraph without condescension... almost.

You're right anyway; I already said this 12 posts ago to another poster who was able to make the same point you did, without sounding like a teenager.