Psystar claims Apple exec "unprepared" for testimony

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
In the latest court filings from the ongoing Apple lawsuit against Psystar, the clone Mac maker accuses Apple executive Phil Schiller of being "unprepared" for his deposition, while the Cupertino, Calif., company seeks to keep its profit margins private.



Last week, Psystar, via its official blog, boasted that it would give Apple officials "a taste of their own medicine," and provided a list of executives who would be deposed. Included was a deposition with Apple's senior vice president of Worldwide Product Marketing, Phil Schiller, scheduled for Aug. 14.



Psystar's deposition of Schiller apparently did not go as the defendant had hoped it would, as the company filed a complaint this week alleging the Apple executive was "wholly unprepared and unwilling to testify" about injuries his company claims to have suffered. Apple has alleged that Psystar's knock-off PCs install Mac OS X by circumventing the software's copy protection and violate the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. According to Psystar's filing, from counsel David Welker, Schiller did not answer questions asked during the deposition. The heavily-redacted document does not include descriptions of the events.



"Apple's furnishing a witness on injury who was wholly unprepared to testify about that subject is a discovery violation that relates to a core issue in this case, the harm, if any, that Apple suffered as a result of Psystar's conduct," Psystar's filing reads. "Psystar respectfully requests that this Court (1) order Apple to properly prepare Mr. Schiller for his deposition as a corporate representative on injury, (2) require that Mr. Schiller appear for a continuation of his deposition in Houston, at the offices of Psystar's lead counsel, within the next fourteen days, and (3) pay Psystar's attorneys' fees associated with Mr. Schiller's deposition, this brief, and any subsequent proceedings."



Apple responded by filing a document in which it said that Psystar's deposition of Schiller was "nothing more than an effort to harass one of Apple's senior executives and prematurely seek expert testimony." It states that the letter from Psystar leaves out key facts, and asks that the request to re-depose Schiller be denied.



"Despite Apple's objections, Psystar's counsel sought testimony on the quantification of damages -- the subject of expert testimony -- rather than the injury suffered by Apple..." the filing from the Townsend Law Firm reads. "Mr. Schiller was fully prepared to discuss the non-quantifiable injury to Apple but Psystar's counsel chose to not ask those questions and terminated the deposition instead."



In another twist, Apple has told the court it will not seek recovery of lost profits from Psystar. The decision came after Apple allegedly reviewed the "still-incomplete financial records" provided by the company, which recently emerged from bankruptcy.



It goes on to say that Apple's internal profit margin data is "closely guarded," and the risk of that information being leaked is not worth the lost profits it might be able to obtain from Psystar. As a result, Apple is no longer seeking those lost profits for recovery in the suit.



"In light of Apple's decision not to seek lost profits and Psystar's stated intent to disclose Apple's confidential information, Apple now seeks a protective order specifically precluding the discovery by Psystar of Apple's non-public profit margins on the sale of individual products or product lines," Apple's filing states. "Indeed, Apple believes that discovery of its non-public financial information should be limited to revenues, R&D and advertising costs related to Mac computers and Mac OS X."



Earlier this month, Apple sent its own laywers to Psystar's Florida headquarters for discovery in the trial, scheduled to start in 2010.
«134

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 79
    Just my uninformed opinion, but to anyone not up to speed on these matters might say these filings sound like the ramblings of a drunken idiot.
  • Reply 2 of 79
    nasseraenasserae Posts: 3,152member
    Quote:

    (3) pay Psystar's attorneys' fees associated with Mr. Schiller's deposition, this brief, and any subsequent proceedings



    Sums it up LOL
  • Reply 3 of 79
    quadra 610quadra 610 Posts: 6,741member
    Apple responded by filing a document in which it said that Psystar's deposition of Schiller was "nothing more than an effort to harass one of Apple's senior executives and prematurely seek expert testimony."



    Sounds about right. Fits Psystar's legal MO perfectly.
  • Reply 4 of 79
    justflybobjustflybob Posts: 1,337member
    God, how I hate Psystar and all they represent.
  • Reply 5 of 79
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,946member
    For copyright and trademark violations, I don't think they holder has to prove there is harm, they only need to show that copyrights and/or trademarks are violated.



    I also don't see how Apple's margins are applicable to the case.
  • Reply 6 of 79
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    For copyright and trademark violations, I don't think they holder has to prove there is harm, they only need to show that copyrights and/or trademarks are violated.



    I was thinking the same thing. Psystar seems to be suggesting that it's okay to violate as long as nobody got hurt.
  • Reply 7 of 79
    Somebody finish off Psystar plz! They are a bunch of losers backed by another bunch of losers. Losers who are not capable of doing anything innovative. Oh wait! They are innovative, in finding lame excuses!

    On a different note, why doesn't Apple buy Psystar? Buy them and finish them off. But I guess it would inspire the 'perpetrators' to launch bigger companies. Keeping that in mind, I think legal route is the best. But, do it quick and clean.
  • Reply 8 of 79
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by nite41 View Post


    Somebody finish off Psystar plz! They are a bunch of losers backed by another bunch of losers. Losers who are not capable of doing anything innovative. Oh wait! They are innovative, in finding lame excuses!

    On a different note, why doesn't Apple buy Psystar? Buy them and finish them off. But I guess it would inspire the 'perpetrators' to launch bigger companies. Keeping that in mind, I think legal route is the best. But, do it quick and clean.



    Oh, this little legal drama could literally go on for a decade if the planets are all in alignment. Psystar is a real tick.
  • Reply 9 of 79
    Even on an pro Apple blog I would have thought there would have been more response to Apple suddenly saying uh, we don't care about getting any of Psystar's profit, just please don't make us show how much we make off everyone who buys a Mac!!!!



    Another reason I'm happy with all three of my hackintoshes, a Dell mini 9 and quad core XPS 420 and a Dell XPS 1530
  • Reply 10 of 79
    chronsterchronster Posts: 1,894member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by justflybob View Post


    God, how I hate Psystar and all they represent.



    What do they represent? I mean, it's one thing to get bored with this whole thing and look down at them, but to hate them for what they "represent" just means you're investing too much emotion into this. I can't think of any reasons to like Psystar per say, but at the same time, no real reason to hate them unless you're Apple lol.



    This whole thing just shows how silly our legal process can be. If you're a lawyer who knows the law well enough, it's like playing a big game.
  • Reply 11 of 79
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mavfan1 View Post


    Even on an pro Apple blog I would have thought there would have been more response to Apple suddenly saying uh, we don't care about getting any of Psystar's profit, just please don't make us show how much we make off everyone who buys a Mac!!!!



    Another reason I'm happy with all three of my hackintoshes, a Dell mini 9 and quad core XPS 420 and a Dell XPS 1530



    Shoo..Bad doggy!!
  • Reply 12 of 79
    quadra 610quadra 610 Posts: 6,741member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mavfan1 View Post


    Even on an pro Apple blog I would have thought there would have been more response to Apple suddenly saying uh, we don't care about getting any of Psystar's profit, just please don't make us show how much we make off everyone who buys a Mac!!!



    It being a "Pro-Apple" site, I don't think a lot of us are really concerned about that.
  • Reply 13 of 79
    tomkarltomkarl Posts: 236member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by chronster View Post


    What do they represent? I mean, it's one thing to get bored with this whole thing and look down at them, but to hate them for what they "represent" just means you're investing too much emotion into this. I can't think of any reasons to like Psystar per say, but at the same time, no real reason to hate them unless you're Apple lol.



    This whole thing just shows how silly our legal process can be. If you're a lawyer who knows the law well enough, it's like playing a big game.





    While I'm not the poster you are questioning, I'll answer anyway.



    They represent thieves who feel they are entitled to do as they wish with no consequences. They and their actions should be hated - IMHO.
  • Reply 14 of 79
    quadra 610quadra 610 Posts: 6,741member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by chronster View Post


    What do they represent? I mean, it's one thing to get bored with this whole thing and look down at them, but to hate them for what they "represent" just means you're investing too much emotion into this. I can't think of any reasons to like Psystar per say, but at the same time, no real reason to hate them unless you're Apple lol.



    This whole thing just shows how silly our legal process can be. If you're a lawyer who knows the law well enough, it's like playing a big game.



    A lot of people who rely on the integrity of IP law to make a living have plenty of reason to hate what they represent.



    For instance, NO ONE selling computers or software in the current market is interested in seeing a legal precedent set that blows a hole in the principle of the EULA, and that's only a small part of the issue.
  • Reply 15 of 79
    physguyphysguy Posts: 914member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mavfan1 View Post


    Even on an pro Apple blog I would have thought there would have been more response to Apple suddenly saying uh, we don't care about getting any of Psystar's profit, just please don't make us show how much we make off everyone who buys a Mac!!!!



    Another reason I'm happy with all three of my hackintoshes, a Dell mini 9 and quad core XPS 420 and a Dell XPS 1530



    The perfect example of someone who doesn't buy for value to themselves but based on perceived cost. What is the value of your time or your pleasure? (buying for work or entertainment respectively). This is what should set what you're willing to pay - not the cost of the item.



    Cost should enter the equation on in terms of 'is there a business here' - a reason for someone to provide the product or service for your need or 'in there a better business here' - competition - can I provide this for a lesser price and still satisfy the need and make a profit.



    Apple doesn't want (nor should they) to sell products at cost+. This never make for a great business.



    If the Dell's meet your needs for that value that's great and its exactly what you should buy. OTH, if the hackintoshes do so, but at an illegal cost to Apple (loss of a sale) then there needs to be redress for that. There has been nothing published that indicates the Psystar IS NOT violating Apple's rights under current law.
  • Reply 16 of 79
    wigginwiggin Posts: 2,265member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mavfan1 View Post


    Even on an pro Apple blog I would have thought there would have been more response to Apple suddenly saying uh, we don't care about getting any of Psystar's profit, just please don't make us show how much we make off everyone who buys a Mac!!!!



    It's perfectly understandable. Apple was originally asking for that and would have known that they'd have to show how they determined damages. They didn't withdraw that claim until after Psystar opening stated it was their intention to make public any data Apple was required to provide to them during discovery. Based on Psystar's previous behavior, even if the court told them they couldn't publicly release the information they obtained via discovery, I would not put it passed them to release it anyway. Maybe they'd claim that a hacker broke into their files and stole the information and released it on the internet or some other lame excuse (right up there with their "it's not our fault we can't produce those emails, our system occassionally and randomly deletes messages" excuse).



    Since Psystar's operations were so small, I'm sure the damages would be equaly small (and difficult to quantify because Pystar also conveniently lost or didn't keep any financial records of their company's operations). With another company, Apple could reasonably expect that a court's order to protect their proprietary data would be respected by the other side. But the relatively small amount of money they'd recover wouldn't be worth the risk of letting Psystar have access to that data now that we've seen how childish and imature Psystar is acting.
  • Reply 17 of 79
    leonardleonard Posts: 528member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mavfan1 View Post


    Even on an pro Apple blog I would have thought there would have been more response to Apple suddenly saying uh, we don't care about getting any of Psystar's profit, just please don't make us show how much we make off everyone who buys a Mac!!!!



    It's because any Apple geek user already knows the profit margins anyways. It not like it's news to us buddy! I'm surprised it's news to you!
  • Reply 18 of 79
    paxmanpaxman Posts: 4,589member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by chronster View Post


    What do they represent? I mean, it's one thing to get bored with this whole thing and look down at them, but to hate them for what they "represent" just means you're investing too much emotion into this. I can't think of any reasons to like Psystar per say, but at the same time, no real reason to hate them unless you're Apple lol.



    Not that I care much one way or the other (my caring would be pretty baseless) but I can see a reason to like Psystar - if you jump back in time and change the names from Psystar to Apple and Apple to IBM you might see a David v Goliath battle with heroic and ballsy Jobs at the helm. Sure, Psystar is not a company that exudes originality nor creative vision, on the contrary. But they bring cheaper macs to the market (do they? I really have no idea about their products) and they don't let themselves get bullied. So I give them 10 out of ten for ballsy.
  • Reply 19 of 79
    nagrommenagromme Posts: 2,834member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mavfan1 View Post


    Even on an pro Apple blog I would have thought there would have been more response to Apple suddenly saying uh, we don't care about getting any of Psystar's profit, just please don't make us show how much we make off everyone who buys a Mac!!!!



    Another reason I'm happy with all three of my hackintoshes, a Dell mini 9 and quad core XPS 420 and a Dell XPS 1530



    Ah, that's a fun myth



    But I don't think that "Psytar's profit" when all this is done, is worth much of ANYTHING. This is not Apple turning down some sweet payout to protect an evil secret. This is Apple turning down something worth very little. Does that mean Apple's profit margins are worth very little?



    Have fun with the Mini 9 though--I wish Apple made a smaller Air (10" would be great).
  • Reply 20 of 79
    leonardleonard Posts: 528member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mavfan1 View Post


    Another reason I'm happy with all three of my hackintoshes, a Dell mini 9 and quad core XPS 420 and a Dell XPS 1530



    By the way, I have no problem with individuals making their own hackintoshes, that's not what this is. I have a problem with a company like Psystar making money off of hackintoshes and leaching off of Apple's hard work and name. If you want to make Mac clones, you go to Apple and ask to license MacOS X., just likke Dell licenses Windows to put on Windows boxes. I just think it's low and sleazy to go behind someone's back and use their product to make money off it.
Sign In or Register to comment.