Psystar agrees to pay Apple $2.7M in settlement

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
First on AI: Clone Mac maker Psystar has agreed to pay Apple $2.7 million in damages in a deal that will likely bring the company's sale of unauthorized computers preinstalled with Mac OS X to an end.



In a joint filing from Apple and Psystar Corporation in a San Francisco court Tuesday, Psystar agreed to pay Apple $1,337,500 in damages over copyright infringement, breach of contract, and violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Additional damages and attorneys fees amounted to another $1,337,500, bringing the total to $2.675 million. Psystar had already lost those complaints in a summary judgment from Judge William Alsup in November.



In exchange for the payout, Apple has agreed to not refile claims of trademark infringement, trade dress infringement, trademark dilution, state unfair competition, and common law unfair competition -- items that were not ruled on by Alsup in his summary judgment.



The agreement was signed by attorneys James G. Gilliland, representing Apple, and K. A. D. Camara, counsel for Psystar.



Both parties have also agreed that the terms of the deal will not be argued in favor of or against the venue in the ongoing, separate lawsuit filed by Psystar against Apple in Florida. In that suit, Psystar has alleged that Apple is engaged in "anticompetitive attempts to tie Mac OS X Snow Leopard to its Macintosh line of computers."



But a separate filing from Psystar Monday indicates that the Florida corporation hopes to continue to sell its Rebel EFI product. The $50 application, released in October, allows individuals to install Mac OS X on unauthorized third-party machines. It is compatible with Apple's latest operating system, Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard. That issue will likely be contended by Apple, which previously alleged that the Rebel EFI product amounted to "trafficking in circumvention devices."



At question is Psystar's ability to pay the $2.7 million in damages. The company filed for bankruptcy earlier this year, only to emerge from Chapter 11. But Psystar's total assets, according to court filings, are said to be less than $50,000. Apple, in seeking a permanent injunction to prevent Psystar sales, told the court last week that it believed the company would be unable to pay any damages.



"Even if Psystar could pay damages, the harm to Apple's brand, reputation and goodwill is unquantifiable," Apple said.



The beginning of the end for Psystar came in November, when Alsup ruled in favor of Apple on multiple counts in a summary judgment. Had the two parties not come to an agreement, trial was set to start in January 2010 over the remaining issues.
«1345

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 87
    rot'napplerot'napple Posts: 1,839member
    On whole, they sold that many computers, of all stripes, to afford the settlement? WOW!
  • Reply 2 of 87
    "Even if Psystar could pay damages, the harm to Apple's brand, reputation and goodwill is unquantifiable," Apple said.



    Apple who?
  • Reply 3 of 87
    So long Psystar and good riddance.
  • Reply 4 of 87
    Merry xmas Psystar! lol
  • Reply 5 of 87
    teckstudteckstud Posts: 6,476member
    Psystar, we hardly knew ye.
  • Reply 6 of 87
    teckstudteckstud Posts: 6,476member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by estolinski View Post


    "Even if Psystar could pay damages, the harm to Apple's brand, reputation and goodwill is unquantifiable," Apple said.



    Apple who?



    Paltrow or is it Martin?
  • Reply 7 of 87
    The amount of $1,337,500 made me chuckle.
  • Reply 8 of 87
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by estolinski View Post


    "Even if Psystar could pay damages, the harm to Apple's brand, reputation and goodwill is unquantifiable," Apple said.



    Apple who?



    Joe Apple.



  • Reply 9 of 87
    c4rlobc4rlob Posts: 277member
    17 months, millions of dollars in damages and attorney fees - all just to figure out what any grade schooler with common sense could tell you? Putting someone else's lunch in your own lunchbox doesn't change the fact that you stole someone's lunch.
  • Reply 10 of 87
    Pwned.
  • Reply 11 of 87
    Ouch. Can't help but feel a little bad (even if they were asking for it).
  • Reply 12 of 87
    Was there ever really another possible outcome to their plan?



    Basing a business model on a South Park episode is never a good idea.



    1. Steal OSX.

    2. ?????

    3. Profit!
  • Reply 13 of 87
    nceencee Posts: 836member
    In exchange for the payout, Apple has agreed to not refile claims of trademark infringement, trade dress infringement, trademark dilution, state unfair competition, and common law unfair competition -- items that were not ruled on by Alsup in his summary judgment.



    So if they don't pay, can and will Apple "re-file claims of Trademark …"?
  • Reply 14 of 87
    sheffsheff Posts: 1,407member
    2.7 Million? If the reports of them only selling under 200,000 units are true, this may be like 80% of their profits.
  • Reply 15 of 87
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sheff View Post


    2.7 Million? If the reports of them only selling under 200,000 units are true, this may be like 80% of their profits.



    That's not 80% of their profits, that's more than the revenue they took in period
  • Reply 16 of 87
    malaxmalax Posts: 1,598member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jglavin View Post


    The amount of $1,337,500 made me chuckle.



    Is it funny because of some l33t speak thing that I'm missing or just because it's an odd number? If the latter, it appears to be exactly the same as the attorney's fees, so someone just said "ok double that and we'll call it even."
  • Reply 17 of 87
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


    Ouch. Can't help but feel a little bad (even if they were asking for it).



    I don’t. It was stupid from day one. I’m surprised that they are getting off so easily. I’d have thought Apple would rather make an example of them and set a legal precedent for illegally copying copyrighted code.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jpellino View Post


    Was there ever really another possible outcome to their plan?



    Not to most of us. It’s funny how the Psystar support have become less and less as this went on. TeckStud isn’t even supporting their practice against the big bad Apple.





    Quote:

    Basing a business model on a South Park episode is never a good idea.



    1. Steal OSX.

    2. ?????

    3. Profit!



    That is from a South Park episode? I never knew that. Which one?
  • Reply 18 of 87
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by malax View Post


    Is it funny because of some l33t speak thing that I'm missing or just because it's an odd number? If the latter, it appears to be exactly the same as the attorney's fees, so someone just said "ok double that and we'll call it even."



    It seemed to me that one of the lawyers was trying to be cute with that number
  • Reply 19 of 87
    ..........
  • Reply 20 of 87
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    That is from a South Park episode? I never knew that. Which one?



    Underpants Gnomes.



    Surely taking this to court would have helped set a precedence, rather than putting just one company out of business?



    EDIT: jglavin you beat me to the punch!
Sign In or Register to comment.