Apple, Psystar seek protective order in preparation for trial

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Apple and unauthorized Mac clone maker Psystar have agreed to restrict access to certain trade secrets and software code in an effort to avoid any leaks to their respective competitors as they near the discovery process that will precede a formal trial.



Filed yesterday, the 18-page order will bound both parties to an agreement requiring all "personal, proprietary, or confidential information or trade secrets" be labeled with "CONFIDENTIAL" and/or "CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY". The order is pending approved by Northern District of California Judge William Alsup.



The material in question could be documents, software code, interrogatories, deposition testimony, and other information found during discovery, and it is "not intended to govern" the trial. Presumably, Judge Alsup will establish guidelines of protection during that phase of the litigation.



The protected materials can only be used for prosecuting or defending the legal action, potential appeals included.



"If any party or third party believes that disclosure of Discovery Materials would affect its competitive position, security interests, intellectual properties, or technological developments in an adverse manner," the order states, "that party or third party may designate the Discovery Materials as 'CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY.'"



The order continues, "The designation...shall be limited to Discovery Materials that the disclosing part in good faith believes contain extremely sensitive confidential information, the disclosure of which would create a substantial risk of serious competitive injury."



Either side will have an opportunity to review the résumés of their adversary's expert witnesses before they view the material and object at their discretion to any individual's participation. Once approved, those experts will be barred from consulting with a competitor (giving advice, analysis, or recommendations) for a full year after the trial – or appeal – has concluded. Each will sign an agreement attesting to those conditions before they participate.



Special provisions are in place for the discovery of software code produced by Psystar or Apple. Each side must make a secured computer "without access of any kind to the Internet or...network" available in a secure room at the law office of their attorneys. Every person who enters and leaves the room must sign and date a log, and no written or electronic record can be made of the software code, with one exception.



"The producing party shall make available a laser printer with commercially reasonable printing speeds for on-site printing during inspection of the Software Code," the order says. Printing is allowed only when "reasonably necessary" for case preparation, and only the portions needed can be printed. Those documents must be returned to the producing party at the end of all legal proceedings.



Apple, of course, has much more to lose if its software code is made public, as it would clear several hurdles for individuals who want to run Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware, putting the obvious competitive disadvantages with other companies aside. Psystar, meanwhile, may have to disclose the code it uses to circumvent the protection Apple uses to institute kernel panics and infinite loops on non-authorized hardware.



Psystar recently amended its complaint in mid-February, repeating its allegations that Apple is misusing its copyright to prevent third-parties from entering the Mac hardware business. Apple first sued last July to halt the cloner from selling its Open Computers with a hacked version of Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard installed. Apple's End User Licensing Agreement forbids the use of its software on non-Apple hardware.



The trial is scheduled for November 9th.
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 44
    [conspiracy theory]



    What if it was Psystar's purpose all along just to get this information so they can leak it? If they reveal this stuff they go to jail for a few months and pay a big fine that they can't afford and won't end up paying anyway. Apple has a much bigger downside though and a leak like that can't be taken back.



    [/conspiracy theory]



    Also, what's with the super high security, but then they are allowed to print it out, stuff it in the lawyers briefcase and walk out the door with it?

    WTF?
  • Reply 2 of 44
    Pystar, lawyers and whoever is funding them have zero class.
  • Reply 3 of 44
    teckstudteckstud Posts: 6,476member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by virgil-tb2 View Post


    [conspiracy theory]



    what if it was psystar's purpose all along just to get this information so they can leak it? If they reveal this stuff they go to jail for a few months and pay a big fine that they can't afford and won't end up paying anyway. Apple has a much bigger downside though and a leak like that can't be taken back.



    [/conspiracy theory]



    also, what's with the super high security, but then they are allowed to print it out, stuff it in the lawyers briefcase and walk out the door with it?

    Wtf?



    OMG_ you're the first post- full of blah, blah, blah.

    Always paranoid and negative. Always a stomach full of koolaid.

  • Reply 4 of 44
    elrothelroth Posts: 1,201member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by teckstud View Post


    OMG_ you're the first post- full of blah, blah, blah.

    Always negative. Always a stomach full of koolaid.





    Can you imagine what Apple's code would be worth to certain other parties?



    Your post is funny - you always make up scenarios where Apple is the bad guy - can't stand it when other posts disagree with that? You're the negative one.
  • Reply 5 of 44
    Is it me or do Pystar not get the idea that Apple is a hardware company, but the software is there as an "extra" to run the hardware at its best.Or have I got the wrong idea?



    I just don't get why they are t rying to ruin a good thing it makes me sad!!
  • Reply 6 of 44
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by elroth View Post


    Well, Pollyanna, can you imagine what Apple's code would be worth to certain other parties? You always make up scenarios where Apple is the bad guy - can't stand it when other posts disagree with that? You're the negative one.



    He's just getting back at me for once saying that teckstud was the first post and that he was usually negative about everything etc.



    I was joking a bit with the paranoid stuff, but I'm sure that bad things *can* happen otherwise why have the protections in place at all? Lawyers can usually be counted on to be professional I guess, but everything about the personality of the Psystar defendants argues for them not giving a rat's behind about Apple's IP.
  • Reply 7 of 44
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by elroth View Post


    Can you imagine what Apple's code would be worth to certain other parties?



    Your post is funny - you always make up scenarios where Apple is the bad guy - can't stand it when other posts disagree with that? You're the negative one.



    You expect anything less from a handle ala, teckstud? Stud? Seriously?
  • Reply 8 of 44
    I can't see how Psystar has made it this far. Apple has done all the copyrighting they could have done to protect OS X. If Apple does not want people to run their software on other hardware, they have the right to do so.
  • Reply 9 of 44
    Quote:

    Psystar, meanwhile, may have to disclose the code it uses to circumvent the protection Apple uses to institute kernel panics and infinite loops on non-authorized hardware.



    This is getting annoying, whoever wrote this either doesn't understand how the system works, or is lying on purpose. If that is Psystars argument, they are full of shit.



    That kernel panic happens because XNU expects the firmware to pass a device tree among other things to the kernel during boot, because XNU doesn't probe hardware like other kernels. BIOS can't do this, so the kernel can't continue and issues a panic, causing a reboot, which will happen over and over unless you use a small piece of code to pass a basic device tree to XNU. That is not a protection method. The protection method involves encrypted binaries and a key sitting in a chip in the hardware.



    To imply that Apple is intentionally causing kernel panics on unauthorized hardware is completely crap, they don't need to do that.
  • Reply 10 of 44
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mrsteveman1 View Post


    his is getting annoying, whoever wrote this either doesn't understand how the system works, or is lying on purpose. If that is Psystars argument, they are full of shit.



    That kernel panic happens because XNU expects the firmware to pass a device tree among other things to the kernel during boot, because XNU doesn't probe hardware like other kernels. BIOS can't do this, so the kernel can't continue and issues a panic, causing a reboot, which will happen over and over unless you use a small piece of code to pass a basic device tree to XNU. That is not a protection method. The protection method involves encrypted binaries and a key sitting in a chip in the hardware.



    To imply that Apple is intentionally causing kernel panics on unauthorized hardware is completely crap, they don't need to do that.



    It's interesting how Psystar's version of what Apple is doing here has become the "standard explanation" even by those that don't agree with their suit.



    Thanks for posting this. In all the threads I have read on the main Apple forums since this fiasco started, I don't think anyone has ever bothered to mention that Psystar's assertion about the "forced" kernel panic is simply wrong.
  • Reply 11 of 44
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by UTisNUM1 View Post


    I can't see how Psystar has made it this far. Apple has done all the copyrighting they could have done to protect OS X. If Apple does not want people to run their software on other hardware, they have the right to do so.



    While I agree in sentiment....I think there are two points involved with



    1) It is illegal to alter copyrighted software. If Psystar has done this, it is in the wrong.

    2) If MAC OS X can be loaded and run with no modification of software, then the EULA comes into play. Can Psystar be a reseller of Mac OS X without a formal agreement with Apple allowing them to do so? The EULA (END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT) says that it can't be loaded on Non-apple hardware. I'm not sure the EULA actually pertains to Psystar since they were NEVER the end user. They created a system purely as a product for others to buy. The EULA is for the END USER.



    If Apple by any chance loses this case, they will have to stop selling retail boxes of Mac OS X.

    Other means will need to be made to distribute UPDATES.
  • Reply 12 of 44
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by elroth View Post


    Can you imagine what Apple's code would be worth to certain other parties?



    What would it be worth to certain other parties, well, for one thing, M$ Windows 7 will be released ON TIME!
  • Reply 13 of 44
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    I wonder if this will cause SL to be delayed. If Apple needs to make plans on how to distribute it's future OS via retail would they hold of on the release or just switch their retail if they were to lose this case?





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dorotea View Post


    If Apple by any chance loses this case, they will have to stop selling retail boxes of Mac OS X.

    Other means will need to be made to distribute UPDATES.



    Or increase the price to a point that it makes Psystar's clone "value" diminish completely. Either way, the consumer does not benefit from Psystar winning this case.



    A more complex solution for Apple is to offer both two retail versions. One priced at $129 that requires a version of Mac OS X to be pre-installed (like with Windows) and an upgrade version priced, say, at $399 that can be done without the previous OS installed. The former is a PITA in that one must keep and use their old system disc. This may not be a big deal to most on this site but it does add a little complexity and a lot of time when starting from scratch.
  • Reply 14 of 44
    teckstudteckstud Posts: 6,476member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by elroth View Post


    Your post is funny - you always make up scenarios where Apple is the bad guy - can't stand it when other posts disagree with that? You're the negative one.



    No- just VIRGIL-TB2 -that moron. He's a stalker- he posted similar things against me yesterday when what I wrote was far from negative.

    And just curious - what "scenarios" are you talking about that I "made up"?
  • Reply 15 of 44
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dorotea View Post


    If Apple by any chance loses this case, they will have to stop selling retail boxes of Mac OS X.

    Other means will need to be made to distribute UPDATES.



    Good point, and very interesting.



    It would make sense to pull all the retail boxes off the shelf and make this operating system available only with the hardware. All updates will be through the updater. When new version of the operating system becomes available, users have to purchase online from Apple as an upgrade. Since the operating system is intrinsically part of the hardware, the operating system cannot be available without proof of hardware ownership. I think such arrangement is similar to Wii, xBox, and PS2 and 3 which their operating system is intrinsically part of the hardware. The operating system cannot be purchased separately. This may be a direction that Apple may have been considering. Who knows.



    Interesting.
  • Reply 16 of 44
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dorotea View Post


    1) It is illegal to alter copyrighted software. If Psystar has done this, it is in the wrong.



    It is illegal to modify and distribute copyrighted software (that is what Psystar is doing, though there is some wiggleroom on technical differences here). That is copyright law. The EULA is a contract you agree to when you install OS X, in which you agree not to modify the closed source portions of the operating system, if you do that as far as i remember, your rights under the EULA evaporate including your right to use the software.



    Quote:

    2) If MAC OS X can be loaded and run with no modification of software, then the EULA comes into play. Can Psystar be a reseller of Mac OS X without a formal agreement with Apple allowing them to do so? The EULA (END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT) says that it can't be loaded on Non-apple hardware. I'm not sure the EULA actually pertains to Psystar since they were NEVER the end user. They created a system purely as a product for others to buy. The EULA is for the END USER.



    It can't, and they can't. They have the right to purchase and resell boxed copies all they want, but in the absence of specific permission or a license to use the software in any way, they have no rights other than to simply resell what they already purchased. The EULA is the binding contract of use here, and until a court rules otherwise Psystar has no rights outside that contract, and it explicitly prohibits Psystar from doing what they are doing.



    Quote:

    If Apple by any chance loses this case, they will have to stop selling retail boxes of Mac OS X. Other means will need to be made to distribute UPDATES.



    They could simply put some language on the package that says "this is a reduced cost upgrade license to OS X Snow Leopard". Full licenses come with the machine, or you can write to apple and ask to buy one (which they won't do).



    However as others noted, they could (and should) make upgrades available inside the OS, perhaps the last point update to Leopard will include this ability. They still need to distribute physical discs for reinstallation, and they could offer an exchange program. Bring in your newly updated Mac with the restore disc and get a Snow Leopard version to replace the original disc.



  • Reply 17 of 44
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 4,387member
    If code has to be submitted by both parties, I would love to see what Psystar did to circumvent Apple's security. I believe they used (ripped-off) code from the Hackintosh community to accomplish this.



    Looks like Psystar's greed is going to come back to bite them and quite possibly get the Hackintosh community shut down. Leave it to one one person (entity) to ruin it for everyone else.



    I really hope the owners of Psystar get their testicles laid out on the chopping block. I don't understand why the courts did not issue some kind of injunction on Psystar to bar them from selling the clones until the case is finished. Worst case, Apple would have to pay damages to them - not like that would ever happen anyways.



    The court system takes way too long to deal with such nonsense.
  • Reply 18 of 44
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by teckstud View Post


    No- just VIRGIL-TB2 -that moron. He's a stalker- he posted similar things against me yesterday when what I wrote was far from negative.

    And just curious - what "scenarios" are you talking about that I "made up"?



    now that IS paranoid
  • Reply 19 of 44
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by teckstud View Post


    No- just VIRGIL-TB2 -that moron. He's a stalker- he posted similar things against me yesterday when what I wrote was far from negative.

    And just curious - what "scenarios" are you talking about that I "made up"?



    Keep this up and I'll be obliged to report you lady.



    To any mods: This will be my last post to this person, but if there was a way to filter out the posts I'd be obliged if you could send me PM about it. It's so hard not to respond.
  • Reply 20 of 44
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2 View Post


    Keep this up and I'll be obliged to report you lady.



    To any mods: This will be my last post to this person, but if there was a way to filter out the posts I'd be obliged if you could send me PM about it. It's so hard not to respond.



    can't you put him on the "ignore list" ?? I've found it useful, but then s/he gets quoted anyway. perhaps thats "his" goal in life?
Sign In or Register to comment.