Apple, would-be ‘Mac cloner’ Psystar seek trial on November 9, 2009

“The presidential election has nothing on the Apple-Psystar copyright imbroglio when it comes to drawn out affairs. The two companies filed paperwork with the California court hearing their dispute in which they ask the court to set a trial date on Nov. 9, 2009,” Paul McDougall reports for InformationWeek.

“In the joint filing, Apple and Psystar said they expect the trial to last about ten days. The court has yet to approve the timetable,” McDougall reports.

“Despite seeking a court date more than a year in advance, ‘The parties believe that this type of case can be handled on an expedited basis with streamlined procedures,’ according to documents filed last week in U.S. District Court for Northern California,” McDougall reports.

Full article here.

15 Comments

  1. The “alternative means” stuff is a farce. Neither side wants the judge to think they’re being obstinate, but the reality is that there is no compromise to be made here.

  2. Although no one is saying, it is highly likely that the arbitration was a request from the judge. It does not appear that Apple has anything to gain from arbitration and the Psytar lawyer said that they did not wish to commit to arbitration. Clearly Psytar thinks that it can win by drawing out this battle as long as possible.

  3. …and given that Psystar was coming across as rather arrogant about the arbitration, I’m guessing those court dates are going to be needed.

    I wonder if Psystar will start making an X-Box clone next, and demanding that Microsoft license the X-Box’s OS for their clone console? Or is this a mere case of OS X envy?

  4. mr_matalino – I’m guessing they’re well-financed (behind the scenes, of course) by companies who desperately want to break Apple’s ability to control how it licenses OS X – most likely a PC maker or two, who want in on the OS X action.

    I’m still not seeing how Psystar can succeed though – would any company that makes both its own hardware and OS software, suddenly be compelled by law to make sure their OS works on third-party hardware?

    Microsoft chooses to license its OS to third parties, but it’s the exception – Apple recoups the cost of OS development with its hardware sales, as does Microsoft with the X-Box, Sony with the Playstation, etc. Could Sony seriously be accused of “monopolistic” behavior because of how they license the Playstation? It’s their product! Why is Apple being treated differently in this regard?

    A Psystar win would set a precedent with ripple effects far beyond just Apple and OS X – I just can’t see the decision coming down in Psystar’s favor without a significant change to our laws. And I can’t see what Psystar or their backers think they can gain by fighting this thing out.

  5. A year from now, it’s likely new OS X will not work on non-Apple hardware, especially a potentially killer OS like Snow Leopard.

    Backup plan: OS only sold through 1) Mac hardware purchase; o r 2) registered Mac owner online purchase or 3) in-store install on your existing Macs.

    3rd Option: OS X DVD standalone price: $500; discount given to joint purchase with some Apple product like Apple TV.

    You think Jobs will give Dell in a snow chance in hell to get in on OS X action? Not even at gun point. Trust me. He’s already got cancer. He’s not afraid of anybody or anything.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.