Apple and Mac clone maker Psystar have apparently been forced into mediation talks by the judge in the case...but that doesn't mean it won't go to court.
According to filing unearthed by The Mac Observer, Apple and would-be Mac OS clone maker Psystar have been forced into mediation talks by the judge handling the parties suits against each other. Apple has sued Psystar alleging copyright infringement for putting Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware, along with claims of trademark infringement and unfair competition. For its part Psystar sued Apple, claiming the Mac maker engages in unfair competition and violates antitrust law by not allowing others to ship Mac OS X on third-party hardware.
Now, the companies have both agreed to participate in Alternative Dispute Resolution proceedings before the judge will let the matter go to trial. If the two parties can’t work out an agreement or settlement, the judge can decide to move them along to trial, but if the just feels one of the parties is being unreasonable—or, really, for any reason at all—the court can continue to require the parties to keep talking.
Mediation talks are scheduled to begin January 31, 2009.
If Psystar emerges victorious from either the talks or a court battle, it will likely mean open season for computer makers looking to build their own Macs and undercut Apple’s famously high margins on hardware. Psystar is seeking to have Apple’s end user license agreement for Mac OS X declared invalid, but—should it win—could even go after Apple for damages.
Industry watchers currently mark Psystar’s chances of victory as slim: in addition to having to face down Apple’s well-honed legal team and deep cash reserves, the company’s claims that Apple is guilty of antitrust violations are difficult to fathom, given that Apple is still very much a minority player in the U.S. (and global) PC market.
Showing 2 comments
RSSEven if Apple wins in court, they lose even more with a developer community that is still threatening to leave them for Android due to Apple's heavy handed treatment.
But why is this such a pickle to the average person? Because Apple produces closed computer devices. Apple generates huge markup by overpricing their hardware.
I have nothing against Apple doing their thing. If someone wants to pay their prices that's just fine, but in the "free market" that we are supposed to have, Apple's license agreements should not forbid competition.
I have no doubt that if Microsoft made a computer, and required that it was the only computer allowed to run Windows - that they would be accused of a hardware monopoly.
The days of a single hardware/software vendor are long past. Everyone wants interoperability, rather than one size fits all.