|
|
| Apple Seeks Order Compelling Psystar to Provide Financial Info |
 |
|
Friday, May 01 2009 @ 03:28 PM EDT
|
Apple has filed a letter brief, redacted, asking the court for an order compelling Psystar to turn over financial documents in discovery and to designate a knowledgeable person to testify as to Psystar's finances. They've been asking for a while, and they did a deposition with the CEO of Psystar, but they tell the judge it didn't work out well, since over 90 times he said he didn't know or couldn't recall even basic things.
Here's Apple's motion to seal confidential portions of the letter brief. The confidential parts have to do with "Psystar Corporation's financial information or testimony regarding its finances". The unredacted portions of the letter brief show Apple telling the judge that Psystar's CEO and founder Rudy Pedraza "would not answer basic questions about Psystar's financials... Mr. Pedraza... stated approximately 90 times during the deposition that he did not know or recall answers to basic questions about Psystar's sales, its general costs and profits, its costs and profits by product line, how it determine it prices and profit margins"... So Apple requests from the court an order compelling Psystar to produce "financial documents sufficient to determine Psystar's revenues, costs, profits, assets and liabilities." Apple would also like the order to include making Psystar make available "a knowledgeable 30(b)(6) designee" for another deposition "at Psystar's expense" on the topic. And it wants its costs covered for having to redo the deposition as a result of Psystar's "inordinate failure to produce and testify".
Psystar has some documents in particular that Apple wants regarding financial projections that Apple noticed attached to some emails that were turned over in discovery, but Psystar, Apple says, turned the emails over without the attachments. Oops. Send their lawyers to discovery dungeon. Seriously. If you are going to withhold, not that one should, you'd think they'd withhold the entire email, not turn over emails that show there were attachments that are not being turned over too.
Here's the docket info from Justia:
April 29, 2009 - 57 - MOTION to Seal Document (Miscellaneous Administrative Request For An Order Permitting The Filing Under Seal Of Confidential Portions Of Letter Brief Dated April 29, 2009) filed by Apple Inc.(a California corporation). (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Permitting The Filing Under Seal Of Confidential Portions Of Letter Brief Dated April 29, 2009)(Chung, Megan) (Filed on 4/29/2009) (Entered: April 29, 2009)
April 29, 2009 - 58 - AFFIDAVIT re 57 MOTION to Seal Document (Miscellaneous Administrative Request For An Order Permitting The Filing Under Seal Of Confidential Portions Of Letter Brief Dated April 29, 2009) MOTION to Seal Document (Miscellaneous Administrative Request For An Order Permitting The Filing Under Seal Of Confidential Portions Of Letter Brief Dated April 29, 2009) (Declaration of Megan M. Chung In Support of Administrative Request) by Apple Inc.(a California corporation). (Chung, Megan) (Filed on 4/29/2009) (Entered: April 29, 2009)
April 29, 2009 - 59 - Letter Brief Dated April 29, 2009 filed byApple Inc.(a California corporation). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (Filed Under Seal), # 2 Exhibit B (Filed Under Seal), # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D (Filed Under Seal))(Chung, Megan) (Filed on 4/29/2009) (Entered: April 29, 2009)
Update: The judge has now scheduled a hearing for next week, according to World of Apple:
Within the past few hours, he issued an Order Scheduling a Hearing on the Discovery Disputes to take place on May 5, 2009. He further ordered that Psystar must respond to Apple’s allegations by May 4, 2009.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Erwan on Friday, May 01 2009 @ 03:31 PM EDT |
If any.
---
Erwan[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Erwan on Friday, May 01 2009 @ 03:31 PM EDT |
Please quote the article's title.
---
Erwan[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Erwan on Friday, May 01 2009 @ 03:32 PM EDT |
As usual.
Another hat trick in under 2mn?
---
Erwan[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 01 2009 @ 04:49 PM EDT |
| Yea, those CEOs are classically forgetful. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: _Arthur on Friday, May 01 2009 @ 05:28 PM EDT |
According to Word of Apple blog, the judge took it seriously,
"As I had suspected, Judge Alsup didn’t let too much time go by before
taking this matter to hand. Within the past few hours, he issued an Order
Scheduling a Hearing on the Discovery Disputes to take place on May 5, 2009.
He further ordered that Psystar must respond to Apple’s allegations by May 4,
2009."
http://news.worldofapple.com/archives/2009/05/01/apple-v-psystar-
discovery-dispute-set-for-hearing/[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 01 2009 @ 05:35 PM EDT |
Apple are using the courts to bully a competitor out of business rather than
relying on their products.
Go Apple! You champions!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: xtifr on Friday, May 01 2009 @ 05:38 PM EDT |
I have never been prouder of the fact that I own absolutely NO Apple equipment!
There was a time (before they switched to Intel) when I wanted an Apple laptop
to run Debian, but no more. I admit that Pystar is looking more and more like a
flakey, fly-by-night operation that was just asking for trouble, and I wouldn't
trust 'em any farther than I could throw 'em, but Apple's position in this whole
mess is increasingly beyond unacceptable. I mean, is there any question at all
that Pystar paid the going rate for Apple software?
---
Do not meddle in the affairs of Wizards, for it makes them soggy and hard to
light.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 02 2009 @ 11:36 PM EDT |
What is unusual about Apple's license? Nothing that I can see. Apple's
license is the norm for proprietary operating systems, not the exception.
For example, most copies of MS Windows are PC OEM versions, which the
license also ties to a specific single PC. The license does not allow you to
transfer that copy to a different PC (even one of the same make and model).
Microsoft does sell a version of MS Windows that isn't tied to a single PC, but
they charge a lot more money for it. In other words, Microsoft are saying that a
license that allows you to install a copy of MS Windows on the hardware of your
choice is a lot more valuable than a copy that is tied to one specific PC. The
only difference with Apple is that Apple don't sell a "retail" version of
OS/X.
Here's some example prices for MS Windows
Vista
- "Microsoft Windows Vista Ultimate - 64-bit - Media Only" -
$36.74. This gets you a copy of the disk. It doesn't get you a
license to run it though. You have to buy a license separately.
- "Microsoft Windows Vista Home Premium - Upgrade" - $192.61. This
is just an upgrade license. You have to already have a valid license for
the appropriate version of MS Windows XP to be entitled to use the upgrade.
- "Microsoft Windows Vista Home Premium with Service Pack 1" -
$231.28. This is the version that lets you install it on the PC of your
choice without having previously bought a license.
If you want
the server version, you can buy "Microsoft Windows Server 2008 Standard - 64-bit
Complete Product - Standard - 1 Server, 5 CAL - Retail - PC $7,486.38". Note
the "5 CAL" (Client Access License) restriction. You are only allowed to use it
with 5 software clients. If you want to hook up more clients, you have to buy
more CALs.
Large PC OEMs are believed to pay somewhere between $50
to $100 per license (prices are negotiated individually with each OEM).
However each OEM license is tied to a single PC, and the PC manufacturer is
responsible for the support costs.
Lots of other software companies
attach similar conditions to the sale of licenses. It lets them slice and dice
the market to extract the maximum revenue. If Pystar got their way, it wouldn't
be just Apple that would be upset. Pystar would be overturning the way the
entire proprietary software industry works.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 04 2009 @ 06:45 AM EDT |
I'm just wondering here. If I go to an Apple store (if there are any left) and
purchase an add-on hard drive that has an Apple brand on it, and I put that hard
drive into another brand of computer, can I then install OS/X on to that hard
drive and use it without breaking Apple's license?
How much of the hardware that makes up the entire computer has to be "Apple
branded" to be able to comply with the EULA? Would an Apple branded mouse
be enough, or an Apple branded USB cable?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
