decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
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.

  


Apple Seeks Order Compelling Psystar to Provide Financial Info | 127 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections Here.
Authored by: Erwan on Friday, May 01 2009 @ 03:31 PM EDT
If any.

---
Erwan

[ Reply to This | # ]

News Picks discussions.
Authored by: Erwan on Friday, May 01 2009 @ 03:31 PM EDT
Please quote the article's title.

---
Erwan

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT, the Off Topic thread
Authored by: Erwan on Friday, May 01 2009 @ 03:32 PM EDT
As usual.

Another hat trick in under 2mn?

---
Erwan

[ Reply to This | # ]

I can't recall.
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 01 2009 @ 04:49 PM EDT
Yea, those CEOs are classically forgetful.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Emergency hearing scheduled!
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 | # ]

A big bucket of rotten apples
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 | # ]

I have never been prouder...
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 | # ]

What is Unusual about Apple's LIcense?
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 | # ]

Big question on "Apple branded hardware"
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 | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )