Apple clone case could be settled out of court
It appears that the ongoing case between Apple and Psystar, a firm it accuses of illegally selling computers running the Leopard operating system, may not see the inside of a courtroom. The two sides have agreed to go through alternative dispute resolution (ADR), a process designed to produce a negotiated settlement.
The ADR process in North California, which governs the case, offers three options for resolving the case under the court’s oversight but before a formal hearing:
- non-binding hearing (where an independent arbitrator hears the arguments and gives his opinion so that both sides can see if it’s worth going before a judge);
- early neutral evaluation (which works in a similar way but is designed for more technical cases); and
- mediation (where an court-appointed mediator tries to help the two sides reach a deal).
Several sources are reporting Apple and Psystar have agreed to go through all three stages in turn. However, from my reading of the court filing, it appears they have actually rejected these three court-managed options in favor of a private hearing. That will take the form of a mediation process through the San Francisco branch of JAMS, an independent mediation and arbitration firm. The deadline for this mediation is 31 January.
It seems, therefore, that both sides want to retain the ability to keep any negotiations secret. A settlement reached through private mediation could be kept completely under wraps, though it’ll be pretty straightforward to tell which side prevails by seeing whether or not Psystar continues selling the Leopard edition of its Open Computer system.
The secrecy involved means there’s no way to tell who came up with the idea of mediation. The main potential explanations are that the judge thought the sides could reach a deal without eating up court time, Psystar was worried about losing the case and wanted to cut its legal costs, or Apple was worried about losing the case and setting a public legal precedent that encouraged other firms to produce Mac clones.
It will be interesting to see what happens to Psystar’s separate case accusing Apple of running an illegal monopoly. That could well become a bargaining chip in any settlement negotiations.
Related Posts:
October 18th, 2008
I’m guessing Apple is concerned about something.
Beating threats to it’s model into grease spots to discourage anyone else from doing the same is more Job’s style.