Apple calls Psystar’s deposition of Phil Schiller “harassment”

Fri, Aug 21, 2009

Legal, News

General Hospital has nothin’ on the unfolding drama in the Psystar/Apple legal case.  We reported earlier that Psystar’s deposition of Apple executive Phil Schiller didn’t go as planned, prompting Psystar to file a motion wherein it labeled Schiller as being “unprepared” to answer questions related to any lost profits incurrred by Apple as a result of Psystar’s clone business.  Psystar’s motion asked the court to force Apple to properly prepare Schiller and that they be allowed to re-depose him at Apple’s expense.

Apple soon filed a response asking the court to deny Psystar’s motion, arguing that the deposition served no purpose and constituted “nothing more than an effort to harass one of Apple’s senior executives and prematurely seek expert testimony.”

Apple’s response continues, “Despite Apple’s objections, Psystar’s counsel sought testimony on the quantification of damages — the subject of expert testimony — rather than the injury suffered by Apple. Mr. Schiller was fully prepared to discuss the non-quantifiable injury to Apple but Psystar’s counsel chose to not ask those questions and terminated the deposition instead.”

Interestingly enough, Apple also wrote that it would no longer seek to recoup lost profits from Psystar – in part due to Psystar’s meager resources, but more so because it fears that any confidential financial information delivered to Psystar would be prone to leaking out into the public.  And knowing Psystar, is it that far fetched to assume that they’d “accidentally” put that info up on their blog?

Naturally, by dropping their efforts to recoup lost profits, Apple has effectively rendered Psystar’s efforts to depose Schiller on the topic a moot point.  Apple’s motion reads,  

In light of Apple’s decision not to seek lost profits and Psystar’s stated intent to disclose Apple’s confidential information, Apple now seeks a protective order specifically precluding the discovery by Psystar of Apple’s non-public profit margins on the sale of individual products or product lines.

Who knows what sort of publicity seeking and legally bankrupt maneuvers Psystar will attempt next as it seeks to skirt around the substantive legal issues in the case.


, ,

2 Comments For This Post

  1. Phil Says:

    Leave me alone!

  2. skips Says:

    The line of questioning from Psystar suggests that they are trying to damage Apple’s reputation rather than compete against them. They have several times admitted that they are “too small” to have in place the proper business procedures. The response to the spoliation accusation from Apple was typical. Given that response, I can imagine that Apple is very reluctant to release information to them that is not directly relevant to their claims.

eXTReMe Tracker