It’s tough when companies can’t resolve things the good old-fashioned American way, by suing the pants off each other. Instead, Apple and Psystar have agreed to sit down and talk out their problems, with the help of a professional arbiter (no, not that guy).
According to documents filed in the Northern District of California court and acquired by the folks at The Mac Observer, Apple and its arch-nemesis Psystar have agreed to partake in Alternative Dispute Resolution—or, to laypeople such as you and me, the legal equivalent of couples therapy. Resolutions from ADR are non-binding (though, as one commenter points out below, only if both parties agree that the resolution is non-binding), meaning that after the whole thing is said and done, the two parties could agree to disagree and return to court. It’s also an extremely hush-hush process: we don’t know who proposed the idea of arbitration (it could have been either party or the judge), and if the issue is eventually settled, we may not discover the full terms of the agreement.
Of course, it seems unlikely that Apple will be satisfied with anything less than Pystar’s wholesale destruction. On the upside, though, it seems like we probably won’t be hearing much more about the Psystar case until its inevitable conclusion.
Considering how Apple is quite willing to crush anyone who even vaguely steps on their copyrights/patents, why would Apple even consider such a thing unless they have reason to believe they might lose?
"Resolutions from ADR are non-binding"
This is not true. ADR can be binding or non-binding, depending upon what the parties agree to - or what a contract between them states, etc.
As to why Apple might consider non-binding arbitration: nothing to lose. It is nonbinding so if they dont like the outcome, back to court. ADR is much cheaper than litigation, and much faster.
@dave: There are a couple of reasons. First, you get a preview of what your opponent's arguments and evidence is. Second, ADR is much quicker and cheaper than a full-blown suit. Accordingly, if you can use ADR to show your opponent's case has fatal flaws, even if it isn't binding, it can bring a more speedy resolution (especially where, as here, you may be looking at licensing, patent, and copyright infringement that would have penalties based on time).
@Daniel: Thanks, that makes sense. Psystar, then, must be genuinely positive about winning the suit/argument. Or they are just as arrogant as some believe them to be.