updated 10:50 pm EDT, Tue May 5, 2009
Psystar denies Apple claim
In response to Apple's accusations that Psystar is withholding information, the clone maker claims it has submitted any required documents. The company goes further and argues that Apple is not abiding by prior agreements. "The documents produced by Apple are generally publicly available documents that ignore the scope of Psystar's discovery requests," said lawyer Colby Springer in a court filing. Psystar claims copyright and trademark registrations still need to be produced, along with copies of litigation pleadings.
Psystar also argues that it submitted proposed dates for supplemental deposition testimony regarding financial information. The update allegedly occurred well before Apple's recent letter.
Apple accused the Mac cloner of interfering with the discovery phase of its lawsuit, by refusing to produce balance sheets, monthly statements and other documents. During the deposition, Psystar CEO Rudy Pedraza is said to have left roughly 90 questions unanswered. Despite the clone's availability dating back to April 2008, the company allegedly only produced vendor invoices from December 2008 through March 2009.
"Apple's filing serves no other purpose than to serve as fodder for a blogosphere otherwise rabid for new details on this litigation or to incur unnecessary expense on behalf of Psystar," Springer suggests. "Such a filing, in either case, is inappropriate."
Psystar claims it has not produced profit-and-loss, balance and other financial documents because they simply do not exist. Instead, the company has submitted relevant financial statements previously created for payment processing vendors such as Gravity Payments. "Because Apple wants a document to exist does not make it so," the filing reads.
The companies are involved in an ongoing legal battle over Psystar's computer systems that ship with Mac OS X pre-installed. Apple claims the actions violate its end-user licensing agreement, although Psystar is fighting back with a countersuit with claims of anticompetitive practices and an excessively broad interpretation of the copyrights.
The discovery phase should be completed by June 26th, with a formal trial tentatively scheduled for November 9th.