Apple v. Psystar: What’s the Deal With the $75,000.00?
- June 12th, 2009 - 6.48 am UTC
- Apple Legal News, Psystar
- dizzle
Background
Several days ago (I have been a bit ill and could not write this piece until now), Psystar filed its required Summary of Schedules with the Florida Bankruptcy Court. A copy of this filing may be viewed here. On Page 10, as part of “Schedule F — Creditors Holding Unsecured Nonpriority Claims,” Apple’s claim is listed as being valued at $75,000.00.
Misinformation from the Apple Web. Again.
Recently, Macworld reported that Psystar claimed that Apple has a $75,000.00 claim against them and proceeded to ignorantly speculate on how that dollar figure was calculated. Specifically:
It’s possible that all or part of the $75,000 represents Mac OS X orders Psystar placed with Apple. At the list retail price of $129 per license, the $75,000 translates into 581 copies of Leopard.
Umm. What? It is apparent that the writer of this piece knows very little about the law. Anyone at all familiar with the Federal Court system would know immediately why that figure was chosen.
Please see Section 1332 of the United States Code:
(a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between—
(1) citizens of different States;
(2) citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state;
(3) citizens of different States and in which citizens or subjects of a foreign state are additional parties; and
(4) a foreign state, defined in section 1603 (a) of this title, as plaintiff and citizens of a State or of different States.
Notice the value there? $75,000.00. If we return to Apple’s Amended Complaint, Paragraph 19, under the heading, Jurisdiction and Venue, we read:
This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. sections 1331, 1332 and 1338 because this action arises under the copyright and trademark laws of the United States, there is complete diversity of citizenship between the parties, and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00.
Apple’s Prayer for Relief did not name a sum certain so the only certainty as to the value of Apple’s claim (if successful) is that Apple has claimed that it meets the $75,000.00 threshold (technically, the threshold is $75,000.01) required for Federal jurisdiction. That is all that bankruptcy filing means. This is really basic stuff here folks. Right next to that amount Psystar acknowledged that the claimed amount was unliquidated. Here is a definition of that term as used in law:
DAMAGES, UNLIQUIDATED. The unascertained amount which is due to a person by another for an injury to the person, property, or relative rights of the party injured. These damages, being unknown, cannot be set off against the claim which the tort feasor has against the party injured.
So there is no need to speculate. It is a matter of routine.
Now, there is something MUCH more interesting in the bankruptcy filing and that is that Psystar claims over $3,011,682.80 in assets. Yes, you read me correctly. $3,011,682.80 in assets. Their personal property comprising inventory, office equipment, and a small bank account is valued at $11,682.80; so where is the remaining $3,000,000.00? Here is what Psystar claims is worth that amount (see Page 6):
Proprietary bootstrap technology, operating system interoperability technology, manufacturing process technology and safeupdate screening technology.
Sidenote: I thought these guys were the champions of non-proprietary software? Oh yeah, that’s right. Their EULA is even more restrictive than Apple’s.
Additionally, the filing reveals that Rudy Pedraza’s investment of $120,000.00 previously mentioned is actually credit card debt (see Page 12). Ouch.
On a final front, Apple’s Motion for Relief from Stay is scheduled for hearing on June 17, 2009.
Comments
Spade Aceman 12th June 2009, 15.39 pm
Proprietary bootstrap technology, operating system interoperability technology,
Wait… isn’t that the exact same technology they stole from the OSx86 Project?
dizzle 12th June 2009, 15.51 pm
That is an interesting story in and of itself. Psystar is claiming that they have something different. I don’t know whether that is true or not, but let’s say for sake of argument that it is. It almost certainly is derivative of the OSx86 project, and they didn’t place restrictions on using for commercial gain (they have since done so).
But that really is the interesting part of the filing. The $75,000 issue that Macworld and a few other blogs have made a big deal out of is routine. It reminds me of when some blogs were claiming that Psystar claimed that Apple never copyrighted OSX. Just a little bit of critical thought should have set off the baloney detector. In this issue, there has been no judgment, Apple never claimed a sum certain, and in fact, in Apple filing of last week, it affirmatively said that the exact figure was not known and that is one reason why the California case had to proceed before Psystar could even think of putting together a reorganization plan. Also considering that Apple asked for punitive damages, obviously the claim isn’t limited to $75,000; it simply is at least that amount.
Spade Aceman 12th June 2009, 17.52 pm
The figure of $3 million does seem excessively high, if it’s partially referring to something which seems to be derived from a project that’s still freely available.
Thanks for clarifying the story behind the $75,000 figure – sounds like something that’s fairly standard. You’d think that people who are actually paid to report on the news would know something like this, but apparently these days it’s up to “citizen journalists” to set the record straight!
Kid Icarus 12th June 2009, 18.33 pm
Thanks Dizzle, once again you reel in some sanity from the otherwise insane wasteland of Apple-Psystar blogging.
I actually read Macworld’s piece about the $75k and was going to shoot you an email to see what you thought about all of this, but low-and-behold, you have already set the record straight.
Joey Sichol 12th June 2009, 19.01 pm
In Virginia, you see people file suits for $74,999.99… Must have a slightly different threshold or interpretation of the law…
dizzle 12th June 2009, 21.00 pm
Joey, the Federal Rules are nationwide. Remember that there is a difference between the State Court system (which varies from state to state) and the Federal Court System, which is national. In order to file a case in Federal Court, it must be shown that the Federal Courts, rather than the State Courts have jurisdiction. The most typical route is that all the parties have diversity of citizenship (this is allegedly to prevent the party on their “home turf” to have favouritism from the local judge–I find this increasingly archaic in these days of rapidly encroaching Federal powers) and that their dispute involve more than $75,000.00. People may file suit for any dollar they wish; but if they want to play in the Federal Court’s sandbox, they have to bring the right toys.
Federal Court cases are my day to day job. Every single one of the Federal Court cases that I work on are in Federal Court due to diversity of citizenship (the insurance company my boss represents is a foreign corporation–foreign meaning out of state–and the amount in controversy is more than $75,000.00). Another way a case will be accepted in the Federal Court System is if it involves a Federal Constitutional question.
dizzle 12th June 2009, 21.23 pm
Please always if you run across a Psystar issue I haven’t covered, please do shoot me an email or @deedeewarren message on twitter. I found out about the Macworld piece that way–somehow I missed it in my blog rss feeds, but I subscribe to so many feeds, it was probably one of those times I just hit “mark all read” to start with a clean slate.
Joey Sichol 12th June 2009, 21.34 pm
I am well aware that federal rules are nationwide. That’s sort of the definition of “federal.”
It’s funny, because I work for a legal newspaper and I heard our reporters discussing this dollar amount in relating to diversity of citizenship, although not related to the Apple v. psystar case. (I’m a graphic designer – not a lawyer – but that is probably obvious… That’s what I get for overhearing half of a conversation between real lawyers…)
I was insinuating that lawyers list their damages as “$74,999.99″ so there is no chance of even touching the “threshold.”
I’ll be sure to put IANAL before my posts from now on!
Please, correct me where I’m wrong so I can sound a little more intelligent when I talk about it with our on-staff attorneys…
dizzle 12th June 2009, 22.37 pm
Hi Joey, I hope I didn’t insult you. Most of the readers here no very little of the court system and come to me and ask for explanations. So what you are saying is that some Plaintiffs purposefully put their claim below the threshold to stay out of Federal Court? Yes, that would be typical. In my cases, as I said before, I work for an insurance defense firm as a legal assistant, very often the Plaintiff will name the local insurance agent along with the insurance company to destroy diversity because they want to keep out of the Federal Court. Some lawyers just prefer not to practice in Federal Court. I love Federal Court practice; it is neat and orderly. The lawyers don’t have to stand around at motion calendar, and most every motion is argued entirely on paper with very few hearings. Federal Court Judges though are not as tolerant of gamesmanship, so if a lawyer’s particular style is dramatic, or does not have great writing talent but does have great oral argument skills, they might prefer State Court. Everyone here loves Federal Court, and the Federal Courts have all gone paperless which is wonderful.
Ralf 12th June 2009, 22.37 pm
just a side note: Psystar’s staff doesn’t seem to be able to exactly read or fill in the form.
They are asked to tell income from business during TWO years prior to the bancrupty filing but they do state only for five MONTHS.
Or could it be intentional?
dizzle 12th June 2009, 22.43 pm
That is a good observation Ralf, let me look into it. I don’t work in bankruptcy at all, but obviously have some knowledge of it as part of my legal assistant certification. If I don’t know or can’t figure it out, I will say so
Without looking at the document again, here is what immediately sprang to mind when I read your observation. We don’t know all that happened in the discovery dispute as some of the information was redacted; but we do know that Psystar’s poor record keeping was an issue, so perhaps they can’t put a figure together? Still, it would seem that some explanation there would be in order. There might be some exceptions or local bankruptcy rules that I am not aware of, however.