On their website, Psystar was inviting their customers to submit questions to ask a list of Apple luminaries under oath... which Psystar would then share with the world after the close of the case. The obvious hint was that it was an opportunity to ask questions under oath about issues unrelated to the legal issues at hand and then Pedraza would publish these corporate secrets to the world. That is a big no-no.
Apparently, during the questioning of Phil Shiller, the attorney for Psystar went beyond the agreed bounds of his field of established expertise and the purpose of the discovery, into areas that Shiller refused to answer stating that they were irrelevant and proprietary corporate data unrelated to the issues at hand.
Apple, once they saw the direction of the questions relating to individual product profit margins and price points, stated that given Psystar's financial health (or lack there-of) that they would forgo recovery of financial loss damages... but would, if more evidence of hidden finances were uncovered, still reserve the right to resurrect those damages.
Ya just gotta wonder who is running the show over there... :-)