Linked by Andrew Youll on Sun 7th Aug 2005 15:36 UTC, submitted by heron
Mac OS X According to the guys at www.osx86.classicbeta.com, some intrepid individuals have been able to get OS X running on generic hardware. There is a full explaination and some details on the site.
Order by: Score:
v Security
by Anonymous on Sun 7th Aug 2005 15:45 UTC
v I hope is true
by Anonymous on Sun 7th Aug 2005 15:51 UTC
RE: I hope is true
by saterdaies on Sun 7th Aug 2005 16:14 UTC in reply to "I hope is true"
saterdaies Member since:
2005-07-07

Yeah, doing legal acts like purchasing an x86 Mac are so immoral.

Reply Score: 3

v RE[2]: I hope is true
by Anonymous on Sun 7th Aug 2005 19:10 UTC in reply to "RE: I hope is true"
RE: I hope is true
by Anonymous on Sun 7th Aug 2005 16:24 UTC in reply to "I hope is true"
Anonymous Member since:
---

So basically you want to steal from Apple? I want a plasma tv but don't want to have to pay for it so I guess it's ok to steal one?

Reply Score: 2

v RE[2]: I hope is true
by Anonymous on Sun 7th Aug 2005 17:09 UTC in reply to "RE: I hope is true"
RE[3]: I hope is true
by tantalic on Sun 7th Aug 2005 17:19 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: I hope is true"
tantalic Member since:
2005-07-06

"Copying OS-software isnt real stealing. Windows is the most copied software ever, but when you look at M$ bank account you will clearly see that "theft" isnt a problem.

Wow, I can't beleve you are really making that argument. So the act of taking something without paying for it is not stealing so long as you do it from a large, succesful corporation? I think I'll head to detriot and not steal a new Mustangs from the factory - look at Ford's bottom line, that certainly isn't stealing.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: I hope is true
by Anonymous on Sun 7th Aug 2005 18:11 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: I hope is true"
Anonymous Member since:
---

You totally missed my point. By copying an operating system you
1. do not physically steal something. Can you make a copy of the Mustang??
2. you enlarge the installed base for that system, which in return has numerous positive income possibilities for the vendor (maybe not right now, but certainly in the future). Marketshare matters. Microsoft knows that.
Bottom line: Copying operating systems and really using them is not stealing.
If Apple knows that it will let people copy its OS and probably sell more computers in the future.

Reply Score: 0

RE[5]: I hope is true
by kellym on Sun 7th Aug 2005 18:17 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: I hope is true"
kellym Member since:
2005-07-06

Theres an error in your way of thinking.

If you copy the OS so that more people use it... then you are indeed taking money away from Apple because you would have paid money to Apple to run the new version of OS X on that Mac.

If you are pirating OS X to run on a PC, then not only are you pirating it and taking the OS sale away from Apple, you're also taking away PC hardware revenue from Apple.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: I hope is true
by rm6990 on Mon 8th Aug 2005 01:50 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: I hope is true"
rm6990 Member since:
2005-07-04

I do agree with one thing you said, although not your logic. Technically, copyright infringement and stealing do not equate. A court ruled this once (I believe the supreme court). That doesn't mean it isn't against the law, it just means it isn't theft.

However, the reasons you give I do not agree with. By your logic, stealing a mustang isn't theft because you can buy fancy add-ons from Ford. This is the part I do not agree with.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: I hope is true
by Anonymous on Mon 8th Aug 2005 01:59 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: I hope is true"
Anonymous Member since:
---

I don't believe that's what they are trying to say. At least, that's not how I interpreted it.

The initial poster's idea was that buying a boxed version of MacOS X and then installing it on a non-Apple brand PC was "stealing" because Apple intended for you to buy a Mac as well. Which, of course, is utter nonsense.

Reply Score: 0

RE[6]: I hope is true
by Celerate on Mon 8th Aug 2005 07:12 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: I hope is true"
Celerate Member since:
2005-06-29

There is also a flaw in your thinking, right now most people can run OS X in PearPC and there are lots of Macs floating around eBay. Not everyone pirating a copy of OS X PPC is going to run it on a Mac who's cost went straight to Apple.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: I hope is true
by Anonymous on Sun 7th Aug 2005 18:52 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: I hope is true"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Bottom line: Copying operating systems and really using them is not stealing.

You have an odd way of stating the bottom line. Usually, I like to use facts instead of assertions. To each his own, I guess. Back to facts...

Do you own the copyright? (You know 'copy right' as in 'right to copy'?)

No? That's a fact.

If Apple knows that it will let people copy its OS and probably sell more computers in the future.

Which is entirely beside the point. If Apple does not give you the right to make copies of OSX you do not have that right beyond what your local laws allow.^ You're not the copyright holder; you can't grant that right to yourself without ignoring the law!

If you want those rights, you should use an OS that allows you to have those rights ... like an open version of BSD or Linux.

As for making copies of Mustangs;

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2004-09-15-fake-muscle-cars_x.h...


(^. Yes, you do have a right to copy copyrighted material like operating systems and the law allows that. The limits on how far that goes are fairly strict.)

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: I hope is true
by remenic on Sun 7th Aug 2005 18:17 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: I hope is true"
remenic Member since:
2005-07-06

Care to explain to us how copying is the same as stealing? You're probably not native english, are you?

http://www.m-w.com - look for the word "copying". What does it say? Anything about TAKING property? No?

Stop making a fool of yourself. That's my advice. It's free.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: I hope is true
by Anonymous on Sun 7th Aug 2005 20:19 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: I hope is true"
Anonymous Member since:
---

But when you copy the software, and give it out to someone else for free, that is stealing on the part of the person accepting the software. Copying for your own use, like making a backup disk is legal, but making a disk from a friends disk so you don't have to go and buy it, is stealing. Just because you are using the word copy, doesn't mean its not against the law and is not stealing.

Reply Score: 0

RE[5]: I hope is true
by tantalic on Sun 7th Aug 2005 23:02 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: I hope is true"
tantalic Member since:
2005-07-06

" Care to explain to us how copying is the same as stealing? You're probably not native english, are you?

http://www.m-w.com - look for the word "copying". What does it say? Anything about TAKING property? No?

Stop making a fool of yourself. That's my advice. It's free "


I never claimed copy and steal were synonyms, however maybe you should use your own source to look up the stealing - "to take the property of another wrongfully..." Whether you like it or not software is intellectual property and as long as that remains in law, copying software without the permission is stealing (excluding of course previsions which allow copying in certain circumstances, ie fair use).

That said, my free advice is don't try to make a fool out of others with straw-man arguments, they don't make your case. I'll leave it up to others in the forum to determine who the fool is.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: I hope is true
by Anonymous on Sun 7th Aug 2005 23:10 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: I hope is true"
Anonymous Member since:
---

I never claimed copy and steal were synonyms, however maybe you should use your own source to look up the stealing - "to take the property of another wrongfully..." Whether you like it or not software is intellectual property and as long as that remains in law, copying software without the permission is stealing (excluding of course previsions which allow copying in certain circumstances, ie fair use).

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court...

According to the supreme court, its not.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: I hope is true
by tnoflahc on Sun 7th Aug 2005 23:15 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: I hope is true"
tnoflahc Member since:
2005-08-07

whoa, hey, HEY! How DARE you go whipping out sources like that. Don't you know that there are CHILDREN reading this?

:0p

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: I hope is true
by remenic on Mon 8th Aug 2005 10:33 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: I hope is true"
remenic Member since:
2005-07-06

You didn't read the description of "copying" at all, did you?

I'll try to explain to you, but if you don't understand it, ask your parents for help. I am not a kindergarten teacher, so there might be a huge gap in communication skill.

Copying is the act of duplication. You have a product, and you make a new product that is similar to the original. This is considered a copyright violation. However, the original owner keeps his own product. He doesn't lose money, but he doesn't make any either (from the copies). However, he is still able to sell his own product.

Stealing is the act of taking someone's property. It means that the original owner no longer has the stolen property. He cannot sell it, it's just lost.

Both copying and stealing are crimes, and should be punished.

Now, you claim never to have said that copying is synomymous to stealing, yet you mention stealing a number of times even though the topic is copying. Who are you trying to fool?

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: I hope is true
by Anonymous on Sun 7th Aug 2005 21:42 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: I hope is true"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Stealing: taking something from someone without his permission, he can no longer use that "something".

"Software piracy" implies the owner lost his possession, not so, he possibly only lost revenue from it.

Just because you can get something for free does not mean you'd pay whatever was asked for it.

Suppose I ask $900.00 for each use of my grandmothers secret cookie recipe, someone somehow gets a copy of the recipe and starts enjoying good cookies. How much did I lose? Is this the only cookie recipe available? [monopolies are great, for the monopoly holder]. As absurd as this sound this is effectively whats happening to "eye-pee". There was a reason for the original US constituional time limits on copyrights and patents.
Imagine perpetual patents and copyrights on book printing, classical music, classical literary works, internal combustion engines et cetera.

Corporate interests stands in opposition to common interests. Don't be brain washed.

Reply Score: 0

RE[5]: I hope is true
by kellym10 on Sun 7th Aug 2005 21:45 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: I hope is true"
kellym10 Member since:
2005-08-02

"Just because you can get something for free does not mean you'd pay whatever was asked for it."

Agreed, but in the case of OS X being installed on vanilla PCs, there are many that would have bought a Mac for the opportunity. If given the chance to do otherwise, Apple is likely to lose many of those people too.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: I hope is true
by Anonymous on Mon 8th Aug 2005 07:48 UTC in reply to "RE: I hope is true"
Anonymous Member since:
---

no, i want apple stay with ppc.
and btw i actually own all software i use...
just hate apple for processor switch

Reply Score: 0

live it up Anon Troll Boy
by stormloss on Mon 8th Aug 2005 10:39 UTC in reply to "RE: I hope is true"
stormloss Member since:
2005-08-03

You sir are a wit, Tell me WHAT has been stolen from Apple? A few hackers get OSX running on a plan x86 big whoopee. Guess what! That hacked mess gets NO Apple support; hackers do it to see if it can be done.

Most consumers like myself like a warranty and to have little Apple love.

Btw when you go knocking off Plasma TV's, get me a Big LCD one for me instead.... oh damn it has dead pixels, and oh damn no warranty. Go figure.

Reply Score: 1

RE: live it up Anon Troll Boy
by Anonymous on Mon 8th Aug 2005 12:27 UTC in reply to "live it up Anon Troll Boy"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Did you read the post that I was responding to?: "well, i hope is true, because i like os x very much, but i don' t want to give at apple a single cent for x86 macs." How is that not stealing?

So in your twisted mind stealing is ok because no warranty or support comes with the product??? Hmm, so I can walk into Best Buy, take whatever I want, and when they call security I'll just yell out "don't worry, it's ok, I know this voids my warranty."

Reply Score: 0

doesn't matter
by CaptainPinko on Sun 7th Aug 2005 16:00 UTC
CaptainPinko
Member since:
2005-07-21

unless it is easy enoguh to be done by the average joe then apple will still sell computers and make their profits. Though anyone who really likes the OS but doesn't want to buy the hardware is really shooting themselves in the foot since w/o hardware profits Apple won't be able to cover development.

Reply Score: 3

RE: doesn't matter
by Anonymous on Mon 8th Aug 2005 00:00 UTC in reply to "doesn't matter"
Anonymous Member since:
---

The end is nigh for Microsoft! From my parents'
basement, I stab at thee!



HAHHAHAHHAHHA*COUGH*HAHHAAHA... DIE!

Reply Score: 0

RE: doesn't matter
by Anonymous on Mon 8th Aug 2005 02:10 UTC in reply to "doesn't matter"
Anonymous Member since:
---

I don't think that was the point. The point was to do it.

Reply Score: 0

v RE: I hope is true
by NemesisBLK on Sun 7th Aug 2005 16:00 UTC
v Apple's strategy
by Anonymous on Sun 7th Aug 2005 16:01 UTC
v Prediction
by NemesisBLK on Sun 7th Aug 2005 16:04 UTC
Site is down
by Anonymous on Sun 7th Aug 2005 16:11 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Site seems to be down...

Reply Score: 0

Why people wanted Mactel ...
by Anonymous on Sun 7th Aug 2005 16:23 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

A lot of recent events leave a clear indication as to why people wanted Macintosh to run on the Intel processor: they simply want to snag a copy of Mac OS X by illicit means. And I'm not talking about people who think that they should compensate Apple for their effort by buying Mac OS X itself, yet have no desire to uphold the unethical concept of license agreements.

If you want free software, go for open source stuff. Why? Because open source developers want to give away their software. They don't have the desire to create restrictive laws to protect their "intellectual property" either. They also don't have the desire to implement DRM to protect their "intellectual property" either.

So make a choice: maintain our freedom by compensating commercial software developers for their efforts, or maintain our freedom by supporting open source software and not pirating commercial software. But I don't think anyone seriously buys this line that cracking Mac OS X is about giving people the freedom to run Mac OS X on beige boxes. It is about piracy, plain and simple.

Reply Score: 4

Anonymous Member since:
---

I was about to post something similar to this ... but you said it better than I would have.

It's amazing to me how these people hide behind this veil of 'freedom' when in fact all they want is a 'free' copy of Mac OS to run on their 1337 beige box.

I don't think Apple is going to lose a lot of sleep over this, however. As long as they make it difficult for Joe Sixpack to do, they won't lose any potential sales - as the people hacking around the x86 copies of OS X weren't going to buy it anyway.

Reply Score: 4

rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

It's amazing to me how these people hide behind this veil of 'freedom' when in fact all they want is a 'free' copy of Mac OS to run on their 1337 beige box.

It's very easy of you to say that, but that doesn't make it true. I have no problem giving Apple my money. I bought an iPod, then when I lost it, I bought another. Then I bought my brother one, and then I bought one for my mom. I spent well over $1000 on iPods just in the last few years. Do you think I'm going to think twice about spending a couple of hundred dollars on OS X86? Of course not! But I sure as hell won't run it on the crappy Intel hardware they want to sell to me!

Reply Score: 3

Celerate Member since:
2005-06-29

Who's to say that people won't purchase copies of OS X legally to run on their "beige boxes"?

If I can run OS X on my current non-Apple systems by adding in drivers I will give it a try as long as I'm doing it legally. If it turns out to be impossible to run OS X on non-Apple hardware, then I'll buy a mac Mini. I would also like to remind many of you that OS X was being pirated long before any intel port, and before the existance of PearPC.

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous Member since:
---

It's amazing to me how these people hide behind this veil of 'freedom' when in fact all they want is a 'free' copy of Mac OS to run on their 1337 beige box.

Virtually no OSS users care about the politics of OSS --they just want 'bits for free' --and quickly, so they can get their job done. Nevertheless, the sheer number of these OSS downloaders fuels the (typically very young) egos of the OSS coders, who themselves, are usually from countries where people must routinely trade their time for money anyway. Companies like Apple, IBM and soon SUN are trying to ride-the-wave of this free labor pool thereby adding tremendous credibility to the OSS "movement" in Corporate America, but these same companies also could give a flying fsck about the politics. In the end, the US software economy will be destroyed and the mass education of India's coders will be complete. Just about the time the current 18 year old OSS downloaders are getting their first grey hairs, they will find that all mainstream software will be designed, created and maintained in India, a nuclear power with limited land and a billion mouths to feed, and thus the amount of money they will pay at that time to enjoy software will more than makeup from any cost-savings they experienced back in the late 20th century and early 21rst century.

Apple's efforts to lock the non-OSS components of OSX using hardware technology represent the last-great-hope for the U.S. software industry. If they do not succeed, where goes Apple, goes Microsoft and all other commercial software development --to India, not to leagues of beer-drinking socialist nerds.

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Member since:
---

In the end, the US software economy will be destroyed and the mass education of India's coders will be complete. Just about the time the current 18 year old OSS downloaders are getting their first grey hairs, they will find that all mainstream software will be designed, created and maintained in India, a nuclear power with limited land and a billion mouths to feed, and thus the amount of money they will pay at that time to enjoy software will more than makeup from any cost-savings they experienced back in the late 20th century and early 21rst century.

Good. I hope the developing super powers of the world choose to use OSS (or even better GNU) software. Or are forced to by the dominance of that software. That way, I can easily use any advantage they make the same way they can. The U.S. might not be ahead technologically (as it is now) but we won't be behind (as we will be if closed software continues to dominate). As it is, coders in the U.S. are losing their jobs (fairly I say) to coders in India that can survive on a much smaller income (cost of living difference). So the jobs are going to go anyway. Now, if software is free, then more money will be spent on maintaining systems, which is much easier to do with physical access (aka in America, it makes jobs for U.S. nerds).

Reply Score: 0

RE: Why people wanted Mactel ...
by rayiner on Sun 7th Aug 2005 17:09 UTC in reply to "Why people wanted Mactel ... "
rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

or maintain our freedom by supporting open source software and not pirating commercial software.

We don't have to do jack squat to "maintain our freedom". Our freedom is guaranteed to us. If content providers don't like it, well though, that's their trade-off for operating in a free country.

Reply Score: 2

Anonymous Member since:
---

"Our freedom is guaranteed to us."
Freedom is never guaranteed. "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."

Reply Score: 0

RE: Why people wanted Mactel ...
by seguso on Sun 7th Aug 2005 20:04 UTC in reply to "Why people wanted Mactel ... "
seguso Member since:
2005-06-29

<em>So make a choice: maintain our freedom by compensating commercial software developers for their efforts, or maintain our freedom by supporting open source software and not pirating commercial software.</em>

<P>You are missgin a crucial fact: companies such as Microsoft thrive on the so-called piracy. Without piracy, Microsoft would be nothing. Apple might actually gain from this too. Many people that would never have tried a Mac will now give it a try.

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous Member since:
---

"You are missgin a crucial fact: companies such as Microsoft thrive on the so-called piracy. Without piracy, Microsoft would be nothing. Apple might actually gain from this too. Many people that would never have tried a Mac will now give it a try."

Apple doesn't have a problem getting people to try OS X. Apple could have massive install base if they wont if they decided it was more important to gain users than it is take make more money.

Apple does what they do because its more profitable.

Reply Score: 0

Dark_Knight Member since:
2005-07-10

I don't believe every person wanting to have the option to run OSX on any x86 system is doing so with pirated software. I for one would like to see Apple be more with the times and offer OSX and their software to run on x86 with out such a restricting license. When I was looking for an alternative to Microsoft I did consider Apple along with Linux developers. In the end I realized I would be trading my freedom for eye candy and having less software to run if I whent with Apple, so Linux was my decision (Novell). Also due to their "vendor lock in" way of thinking I have decided to continue to not buy into the Apple hype and take my money else where. Even Microsoft being as monopolistic as they have been have not forced consumers to buy computers from them. Apple some where along the way has failed to realize consumers want choice and those decisions are based on the consumer making them, not Apple.

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Penguin Member since:
2005-07-06

My reply is not just to you, but to everybody:

I.WANT.TO.LEGALLY.BUY.A.MAC OSX.AND.RUN.IT.ON.THE.HARDWARE.I.HAVE.NOW

What is so wrong about that?

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous Member since:
---

Because Apple doesnt want you to. Its their OS - *they* get to decide the terms. If you dont like it then buy something else.

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Penguin Member since:
2005-07-06

I knew as much as that. But I have the right to be of a different opinion. I don't want to steal anything.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Why people wanted Mactel ...
by Shannara on Mon 8th Aug 2005 05:48 UTC in reply to "Why people wanted Mactel ... "
Shannara Member since:
2005-07-06

-1 for lying in the first paragraph.

Reply Score: 0

v Pointless (but interesting)
by Anonymous on Sun 7th Aug 2005 16:53 UTC
RE: Pointless (but interesting)
by Anonymous on Sun 7th Aug 2005 17:05 UTC in reply to "Pointless (but interesting)"
Anonymous Member since:
---

I think 10% is a potential reality in the next 5 or so years. Beyond that though, I'm not sure they have it in them.

Reply Score: 0

Old News
by anand78 on Sun 7th Aug 2005 16:53 UTC
anand78
Member since:
2005-07-07

Usually OSNews is right on the spot with breaking news. This is however an old news. It begs the question when is the Apple legal dept start with the lawsuits. I guess apple is punked here by their mistake of releasing Darwin x86 ports. If you go through the sites people still have to figure out a way to install OSX using the leaked DVD.

Reply Score: 1

v Good thing
by Anonymous on Sun 7th Aug 2005 16:54 UTC
RE: Good thing
by Anonymous on Sun 7th Aug 2005 17:08 UTC in reply to "Good thing"
Anonymous Member since:
---

>4) Failure to do three will render Apple irrelevant. Watch the rise of the Linux (Gnome, KDE) desktops to usability hights previously unheard of in a tv near you in the next two years.<

Haha, that's so ridicilous... The first time I've heard that "Linux desktop will rock soon!"-thing was in 1998. Now, 7 years later, the Linux-Fanboys still say it, as if it got more true if they repeat it every year again and again and again..
Face it: Desktop Linux will never happen!
And on the other hand: Desktop Macintosh already happened - more than 20 years ago!

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Good thing
by Anonymous on Sun 7th Aug 2005 17:24 UTC in reply to "RE: Good thing"
Anonymous Member since:
---

linux desktop have about 3% of the market like apple...

a lot of compagny, school people switch to linux...

few switch to apple...

kde desktop is similar to windows desktop... it's not true mac os x

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Good thing
by kellym on Sun 7th Aug 2005 17:34 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Good thing"
kellym Member since:
2005-07-06

"linux desktop have about 3% of the market like apple..."

Both Apple and Linux have more than 3% of the market. Their "market share" may be 3%... but that doesn't mean that they occupy only 3% of the market. You're referring to install base. The numbers for install-base and market share are different because they don't account for increased longevity of a computer. Both Macs and Linux computers remain in use much longer than the average Windows PC. Market share is a figure that is gauged solely by quarterly sales... not the actual number of computers in use. As a result, this tends to inflate Windows "market share" numbers over that of Mac and Linux while at the same time also deflating Mac and Linux numbers. Mac and Linux represent approximately 6-7% (Install base) each.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Good thing
by D3M0N on Mon 8th Aug 2005 01:43 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Good thing"
D3M0N Member since:
2005-07-09

IIRC Macs are up to 4% now ;) Apple is growing.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Good thing
by Anonymous on Mon 8th Aug 2005 10:30 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Good thing"
Anonymous Member since:
---

kde desktop is similar to windows desktop

wrong, kde-desktop CAN be similar to windows desktop, and it CAN be similar to mac os X, and it CAN be completely customized at your will, it's not because something can be similar to, that it is similar, it's much more than just similar.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Good thing
by kaiwai on Sun 7th Aug 2005 18:12 UTC in reply to "RE: Good thing"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Agreed! Tell me once Adobe, Microsoft, numerous games companies, Corel, and numerous other software companies port their software to Linux, then I might be interested in using it.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Good thing
by tantalic on Sun 7th Aug 2005 17:13 UTC in reply to "Good thing"
tantalic Member since:
2005-07-06

"Treacherous computing is unethical and that is what Apple wants to bring you. They own the machine and decide what it runs, even though you pay for it and the software."

Two problems with your argument: 1) Apple has openly said they will not do anything to keep their computers from running Windows, Linux, etc. The TPM is only being used to make sure you can't run OS X on other computers. 2) While reverse engineering is legal (under most circumstances) stealing software which one did not pay for certainly is not. Running OS X on a vanilla box is taking software apple has spent millions of dollars developing and not paying for it, unless of course you buy an Intel Mac keep it in your closet and never use it.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Good thing
by rayiner on Sun 7th Aug 2005 17:25 UTC in reply to "RE: Good thing"
rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

Running OS X on a vanilla box is taking software apple has spent millions of dollars developing and not paying for it, unless of course you buy an Intel Mac keep it in your closet and never use it.

Or, you walk down to CompUSA and buy a copy!

Reply Score: 1

v RE[3]: Good thing
by tantalic on Sun 7th Aug 2005 17:35 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Good thing"
RE[4]: Good thing
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 7th Aug 2005 17:38 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Good thing"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Almost, have you ever seen a full version of OS X on sale anywhere? Nope. If you look closely not even Apple doesn't even carry such a product - they are all upgrades. They only way to purchase a full version of OS X is to purchase Apple hardware.

Erm, you can buy "full versions" of OS X in any Apple shop or official retailer (heck, Tiger's box + dvd is lying right *there* in one of my closets). If you don't believe me, go visit one, or check www.apple.com.

Reply Score: 5

RE[5]: Good thing
by tantalic on Mon 8th Aug 2005 03:18 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Good thing"
tantalic Member since:
2005-07-06

"Erm, you can buy "full versions" of OS X in any Apple shop or official retailer"

While they are not labelled as upgrade discs this is essentially what they are according to your license agreement. This is even apparent in the marketing material on Apple's website, ads, and in stores - "Upgrade your Mac for $129." The license agreement (which is really what you are paying for) gives you rights to use OS X on a singe "Apple-labeled" computer, which all ship with a previous version of Mac OS X - so in order to install Tiger you must already have a lincense to a previous version of Mac OS/Mac OS X, which is the defining characteristic of a software upgrade.

You can be fairly sure that if Apple were to sell a full version (one which does not require a previous license of Mac OS/Mac OS X) it would cost significantly more then $129.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Good thing
by Anonymous on Mon 8th Aug 2005 03:44 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Good thing"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Each Mac sold ships with OSX. Therefore, if you own a (fairly recent) Mac, you have a previous license.
...."(one which does not require a previous license of Mac OS/Mac OS X)"...
They do not sell such, and have said they do not intend to, so your comment is spurious. What they sell is a full install (with other options) on the hardware they support. If you don't like the hardware they support, you don't get Tiger. Seems simple enough.

Reply Score: 0

RE[7]: Good thing
by tantalic on Mon 8th Aug 2005 03:57 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Good thing"
tantalic Member since:
2005-07-06

"They do not sell such, and have said they do not intend to, so your comment is spurious"

Actually that was the whole point of that comment. If you look through the thread, this line was started by a claim that you could "you walk down to CompUSA and buy a copy" and then install it on a vanilla pc. My point is that you are not really purchasing a full version of the software = even if is not labled as such it is essentially an upgrade as the license agreement requires it to be used on "Apple-labeled" hardware and as such inherently requires a license to a previous version of Mac OS.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Good thing
by kellym on Sun 7th Aug 2005 18:00 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Good thing"
kellym Member since:
2005-07-06

"Almost, have you ever seen a full version of OS X on sale anywhere? Nope."

What? Its on sale all over the place. Any time you see OS X on shelves... its a full version.


"Nope. If you look closely not even Apple doesn't even carry such a product - they are all upgrades."

No, they are full boxed copies. They are not upgrades.

Reply Score: 1

Bad thing
by Anonymous on Sun 7th Aug 2005 17:20 UTC in reply to "Good thing"
Anonymous Member since:
---

1) Reverse engineering is legal.

Sure is. Reverse engineering for the purpose of getting a free lunch is not.

2) Treacherous computing is unethical and that is what Apple wants to bring you. They own the machine and decide what it runs, even though you pay for it and the software. If this is ok with you, then you are a hopeless blind mind and I hope the world will take pity on you as you make equally unthinking choices.

Did you boot on your brain before you wrote that? Apple knows they will not be able to support more than a fraction of the available hardware. If they do not use some kind of copy protection, every dumb kid will try to install mac OS x on his cheapo trasho PC and then complain because it doesn't work.

3)Apple's only hope is to take a pre-emptive stance and certify a number of OEM's as OS-X ready and derive licensing from them that way.

Yup. At last, your brain has booted.

4) Failure to do three will render Apple irrelevant. Watch the rise of the Linux (Gnome, KDE) desktops to usability hights previously unheard of in a tv near you in the next two years.

Apple has been called "irrelevant" more times than I have hair on my head. Apple is stronger than ever.

Reply Score: 0

v RE: Bad thing
by Anonymous on Sun 7th Aug 2005 17:33 UTC in reply to "Bad thing"
RE: Bad thing
by Anonymous on Sun 7th Aug 2005 20:34 UTC in reply to "Bad thing"
Anonymous Member since:
---

"If they do not use some kind of copy protection, every dumb kid will try to install mac OS x on his cheapo trasho PC and then complain because it doesn't work. "

I just bought a brand new Mac Mini last Tuesday, base model. I didn't have them install the wireless network option because I didn't have the money for that, and I already have a USB wireless adapter at home, with Mac drivers.

Apple is doing nothing to prevent me from installing this USB wifi stick, and so I did, and guess what, my wireless connection is absolute crap. If I didn't know any better, I would have no choice but to assume that Apple's computers are crap, and I would probably drive the 45 minutes back to the nearest Apple store and return my Mini (fortunately, I am somehow blessed with the unique ability to troubleshoot the problem first, and to recognise the fact that the Windows AND Linux drivers written for my adapter sucked).

I could also have purchased a USB adapter for my PS/2 keyboard, and if that USB adapter turned out to be of poor quality and I had keyboard problems, I could potentially blame Apple again.

I can dive into the Mac Mini and replace the hard drive and memory, and if I throw in some cheap, low quality components that fail soon after, I could potentially blame Apple. Granted, in this scenario, I believe that my warranty would become void if I pop open the case (lowendmac.com has a link to a site with some nice guides for doing just that, by the way), but there is nothing programmed into the OS or into some ROM chip on the motherboard that is preventing me from using all this 3rd party hardware.

So it is ridiculous for you to tell us that Apple HAS to employ copy protection on their new Intel based OS X, or else everybody will whip together a cheapo version and blame Apple when their stuff doesn't work. Apple doesn't employ that kind of copy protection NOW, and yet they seem to do just fine by allowing the customer to install what they want to install on their computer.

And who's to say that the majority WOULD use cheapo components? Why should Apple prevent me from buying the same motherboard and CPU that they use off of Pricewatch and putting together my own OS X capable computer? Because of MONEY? Ok, THAT makes more sense, and they have every right to do so as a company whose purpose is to earn money. But you can't tell us that it's for the sake of their image or for the protection of the customer.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Bad thing
by Anonymous on Sun 7th Aug 2005 23:32 UTC in reply to "RE: Bad thing"
Anonymous Member since:
---

asus is one of the pc manufactors that also build macs for apple with the same components. so, do you realy believe the *same* hardware is better when a stoopid apple logo is on the case? why, because it is hand polished by santas elves so the electrons can glide 10% better?

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Bad thing
by Anonymous on Mon 8th Aug 2005 08:13 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Bad thing"
Anonymous Member since:
---

why, because it is hand polished by santas elves so the electrons can glide 10% better?

It's 14.73%, thank you very much.

The real horror is not that people will run Apple OS X on a beige box. I don't really care very much.

I do care about the fact that these are going to be the pathetic losers who are going to whine about it. It's never going to be good enough, fast enough, fancy enough.

And no, you don't have the right to whine about problems with the system. You're not supposed to run it on your beige box.

But what I -REALLY- hate about this kind of people is that because of them, Apple is going to have to start to use product activation. Which is intended to stop the cheapo gangsters from stealing the system but which will, too bad so sad, going to cause me a lot of frustration which I don't have and don't need right now.
For that fact alone I wish all of you clone clowns a very violent and unpleasant death. Sooner rather than later, thank you very much.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Good thing
by Anonymous on Sun 7th Aug 2005 17:33 UTC in reply to "Good thing"
Anonymous Member since:
---

They own the machine and decide what it runs

While I generally disagree with any form of DRM, statements like that are misleading and places those opposed to any form of DRM into disrepute.

Apple has shown no desire to control what software you run under their OS, and they have show no desire to control what OS you run on their hardware. The only thing which they are saying is that you must run an Apple OS on Apple hardware. While I do not agree that they should be able to place this restriction upon their software, I do understand where it comes from: Apple is a large company which could not be supported from the revenue stream of the OS alone. They need to sell hardware to subsidise it.

No delusions of a megalomanic Jobs is necessary. While I'm sure he is as power-hungry as many people describe him to be, he already has his hands full with various ventures.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Good thing
by Shannara on Mon 8th Aug 2005 05:54 UTC in reply to "Good thing"
Shannara Member since:
2005-07-06

#1, Proven lie due to multiple court cases (google is your friend)

#2, Another lie. You don't own for the software (Ever tried reading?). And Apple does not want to bring you Treacherous computing. Wow, that's definately a criminal point of view.

#3, Lol, great joke!

#4, Another joke! Linux? Heh, who said you can't keep beating a dead horse ...

Oh well, go back to your cell, kiddo.

Reply Score: 1

v Files
by Anonymous on Sun 7th Aug 2005 17:01 UTC
Drivers
by LB06 on Sun 7th Aug 2005 17:03 UTC
LB06
Member since:
2005-07-06

It won't be of much use, since drivers for x86 hardware is pretty much non-existant on OS X. Apple, of course, will only provide drivers for certified hardware.

On the long run, though, this 'problem' may vanish because of hw vendors who release drivers for their hw (or else they will probably be written by a third party)

Reply Score: 1

RE: Drivers
by Anonymous on Mon 8th Aug 2005 15:35 UTC in reply to "Drivers"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Since we've got the source to Darwin, writing drivers for just about any peripheral shouldn't be too hard.

Reply Score: 0

One useful benifit...
by Anonymous on Sun 7th Aug 2005 17:04 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I'd use a hacked OSX as a demo for folks who are ardent Windows users. I wouldn't deploy it, though. For that, I'd go to Apple and get a full system.

Reply Score: 0

RE: One useful benifit...
by D3M0N on Mon 8th Aug 2005 01:40 UTC in reply to "One useful benifit..."
D3M0N Member since:
2005-07-09

That makes no sense. Just buy a Mac to show for a demo. Running a hacked OS X is NOT going to be the same as running the *proper* one on Mac x86 hardware. There are no useful benefits what-so-ever having Mac OS X on generic X86 hardware for Apple nor most end users as there is a high probability of it being much more unstable.

Reply Score: 1

LOL
by rayiner on Sun 7th Aug 2005 17:07 UTC
rayiner
Member since:
2005-07-06

Man. I predicated that OS X86 would be hacked "two weeks" after it came out. It's not even out yet! Yay for hackers.

Now, the justification I have for wanting to see OS X86 hacked. Apple telling you that you can't run OS X86 on whatever PC you want is like BMW telling you that you can't put a M5 engine into a Civic. Yes, it's a beautiful piece of technology, yes I'm sure you worked very hard to make it, and yes the mating may very well be a travesty of nature, but heck, if I pay for it, I'm going to do whatever I bloody well want with it. BMW doesn't have to support my endeavor, or warrenty it, or even make it easy for me, but they can't deny me the ultimate right of doing it. As far as I know, however, BMW doesn't do that. There are dozens of places where I can buy a BMW engine, and once I order one, I can do whatever I want with it.

Content creators have no right to tell you what to do with their content, aside from the very specific protections with regards to redistribution afforded to them by copyright law. If I want to take some guy's opus, a book he spent a decade writing in a Vietnamese prison camp, a book that won him the Nobel prize, and then use it for toilet paper, well, that's my right!

Now, you can use the "if it weren't for the built-in Mac tax, OS X86 would be a lot more expensive" argument, but that still doesn't fly. If you can't recoup the costs on something you sell at a given price, then you shouldn't be selling it at that price. You can do it anyway, and hope enough people will buy your other products to make up the difference, but that's your gamble. Saying "you have to buy an x86 Mac to run OS x86 otherwise Apple loses money" is like saying "you have to buy games for the XBox if you buy an XBox, otherwise Microsoft loses money". That very well might be true, but Microsoft gambled when they sold the XBox at a loss hoping to make it up from license fees. They have no right, and I have no obligation, to make sure they win their wager!

Reply Score: 5

RE: LOL
by Anonymous on Sun 7th Aug 2005 17:13 UTC in reply to "LOL"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Apple bought what is now OS X from NeXT (with a few other things as well, including NeXT itself) for around $400 million. Apple is the only one who has these "rights" your talking about. The car analogy does not apply because you license MacOS X, you dont buy it and OWN it, all you own is the license with your lousy $99.00. Jeez.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: LOL
by rayiner on Sun 7th Aug 2005 17:24 UTC in reply to "RE: LOL"
rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

You're right that you don't own the software, but that's irrelevent. You own a license to the software, under the framework of copyright law. All that copyright law does is prevent you from redistributing that work. Copyright law gives Apple no more rights than those. This is by design, in this country, copyright is a temporary protection afforded to content providers in order to encourage the creation of content, every piece of which is destined for the public domain.

Software licenses are not contracts. They cannot include arbitrary clauses like a contract would. They are merely controls on redistribution, and do not grant the licensor powers beyond those specific controls.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: LOL
by Anonymous on Sun 7th Aug 2005 17:56 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: LOL"
Anonymous Member since:
---

rayiner,

the one element you're forgetting is that OS X is part of Apple's hardware solution. When you buy one without the other, you're taking money away from them.

The problem is that you're equating PC dynamics where everything is a piecemeal approach to the Mac solution which is a single product solution.

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: LOL
by japail on Sun 7th Aug 2005 18:09 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: LOL"
japail Member since:
2005-06-30

Everyone stop buying copies of OS X from Apple's store right now. You're taking money away from Apple by not buying a new computer with it already installed.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: LOL
by kellym on Sun 7th Aug 2005 18:14 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: LOL"
kellym Member since:
2005-07-06

"Everyone stop buying copies of OS X from Apple's store right now. You're taking money away from Apple by not buying a new computer with it already installed."

japail, I don't see how you would come to that conclusion. To use OS X, you would have already bought a Mac anyways. No need to buy a new Mac for every OS. Only one is necessary.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: LOL
by japail on Sun 7th Aug 2005 18:18 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: LOL"
japail Member since:
2005-06-30

Because I can buy an arbitrary number of copies of OS X for my iMac, or my Mac Mini. And of course if the purchase of OS X without the purchase of hardware is stealing money from Apple, then I am of course stealing money from Apple for as long as I do not purchase new hardware for my regular OS X upgrades. The longer I go, and the more copies I purchase without hardware, the less and less per copy of OS X has Apple made off of the sale of the hardware to me. The point of course was that his wording is silly hyperbole.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: LOL
by kellym on Sun 7th Aug 2005 18:24 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: LOL"
kellym Member since:
2005-07-06

"Because I can buy an arbitrary number of copies of OS X for my iMac, or my Mac Mini. And of course if the purchase of OS X without the purchase of hardware is stealing money from Apple, then I am of course stealing money from Apple for as long as I do not purchase new hardware for my regular OS X upgrades."

No, because Apple already benefited from the sale of your Mac hardware.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: LOL
by rayiner on Sun 7th Aug 2005 19:07 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: LOL"
rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

Making them make less money than they would otherwise does not equal taking money away. The latter is theft. The former is just bad-luck for them.

The law has no need (and indeed should not) to protect specific business models. If Apple's business model is unenforcable within the legal framework, well, its not the legal framework that's at fault.

Look at it this way. What you guys are saying is that Apple sell's OS X86 at a loss (unlikely, given the profit margins on software, but I'll play along) and making money on Mac hardware sales. It's no different than Microsoft selling an XBox at a loss and making money on software sales. But Microsoft can't force you to buy XBox games if you buy an XBox. I'm perfectly within my rights to buy an XBox and use it as a Linux router. Sure, Microsoft loses money on the deal, but whose fault is that?

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: LOL
by Anonymous on Sun 7th Aug 2005 19:27 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: LOL"
Anonymous Member since:
---

"Making them make less money than they would otherwise does not equal taking money away."

It does when you understand that the OS is subsadized by the sale of hardware.


"The law has no need (and indeed should not) to protect specific business models."

Agreed. But if you abide by Apple's EULA... *you do if you install the OS) then you should be required to live up to that agreement... which in Apple's case means buying a Mac along with it.


"It's no different than Microsoft selling an XBox at a loss and making money on software sales. But Microsoft can't force you to buy XBox games if you buy an XBox."

But Microsoft's business model is that they hope that they know they will take a loss... and hope that they will someday make a profit on game sales. Apple's is different. They know they own the Mac platform and that the OS is part of the complete solution including hardware. They know they are going to make their money back because the OS is part of the complete solution. The difference is that Apple's business model is more sound than Microsoft's with the X Box.

"I'm perfectly within my rights to buy an XBox and use it as a Linux router. Sure, Microsoft loses money on the deal, but whose fault is that?"

Thats Microsoft's fault for not setting the Hardware price appropriately.

Maybe that means that Apple should increase the price of OS X to $500 for vanilla PCs so that they can get the same average margin they get on Macs for their OS when sold for vanilla PCs.

Reply Score: 0

RE[6]: LOL
by rayiner on Sun 7th Aug 2005 19:37 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: LOL"
rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

It does when you understand that the OS is subsadized by the sale of hardware.

No, it never does. Taking money away is when I take money that they have. In this case, they're gambling by selling a product at a loss, and I'm ensuring that they lose their bet. They have no money to begin with, and no contract ensuring them money, so if they don't get it, legally, they've lost nothing.

But if you abide by Apple's EULA... *you do if you install the OS)

There is no evidence for such agreements. I can make one right now: to reply to this post, you have to go outside and run around naked for 5 min. By replying to this post, you implicitly agree to this contract.

But Microsoft's business model is that they hope that they know they will take a loss... and hope that they will someday make a profit on game sales. Apple's is different. They know they own the Mac platform and that the OS is part of the complete solution including hardware. They know they are going to make their money back because the OS is part of the complete solution. The difference is that Apple's business model is more sound than Microsoft's with the X Box.

Being more sound versus being less sound is irrelevent. Legally, the standing is no different. In Apple's case, they'd be bundling hardware to software (illegal), and in Microsoft's case, they'd be bundling software to hardware (illegal). "Complete solution" or any of the bullshit terms Mac users use have no relevence here. Bose sells "complete solutions" too. They're speakers are designed to go with their amps. However, nothing prevents me from buying their speakers and using them with a different amp, and Bose would have no legal standing to stop me.

Thats Microsoft's fault for not setting the Hardware price appropriately.

It's Apple's fault for not setting the price of OS X appropriately!

Maybe that means that Apple should increase the price of OS X to $500 for vanilla PCs so that they can get the same average margin they get on Macs for their OS when sold for vanilla PCs.

If they can't make money selling it at the price they are selling it, they have no option but to raise the price. I'd still buy a copy at $500, though I think they'd make more money if they priced it more competitively with Windows XP Professional (say $300). Either way, setting their prices to an appropriate level is a power they do have. Controlling how people use their software (as opposed to how they redistribute it), is a power they do not have.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: LOL
by Anonymous on Sun 7th Aug 2005 20:07 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: LOL"
Anonymous Member since:
---

"No, it never does. Taking money away is when I take money that they have."

Then you must be among those that believe that it is not stealing when you pirate software because you didn't actually steal anything physical. Sorry, yours is a bad argument.



"In this case, they're gambling by selling a product at a loss"

Not a gamble at all. They know that the hardware and operating system are part of a single product. They know that law abiders will buy the hardware that supports the software. Its only a gamble when you apply the PC piecemeal approach where everything is a seperate component that makes up a product. Apple ownes the entire platform... the piecemeal argument doesn't apply.


"They have no money to begin with"

They do when cuz you bought the computer.


"and no contract ensuring them money"

They don't need a contract ensuing them money. They already got the money after you bought the hardware. If you want to upgrade the software, you can do so at the hardware-subsadized price.


"here is no evidence for such agreements."

Then you can't negate it either.


"I can make one right now: to reply to this post, you have to go outside and run around naked for 5 min. By replying to this post, you implicitly agree to this contract."

I don't agree to your contract. I will just have to get my money back. Oh wait... I didn't give you money... I don't have to agree.


"In Apple's case, they'd be bundling hardware to software (illegal)"

Its not illegal because Apple owns the whole platform. Its akin to Sony having a monopoly for button knobs on their radio. They can do it because they own the complete product. Apple ownes the entire platform. They're not selling you a generic piece of software or piece of hardware, their selling you a complete solution not unlike the Sony radio analogy.


"Bose sells "complete solutions" too. They're speakers are designed to go with their amps. However, nothing prevents me from buying their speakers and using them with a different amp"

Yes, because you're not breaking the law by doing so. You are breaking the law by installing OS X on anything other than Apple gear.


"It's Apple's fault for not setting the price of OS X appropriately!"

No, because the OS is part of the hardware. They know that they're going to get that back because a Mac purchase is required.


"If they can't make money selling it at the price they are selling it, they have no option but to raise the price"

They can make money at the price their selling it because they know that you're required to buy a Mac.


"I'd still buy a copy at $500, though I think they'd make more money if they priced it more competitively with Windows XP Professional (say $300). Either way, setting their prices to an appropriate level is a power they do have."

They would make more money on OS sale for doing so, but they would make drasticly less money for lost hardware sales.


"Controlling how people use their software (as opposed to how they redistribute it), is a power they do not have."

And THAT is where we disagree. The problem is that you're applying the PC piecemeal approach to Apple's business where they own the entire platform. They have that power because they own the entire platform. They can and do dictate how every aspect of their computer is sold. They have every benefit to make that as appealing to you as possible so they're not going to do anything to upset you after you bought Apple's complete solution (lest they lose a customer) but they CAN dictate those terms.

Reply Score: 0

RE[7]: LOL
by Arun on Mon 8th Aug 2005 01:02 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: LOL"
Arun Member since:
2005-07-07

"Complete solution" or any of the bullshit terms Mac users use have no relevence here. Bose sells "complete solutions" too. They're speakers are designed to go with their amps. However, nothing prevents me from buying their speakers and using them with a different amp, and Bose would have no legal standing to stop me.

Your bullshit does'nt either... Bose sells the exact same speakers with thier complete system seperatley... So sorry wrong analogy again..

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: LOL
by Anonymous on Mon 8th Aug 2005 02:46 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: LOL"
Anonymous Member since:
---

They are contracts, legally binding ones that you do not have to participate in, but are bound to when you purchase the license in the first place and (usually) finally open the package containing the CD/DVD. You violate the license, you may no longer have the right to use the product, and a violation of this contract can work against you in civil court if damages can be proven. This is NOT irrelevant! Just because it may not be criminal copyright violations, does not mean you can not be sued by the licensor and incur a substantial judgement against you.

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: LOL
by tnoflahc on Mon 8th Aug 2005 03:25 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: LOL"
tnoflahc Member since:
2005-08-07

They are NOT contracts, they are not legally binding. Unless you agree to the terms of the contract at the time of sale, then you are not bound to any of the terms set forth in the EULA, unless they are already covered by an existing law.

Nobody as yet has been able to refute this; all anybody has been able to do is to demonstrate that in some cases, EULAs were upheld in court, either because the offender did indeed violate an already established law, or because the offender breached the terms of a contract to which they had agreed FOR THE PURPOSE OF OBTAINING THE PRODUCT.

If I buy a full copy of OS X from Staples, then I have already obtained the product, and it is my right to do as I please with said product within the confines of the law. A EULA is *NOT* LAW unless I agreed to it IN ORDER TO OBTAIN THE PRODUCT. If there is any part of a "shrink wrap" EULA that is enforceable by law, it is because it is already covered by an existing law (for example, copyright infringement), and its presence within a EULA is redundant; it would be illegal for me to distribute copies of the product without consent, regardless of whether it was mentioned in a EULA or not.

Reply Score: 2

RE: LOL
by Anonymous on Sun 7th Aug 2005 17:36 UTC in reply to "LOL"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Yes, this is absolutely right, not simply morally but as a matter of law. Competition law generally, and especially in Europe, forbids post sales restraints, because they lead inevitably to linked sales, which are a prime anti competitive tactic. Buy my cake tin, fine, its unlawful to use it with any other cake mix than mine. Buy my PC, you have to buy memory and disk drives from me. And so on. This is always anti competitive, and so unenforceable. The poster is right: if you can't make money selling it, don't.

Reply Score: 4

RE: LOL
by Anonymous on Sun 7th Aug 2005 18:59 UTC in reply to "LOL"
Anonymous Member since:
---

"Content creators have no right to tell you what to do with their content"

actually, they do, it's called the EULA. you agree to it when you install it.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: LOL
by rayiner on Sun 7th Aug 2005 19:21 UTC in reply to "RE: LOL"
rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

That presupposes that EULA's are legal. In the United States, at least, there is no legal confirmation for that, and a lot of legal precedence that suggests that they are ineffectual. A signed contract is one thing. Those are legal. Verbal contracts are legal too, but much harder to enforce. Contracts that have neither verbal nor signatory proof of acceptance are not contracts, period.

Reply Score: 1

RE: LOL
by Anonymous on Sun 7th Aug 2005 21:02 UTC in reply to "LOL"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Your BMW engine analogy is very flawed. If you get a BMW engine by paying for it, borrowing it or even stealing it, BMW still gets paid for each engine it builds. BMW engines are built not cloned. Yet one real OS X86 DVD can be turned into potentially an unlimited number of copies, yet Apple would only get paid for one copy.

When you buy any digital content, your are bound to the terms of the End User License Agreement. If you don't like it or are not willing to abide by the terms of the agreement, don't buy the product. No one is holding a gun to your head.

Reply Score: 0

RE: LOL
by Anonymous on Sun 7th Aug 2005 21:03 UTC in reply to "LOL"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Your BMW engine analogy is very flawed. If you get a BMW engine by paying for it, borrowing it or even stealing it, BMW still gets paid for each engine it builds. BMW engines are built not cloned. Yet one real OS X86 DVD can be turned into potentially an unlimited number of copies, yet Apple would only get paid for one copy.

When you buy any digital content, your are bound to the terms of the End User License Agreement. If you don't like it or are not willing to abide by the terms of the agreement, don't buy the product. No one is holding a gun to your head.

Reply Score: 0

RE: LOL
by Arun on Mon 8th Aug 2005 00:56 UTC in reply to "LOL"
Arun Member since:
2005-07-07

If I want to take some guy's opus, a book he spent a decade writing in a Vietnamese prison camp, a book that won him the Nobel prize, and then use it for toilet paper, well, that's my right!


Sure, go out buy 8 OS X cds and use them as coasters at home or as frisbees, no one is stopping you!!

Your examples are pretty silly, really.

Reply Score: 1

RE: LOL
by Anonymous on Mon 8th Aug 2005 02:51 UTC in reply to "LOL"
Anonymous Member since:
---

You are morally bankrupt.

Reply Score: 0

RE: LOL
by Anonymous on Mon 8th Aug 2005 13:56 UTC in reply to "LOL"
Anonymous Member since:
---

GET REAL! How old you are? Can you read? When you buy a BMW, yes, you OWN that car, when you buy OS X you are buying a license to use the OS, and if you open the pack, you are agreeing to the End User License!
Just because you bought a box with OS X Installer it doesnt mean that you own OS X, Apple own the software.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: LOL
by Anonymous on Mon 8th Aug 2005 14:08 UTC in reply to "RE: LOL"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Whoa about OSX versus a BMW engine: you don't own the design for the BMW engine either. You can't make copies of it and sell it.

But, you still own that one engine you bought. And likewise you do own the copy of OSX that you purchased. And yes, you can do what you want with it as long as you don't violate copyright law.

IMHO it doesn't matter if the license agreement forbids you from installing it on a nonstandard machine. That probably doesn't carry the force of law. Installing multiple versions on multiple machines is different, because in that case you're making copies, in violation of copyright law.

But the long and short of it is: companies can't really mandate how you use something after buying it, as long as you are not breaking the law. The whole spiel that you supposedly didn't "buy" it but are just "licensing" it is just talk, and apparently it is convincing talk.

X

Reply Score: 0

RE: LOL
by Anonymous on Mon 8th Aug 2005 14:31 UTC in reply to "LOL"
Anonymous Member since:
---

content creators have no right to tell you what to do with their content


YES THEY DO. You're a moron. Cheers!

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: LOL
by Anonymous on Mon 8th Aug 2005 15:06 UTC in reply to "RE: LOL"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Well, they only have one right: the ability to determine who gets to make copies, and to be compensated for it.

They don't get to tell you how to use it. Copyright (ever wonder why it's called that? Hmm?) doesn't give them the authority to control how you use it (so long as you don't make copies... and it has been ruled that the one copy you make from CD to hard drive to use it doesn't count... now, if you install it on more than one computer, that's a different matter and a breach of copyright). So they spring a contract on you after the point of sale (which is, thankfully, considered illegal in many countries) to try and grant themselves powers outside of copyright.

They don't own the copy they sold to you. You don't own a license to that copy, either. You own a copy. Now, if they start having you sign the contract before you purchase a copy, then you would also have a contract controlling your use of that copy. Otherwise, it's illegally restricting your use of a product you already purchased.

It is illegal to spring terms on a customer after they purchase an item. With good reason, too.

And for those folks comparing this to the GPL: the reason the GPL doesn't have this problem is that it only grants you more abilities then straight copyright does... it doesn't stray outside of copyright and it doesn't control your right to use the software. EULA's (which, really, are not license agreements but contracts because of the restrictions they contain) go well outside the realm of copyright in what they try to enforce.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: LOL
by Anonymous on Mon 8th Aug 2005 17:52 UTC in reply to "RE: LOL"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Yes, and no. Read Jessica Litman's book Digital Copyright.

Reply Score: 0

RE: LOL
by Anonymous on Tue 9th Aug 2005 20:45 UTC in reply to "LOL"
Anonymous Member since:
---

I assume someone else has pointed this out, but I am sure the Apple EULA states that you are not buying/purchasing the right to the OS without the underlying hardware. Stated another way, you are obtaining a license to use the software (OS X supplied by Apple) with the purchased hardware (also supplied by Apple).

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: LOL
by Anonymous on Tue 9th Aug 2005 21:06 UTC in reply to "RE: LOL"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Yes it does so state, and that doesn't either make it a license to use instead of a sale, or make it lawful and enforceable to have post sale restrictions on use. You can call it what you want, its still a sale. You can call it what you want, you still cannot get an EU court to enforce restrictions on use after its been bought. All this stuff is just marketing FUD.

Reply Score: 0

v Initially good, eventually bad
by Anonymous on Sun 7th Aug 2005 17:09 UTC
Just enough DRM
by imothepixie on Sun 7th Aug 2005 17:14 UTC
imothepixie
Member since:
2005-07-09

Apple being Apple I think there will be only just enough 'DRM' to keep the unwashed masses (or maybe only slightly tech savvy!?) from casually installing the OS on their no name box. I for one will only be keeping an eye on how its done, to keep one hand of semi-ambidexterity twitching (creative/tech, mac/pc, artist first/techhead second!) if some easy way of doing it turns up, I might....if i want OS X on cheap hardware I'm going for Xpostofacto and a maxed out older Mac!

How is this 'DRM' different to when Macs had a Mac-ROM chip.. which not only prevented others from making Macs but before open-firmware, a little tricky to install another OS?

Reply Score: 2

Hyprocritical.
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 7th Aug 2005 17:32 UTC
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

I must agree with the people saying that cracking OSX this way is simply illegal.

As someone rightfully pointed out, you *license* OSX, and you *agreed* to that license, like you would *agree* to a job contract. If that job contract tells you that you get payed a Christmas bonus, but then you don't get it because your employer thinks it's immoral, then you'd be up in arms, wouldn't you? What is different in Apple or any other company making sure you keep your end of the contract?

Secondly, a lot of these so-called "freedom" boys will be the first to squeal if someone violates the GPL-- don't you people understand that the GPL is in itself a license just like the license Apple is giving you? What gives you the right to break Apple's license on one side, and throw a fit when someone violates the GPL? That's blatant hippocracy! Someone care to elaborate?

Reply Score: 5

RE: Hyprocritical.
by Anonymous on Sun 7th Aug 2005 17:43 UTC in reply to "Hyprocritical."
Anonymous Member since:
---

Thom, you are just wrong about this one, like a lot of people. Take a look at EC competition law, and you will realise that post sale restraints are not enforceable. In fact, the attempt to have post sale restraints, eg by cutting of a supplier who violates them, may lead to severe competition law penalties. People don't understand this, but it is so. Here is why. If I can impose post sale restraints, I cannot be prevented from doing linked sales. I could then dominate one field, and by preventing competition in linked sales, extend my domination. For instance, I will not sell you tiles unless you buy your tile cement from me. I will not sell you timber unless you buy your paint from me. I will not allow any aftermarket for my car accessories - they must all be bought from me. None of this stuff will fly, and rightly. What you can do is, for instance, patent the plug, and then stop people making other plugs that will fit. Or you can do DRMs or ROM bindings. But you cannot do it by EULAs. Unenforceable, and very risky to even try.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Hyprocritical.
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 7th Aug 2005 17:53 UTC in reply to "RE: Hyprocritical."
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

You are forgetting a key point: you *agreed* to that EULA, and in some countries, that is *binding*, as in some countries, even an oral contract is binding. It might be called an EULA, but in the end it's just a contract.

If my neighbour and I come to a contractual agreement that he may build a part of his shed on my land, and in return he needs to wear an orange hat every 3rd sunday of the month, then I can take legal action if he doesn't-- because we both *agreed* to that contract.

Same for me and Apple. I installed Tiger. Apple allows me to run Tiger, and in return I can only install it on Apple's hardware (=wearing an orange hat on every 3rd sunday of the month). It's exactly the same, just different terms.

According to you, you cannot enforce the contract you agreed to. Then how is the FSF goign to enforce the GPL? The GPL is just a license, like Apple's, and the GPL is supposed to be enforcable. That's why I was referring to hippocracy: those boys screaming that this whole OSX-cracked thing is good for freedom, on the other hand squeal death and decay when someone violates the GPL, which in effect is the exact same thing as these guys cracking OSX are doing.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Hyprocritical.
by Lumbergh on Sun 7th Aug 2005 17:56 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Hyprocritical."
Lumbergh Member since:
2005-06-29

I agree with you in principle Thom. And I want to disagree with you hard, but at then end of the day I want Apple to give a little piracy up, but I can't.

You are right. It's a contract. You agree to it, and that's that. Apple better not fight me on dual-booting windows in 2007 though, and I want a damn, fast machine as a option too. Please Apple, give me a desktop replacement machine PLEASE!.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Hyprocritical.
by Anonymous on Sun 7th Aug 2005 18:00 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Hyprocritical."
Anonymous Member since:
---

The reason the EULA is not enforceable is that if you are taken to court, the court will rule that it is anti-competitive and so unenforceable. The exact same thing would happen if you bought a copy of MS Office, ran it on Crossover Office, and MS sued or tried to restrain you on the grounds that it was contrary to the EULA and had to be run only on Windows. Will not be enforceable. I do not know about other licenses, Open Source and so on, they are a different issue. This would be an attempt to restrain post sale use by contract, and it will not fly in Europe. They can of course make it technically impossible to do certain things with it. Beyond a certain point, that too is risky, if it is done solely to restrain competition. But that is the only way. This really is the state of competition law in the EC. Think it through, and you will see why. But like it or not, that is how it is.

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: Hyprocritical.
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 7th Aug 2005 18:04 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Hyprocritical."
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

You're totally not seeing the point: you *agreed*, willingly, without being forced, without a gun put to your head, to *not* run OS X on non-Apple hardware. *That* is a contractual agreement, and therefor, very much enforcable.

According to you, violating the GPL poses no problems. Don't forget: the GPL is just as much an EULA as Apple's or Microsoft's. According to your logic, no contract can be enforced!

Reply Score: 5

RE[5]: Hyprocritical.
by Lumbergh on Sun 7th Aug 2005 18:09 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Hyprocritical."
Lumbergh Member since:
2005-06-29

Exactly, violating the Apple EULA is ok, but if anybody violates the holier than though GPL than you're evil. I had questions about you when you took over, but i'm happy that you are a moral and rational personal.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Hyprocritical.
by Anonymous on Mon 8th Aug 2005 05:39 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Hyprocritical."
Anonymous Member since:
---

No contract can be enforced if that contract is illegal. Why do you think so many contracts include wording to say that if part of the contract is ruled to be illegal, the remainder shall be enforceable regardless? They include that wording because a contract is not superior to the rule of law - the law comes before the contract.

If Apple attempts to enforce the use of their software only on their hardware *through the contract*, that is illegal not just in Europe, but in the United States and Canada as well, and likely other countries too. It is considered to be product tying, which is illegal. They can do it through technical means, by trying to make it so their software cannot run on anything other than their hardware, but they simply cannot do it by a contract, regardless of whether they tried to and you agreed to it or not.

The only reason something like that would be placed in the contract is to scare you into *thinking* they can enforce it, when they cannot.

Reply Score: 0

RE[6]: Hyprocritical.
by Anonymous on Mon 8th Aug 2005 05:49 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Hyprocritical."
Anonymous Member since:
---

For those claiming not to understand product tying, and the fact that a contract is only valid if it complies with existing law, read the following which is verbatim from the website of the Office of the Maine Attorney General. Replace "the tying product" with "Mac OS X software", and "the tied product" with "Mac x86 hardware":

-----
Tying

When a seller conditions (or ties) the sale of a product wanted by a buyer (the tying product) upon the purchase by the buyer of another product (the tied product) the seller has engaged in tying. Tying the purchase of one product to the sale of another product is known as "reciprocal dealing." Tying and reciprocal dealing are illegal if the seller possesses market power in the tying product and is successful in conditioning the sale of the tying product upon the purchase of the tied product. Tying arrangements are anticompetitive in that the seller is able to require the purchase of the tied product without regard to its price or quality but solely because the buyer wants to purchase (or sell) the tying product. By engaging in tying, the seller is able to increase its sales at the expense of firms competing for sales of the tied product. Tying may also directly harm consumers by requiring them to buy an unwanted product as a condition of purchasing a desirable product.

Illustration:
National Spuds, Ltd., a processor of french fries and other potato products, contracts to purchase potatoes from Maine farmers at the start of each growing season, and also markets farm equipment and fertilizer to these same farmers. Farmers prize National Spuds contracts because they offer a secure return on investment, and a valuable hedge against the volatility of the spot market for potatoes. National Spuds, Ltd. is the sole potato processor in the State. However, National Spuds fertilizers and farm equipment have not been selling well because Maine farmers consider them expensive and ineffective. National Spuds instructs its potato buyers to only contract with those farmers who use their fertilizer and farm equipment.

Legal Conclusion:
National Spuds Ltd. has illegally tied the contract purchase of potatoes from Maine farmers to the sale of fertilizer and farm equipment.10

Tip:
National Spuds, too, would have benefited by instituting an antitrust training program for management.
-----

http://www.maine.gov/ag/index.php?r=clg&s=chap30

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Hyprocritical.
by Shannara on Mon 8th Aug 2005 05:59 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Hyprocritical."
Shannara Member since:
2005-07-06

Holy ... That is awsome information! Thanks! +1

Reply Score: 0

RE[7]: Hyprocritical.
by Anonymous on Mon 8th Aug 2005 06:04 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Hyprocritical."
Anonymous Member since:
---

I don't know if this applies at all or if I'm merely throwing gasoline on an already burning fire (apologies if I am), but this is the first thing I thought of when I read your post on product tying.

15 U.S.C. § 14. Sale, etc., on agreement not to use goods of competitor

It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, to lease or make a sale or contract for sale of goods, wares, merchandise, machinery, supplies, or other commodities, whether patented or unpatented, for use, consumption, or resale within the United States or any Territory thereof or the District of Columbia or any insular possession or other place under the jurisdiction of the United States, or fix a price charged therefor, or discount from, or rebate upon, such price, on the condition, agreement, or understanding that the lessee or purchaser thereof shall not use or deal in the goods, wares, merchandise, machinery, supplies, or other commodities of a competitor or competitors of the lessor or seller, where the effect of such lease, sale, or contract for sale or such condition, agreement, or understanding may be to substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce.

Reply Score: 0

RE[7]: Hyprocritical.
by Johan on Mon 8th Aug 2005 08:02 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Hyprocritical."
Johan Member since:
2005-06-30

Tying arrangements are not always illegal. Just as being a monopoly isn't. First, they must be two separate products. That is if you think that OSX and Apple Computers as two different things, but the entire apple experience that is being sold to customers is the computer and the operating system. One requires the other.

Secondly and most importantly under any antitrust claim, the seller must have sufficient economic power with respect to the tying product to appreciably restrain free competition in the market for the tied product. There's no way Apple can restrain competition in x86 world. Its a only a small player with a fraction of the total PC sales, and no market at all of the x86 world.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Hyprocritical.
by Anonymous on Sun 7th Aug 2005 18:11 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Hyprocritical."
Anonymous Member since:
---

"The exact same thing would happen if you bought a copy of MS Office, ran it on Crossover Office, and MS sued or tried to restrain you on the grounds that it was contrary to the EULA and had to be run only on Windows."

There's a difference. Microsoft can't dictate how the software isused or how its used in combination with other software as long as you bought a license for that hardware.

On the other hand, Apple can dictate which hardware their OS is installed. The only reason why that is, is because they own the platform. To many of you are applying PC dynamics to Apple gear. The PC marketplace is a collection of multiple parts to make up a whole. As far as Apple's solution is concerned, the software is part of the hardware.... meaning, its part of the complete solution. They've priced their product in such a way that you can only buy OS X for its low price as long as you also buy hardware from Apple.

Reply Score: 0

RE[5]: Hyprocritical.
by Anonymous on Sun 7th Aug 2005 18:12 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Hyprocritical."
Anonymous Member since:
---

Good response!

If people install OS X on PCs and Apple doesn't get the benefit of the hardware sale, you can expect OS X to increase in price to roughly $500.

Reply Score: 0

RE[6]: Hyprocritical.
by japail on Sun 7th Aug 2005 18:15 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Hyprocritical."
japail Member since:
2005-06-30

Please show us the model you used to project the future cost of OS X.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Hyprocritical.
by Anonymous on Sun 7th Aug 2005 18:21 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Hyprocritical."
Anonymous Member since:
---

>"Please show us the model you used to project the future cost of OS X."

The margins on the average Mac sold is approximately $400. The margins on the OS sold is roughly $100. If you buy the OS ($130) to the exclusion of the hardware, then you should pay for the margins lost on the hardware.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Hyprocritical.
by Anonymous on Sun 7th Aug 2005 18:22 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Hyprocritical."
Anonymous Member since:
---

According to you, you cannot enforce the contract you agreed to. Then how is the FSF goign to enforce the GPL? The GPL is just a license, like Apple's, and the GPL is supposed to be enforcable.

The usual argument I see against this is that you don't have to agree to the GPL. You are welcome to use GPL'd software in any way copyright law already allows, because the GPL only offers extra freedom. Apple's license OTOH imposes additional restrictions.

I don't know nearly enough about copyright law in any country to say if this is really true anywhere, especially considering the restrictions on merely linking against GPL'd libraries, though.

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: Hyprocritical.
by kellym on Sun 7th Aug 2005 18:26 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Hyprocritical."
kellym Member since:
2005-07-06

"because the GPL only offers extra freedom. Apple's license OTOH imposes additional restrictions."

Both GPL and Apple's license have restrictions. Apple requires that you buy a Mac to run OS X. And the GPL restricts you from incorporating GPL code in proprietary code.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Hyprocritical.
by Anonymous on Sun 7th Aug 2005 18:52 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Hyprocritical."
Anonymous Member since:
---

And the GPL restricts you from incorporating GPL code in proprietary code.

Yes, but that is prohibited by copyright law by default (in the US, at least) already. Re-read the argument, please.

Reply Score: 0

RE[5]: Hyprocritical.
by rayiner on Sun 7th Aug 2005 19:14 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Hyprocritical."
rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

Yes, they both have restrictions. However, the GPL's restrictions are within the power granted to it by copyright law, and Apple's restrictions aren't.

Look at it this way. If I wrote a book, and then included as part of the book's license a clause saying "you can only read this book on the toilet", do you think I'd honestly win my case in court when I sued somebody based on that clause? Apple's case is no different. It's a copyright license that thinks its a contract!

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Hyprocritical.
by elsewhere on Sun 7th Aug 2005 18:25 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Hyprocritical."
elsewhere Member since:
2005-07-13

Same for me and Apple. I installed Tiger. Apple allows me to run Tiger, and in return I can only install it on Apple's hardware (=wearing an orange hat on every 3rd sunday of the month). It's exactly the same, just different terms.

I agree, and think that's the point everyone overlooks in this mad rush to install OS X on vanilla hardware.

If you purchase a dell or hp system, for example, the MS Windows OEM license states that the software is licensed for that machine only. The user is not entitled to crack the recovery disk to install the software on another machine, regardless of how morally right they feel they are. It is simply and uneqivocably against the law.

Unless Apple significantly shifts gears and opens up OS X, the only way to obtain a legitimate copy of OS X for x86 will be to purchase a Mactel. And that license will be tied to that machine. No amount of self-righteous indignation will change the fact that users will not legally be able to hack or modify the OS to work on another machine. Anyone that does is breaking the law.

And for the naysayers, it's not an anti-competitive practise, MS has been doing it for years and with all the suits they've faced that hasn't been one of them. If hardware subsidizes the cost of the software, then the vendor is entirely entitled to restrictive licensing. Why shouldn't they be?

Personally, I don't use OS X or own a Mac, nor do I see any incentive to buy one in the future, the cost-benefit analysis simply does not pay off for me. But I do have a degree of respect for Apple's business strategy because it's paid off for them. They will never become a dominant player in either the consumer or the enterprise space (at least in the immediate future), and I don't seriously believe they want to be, it wouldn't make business sense. Their approach allows them to hold their marketshare with incremental growth and remain profitable. Opening up the OS to mass-marketers would likely only serve to decrease their profitability and risk diminishing the actual value of their brand name, and say whatever you want about Microsoft, being directly in their crosshairs is not a good place to be since they are never more dangerous (or even innovative) than when directly threatened. Better to stick at what you can do competently and remain an annoyance, rather than take them head on.

Just my 2c

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Hyprocritical.
by Anonymous on Sun 7th Aug 2005 18:33 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Hyprocritical."
Anonymous Member since:
---

"And for the naysayers, it's not an anti-competitive practise, MS has been doing it for years"

No one worth their salt was calling Microsoft anticompetative for restricting the OS sale to one computer. They were calling MS anticompetative because of the exclusionary contracts with PC OEMS which restricted fair competition.

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: Hyprocritical.
by Anonymous on Sun 7th Aug 2005 18:53 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Hyprocritical."
Anonymous Member since:
---

"The user is not entitled to crack the recovery disk to install the software on another machine, regardless of how morally right they feel they are. It is simply and uneqivocably against the law. "

What I'm telling you, very seriously, is that if you move your installation to another computer, no court in the EC is going to penalise you, or support your vendor if he tries to penalise you. The reason is, no EC court is going to enforce post sale restraints. Any more than they are going to penalise you if you take your Office installation off your Windows machine, and move it to your Linux machine under Wine. If you dispute this, tell me a case where post sales restraints have been upheld by an EC court. There are none. They will of course penalise you if you make multiple copies. That's different. That isn't a post sales restraint.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Hyprocritical.
by rayiner on Sun 7th Aug 2005 19:02 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Hyprocritical."
rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

According to you, you cannot enforce the contract you agreed to. Then how is the FSF goign to enforce the GPL? The GPL is just a license, like Apple's, and the GPL is supposed to be enforcable.

The GPL is a copyright license including only clauses within the power of a copyright license. Apple's EULA is a copyright license including clauses not within the power of a copyright license, rather, only within the power of a general contract. Since contracts require agreement by both parties, if there is no agreement, there is no contract. And there is no agreement. There is no signature, and while verbal contracts are fairly difficult to prove, there isn't even one of those!

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Hyprocritical.
by Johan on Mon 8th Aug 2005 05:06 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Hyprocritical."
Johan Member since:
2005-06-30

The GPL is a copyright license including only clauses within the power of a copyright license. Apple's EULA is a copyright license including clauses not within the power of a copyright license, rather, only within the power of a general contract.

Rayiner, while most of what everyone else said against what apple has done has so far been rather silly ("freedom", tsk), you have made the only logical and compelling argument so far.

I will talk about the legalities later, but c'mon you have to admit, what apple so far has done is only to protect their business plan. You can argue wether its a silly plan (though financially, apple's other plans have been pretty rewarding), but it's not hurting anyone. They spent alot of money into researching and developing their solutions (hardware and software), they should be allowed to recoup and profit from it, right? Legalities aside, no one is forcing anyone to buy apple stuff, apple is a business and they need to make money off their inventions and innovations. Apple can afford to sell it cheaper (relative to cost of developing it) due to the fact that apple computers come along with it. We shouldn't deny them of their freedom to choose this line of business plan.

Now, on to the legalities. Text of interest in bold ...

The Copyright Act of 1976, defines four factors to consider when deciding if the copying of a copyrighted work is fair and allowable without the consent of the copyright holder (17 U.S.C. § 107)

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.


Under the Fair Use doctrine of copyright laws, you can argue that apple has the right (thus enforceble under the same law as the liscence) to disallow any use of of its copyrighted work (OSX) that would alter the market and/or value of the product. Apple certainly did not intend the market to be beige boxes. Plus they can certainly argue that the value of the product would certainly change if they allowed it to be installed in other computers besides theirs.

I think apple is legally and morally in the right here.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Hyprocritical.
by Anonymous on Mon 8th Aug 2005 05:46 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Hyprocritical."
Anonymous Member since:
---

Apple can afford to sell it cheaper (relative to cost of developing it) due to the fact that apple computers come along with it. We shouldn't deny them of their freedom to choose this line of business plan.
Neither should they refuse us our freedom to do with it as we please, so long as we are not violating their copyrights, or fair use. Now maybe you can explain to me why if I buy a box of OSX86 and hack it to work on my PC, I would be violating Apple's copyrights, or reducing the market value of THE PRODUCT I BOUGHT.

n determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Is it the potential market value of the copyrighted work, or the software you are worried about? By some miracle in logic, you seem to be implying that if my BUYING and USING OSX on MY Dell prevents me from buying another apple product -- the hardware, then it is not fair use. Similarly, then buying a copy of a new version of OSX "Miao!" for an Apple box that came with OSX Tiger will violate fair use. Using OSX to browse a website that is not hosted on Xserver, will violate fair use, and using iPod to listen to music not bought from iTunes store, would violate fair use.

Under the Fair Use doctrine of copyright laws, you can argue that apple has the right (thus enforceble under the same law as the liscence) to disallow any use of of its copyrighted work (OSX) that would alter the market and/or value of the product. Apple certainly did not intend the market to be beige boxes. Plus they can certainly argue that the value of the product would certainly change if they allowed it to be installed in other computers besides theirs.
True Apple has the right to refuse to sell me a copy of OSX in some countries. But if you think they have both the right to sell me a copy of OSX, pocket my money and reserve the right to tell me what type of computer to use it on, you are kidding yourself.

I think apple is legally and morally in the right here.
Apple's rights can not and should not take away my rights. They exercise their rights, I exercise mine. We are both on the "right" then.

ASIDE:
If I bought a pair of Pierre Cadin shoes two sizes lower (because my size does not exist) and cut off the front so that it fits. Can they complain that their shoes are not supposed to be used by people with my feet size? Now suppose they decide to put a metalic front, thinking I won't be able to cut it, but some guy comes up with a new technique for cutting the metal, will you complain that they are in the right and this guys are in the wrong?

I hope you realize how silly your position is.

Reply Score: 0

RE[6]: Hyprocritical.
by Johan on Mon 8th Aug 2005 06:13 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Hyprocritical."
Johan Member since:
2005-06-30

True Apple has the right to refuse to sell me a copy of OSX in some countries. But if you think they have both the right to sell me a copy of OSX, pocket my money and reserve the right to tell me what type of computer to use it on, you are kidding yourself.

Way to totally ignore my comment. As I said, yes, they do have a right. The pocket money you paid is way less you're suppose to give apple if you didn't buy their computers. They sold you a product cheaply because you were supposed to have already bought a computer from them. That is their entire product, computer + OSX + upgrades. The market for OSX as sold in the store is only their computers. You try to circumvent this then you breach fair use.

If I bought a pair of Pierre Cadin shoes two ... bla bla bla

it's annoying when people do this, trying to find an analogue bewtween two totaly different products. Its not a shoe, its OSX. Its two totally separate business models protected by two toally different laws.

I hope you realize how silly your position is.
.. said the guy who tried to compare the sale of software to shoes ...

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Hyprocritical.
by _dev_null on Mon 8th Aug 2005 06:33 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Hyprocritical."
_dev_null Member since:
2005-08-02

The pocket money you paid is way less you're suppose to give apple
And who's fault is it that I could lay my hands on the product by paying much less than "I'm supposed to"?

This is as funny as a guy selling 50c candy for 10c on condition that you only chew it on the left side of your mouth. Chewing on the right side of the mouth is breaching fair use.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Hyprocritical.
by mario on Mon 8th Aug 2005 03:38 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Hyprocritical."
mario Member since:
2005-07-06

Well, I am no lawyer (but neither are you), but I am sure of one thing: in no country can you sign a contract that would cause an illegal action. So, even if we were to accept your point that one can, in fact "agree to an EULA", if in a country such agreement is illegal (like, for example, in Europe, where no wendor can dictate what hardware you can and can not run your software on), then the agreement to the EULA is invalid.

It's that simple. You may not like it (I wouldn't know why???), but this is really clearcut.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Hyprocritical.
by japail on Sun 7th Aug 2005 18:07 UTC in reply to "Hyprocritical."
japail Member since:
2005-06-30

The GPL does not cover how you use software, but rather how you redistribute software. It is affording you redistribution rights that you do not otherwise have under copyright law. It isn't the equivalent to the behavior afforded by a EULA, and I'm sure any of the hypothetical people of which you refer would make that distinction. I say hypothetical because what you've constructed is a bit of a straw man. That is, "I'm right, because everyone that would violate a EULA would be outraged by copyright infringement on GPL software."

Reply Score: 2

RE: Hyprocritical.
by rayiner on Sun 7th Aug 2005 18:56 UTC in reply to "Hyprocritical."
rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

As someone rightfully pointed out, you *license* OSX, and you *agreed* to that license, like you would *agree* to a job contract.

When was the last time you heard of contracts that come into force without you ever signing or even verbally consenting to anything?

What is different in Apple or any other company making sure you keep your end of the contract?

There is no contract!

Secondly, a lot of these so-called "freedom" boys will be the first to squeal if someone violates the GPL-- don't you people understand that the GPL is in itself a license just like the license Apple is giving you

The GPL is a copyright license, and its terms only cover the terms of redistribution. As a copyright license, controlling how the work is allowed to be redistributed is perfectly within the GPL's domain. Indeed, that's the whole point of copyright licenses. On the other hand, a copyright license is not a general contract. If RMS gets really high tomorrow and inserts a clause into the GPL saying you can only use the software when you're naked, well, that clause can have no power, because copyright law doesn't give copyright licenses the power to make such assertions.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Hyprocritical.
by Anonymous on Sun 7th Aug 2005 19:03 UTC in reply to "RE: Hyprocritical."
Anonymous Member since:
---

"When was the last time you heard of contracts that come into force without you ever signing or even verbally consenting to anything? "

When you install OS X, you must check a box saying that if you check this box and proceed you are agreeing to the terms.


"There is no contract!"

Yes there is... the EULA

Reply Score: 0

v RE: Hyprocritical.
by r_a_trip on Sun 7th Aug 2005 20:44 UTC in reply to "Hyprocritical."
stop the crying
by Anonymous on Sun 7th Aug 2005 17:34 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Look at it this way:
Lets say 100,000 people want to run Mac OSX but refuse to pay the high price for the hardware. Yet are willing to go out and buy Mac OSX and install it on their own beige box. My question to you is did Apple make more money from that or would they make more if the 100,000 just decided to not touch Mac products because of the hardware price. Seems option 1 is better for Apple and I'm sure they know it too as they are not stupid(most of the time). Then once you have all these extra people using the os they start buying software for the os and books and start developing for MacOSX and become zealots like most of us become after a little time. Pretty soon maybe they will start even buying the real apple hardware. In the long run it will help Apple out in my opinion. I think this stuff could really boost MacOSX and Apple in general to a reall player in the OS world.

Reply Score: 0

RE: stop the crying
by Anonymous on Sun 7th Aug 2005 17:48 UTC in reply to "stop the crying"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Lets say 100,000 people want to run Mac OSX but refuse to pay the high price for the hardware. Yet are willing to go out and buy Mac OSX and install it on their own beige box. My question to you is did Apple make more money from that or would they make more if the 100,000 just decided to not touch Mac products because of the hardware price.

You've committed the fallacy of assuming that the people who are willing to buy Mac hardware would continue to buy Mac hardware if a better alternative existed. When Apple last attempted licensing, they lost sales to competitors at both the low and high end.

Now Apple sells Mac OS X for $130. Let's assume that is all profit. Now let's assume that Apple makes an average of $260 profit per machine. That means that 100,000 new Mac OS users would be negated by 100,000 existing Mac hardware users using third party hardware.

The numbers are bound to differ slightly based upon the profitability of each product, and the number of people gained and lost. But it ought to be enough to illustrate that a naive market analysis is not enough.

Reply Score: 0

RE: stop the crying
by kellym6 on Sun 7th Aug 2005 17:53 UTC in reply to "stop the crying"
kellym6 Member since:
2005-08-02

>My question to you is did Apple make more money from that or would they make more if the 100,000 just decided to not touch Mac products because of the hardware price."

They will lose money because now, with OS X on comodity PCs... people will have the ability to buy less and spend less as is capeable when buy a PC and there will be less reason for people to buy Mac PC hardware from Apple. The error in your theory is that you assume that the OS sales will simply be an add-on to the number of people that will continue to buy Apple PC hardware. It doesn't account for the people that will stop buying PC hardware from Apple as a result. To make up for that loss, Apple would have to sell roughly 15 OS licenses to make up for the sale of 1 lost PC. You might say, it worked for Microsoft... why not Apple. It would work for Apple only if Apple used anticompetative business practices and licensed the OS to other PC OEMs in exclusive contracts so that there can be no competition.

The best way for Apple to fight grow is to have ALL the benefits of PC OEMs while also having some that they can not. By moving OS X to x86, people can make direct comparisons to a Dell PC (for example) and see that they will be able to get the exact same hardware as with Dell, for the same price (or less) while also being competible with OS X. Differentiation is the key.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: stop the crying
by Celerate on Mon 8th Aug 2005 07:09 UTC in reply to "RE: stop the crying"
Celerate Member since:
2005-06-29

You're making the assumption that most Wintel users just buy the cheapest box they can get to run Windows or Linux on and are happy with that, you are very wrong.

Everyone I work with at Staples that knows their computer hardware at least a little has never cheaped out on hardware. I'm not much different and neither are people I've met that know hardware but don't work in stores that sell it. The truth is many of us already know that to fully enjoy an operating system you need good hardware that it likes; Many people using Windows will buy mostly Microsoft products because they know Windows will like those better, that includes more expensive Microsoft keybords and mice where you would expect the brand name to be the least important. In my opinion if people can buy OS X and install it on their generic wintel hardware they will become regular Apple customers, not only for OS X but also for Apple hardware since they will want the OS to run its best and they will want the hardware to match the OS.

Most of the people using cheap x86 hardware really don't know enough about computers to know what Apple or OS X is anyway, people who will pirate OS X x86 on wintel hardware woulnd't have purchased a Mac just for the OS anyway, and if Mac users will dump Apple hardware for something generic when it won't be as well supported then you have to ask yourself what the big problem is with Apple hardware.

I've compared prices, and assuming Apple's prices don't change when they release the Mactel computers, they should be comparable to the prices of equivalent generic x86 hardware. Take that into account with the fact that the cost of Macs includes a copy of OS X that is preinstalled and you've got a better deal going with a Mac Mini than with a generic wintel box if you would rather have OS X than Windows.

Reply Score: 1

v That guy is a total n00b or a morono
by Anonymous on Sun 7th Aug 2005 17:50 UTC
Anybody at Apple that lurks here
by Lumbergh on Sun 7th Aug 2005 18:03 UTC
Lumbergh
Member since:
2005-06-29

Please, please give us desktop replacement people an option. I don't care how much it cost. But I want the fastest intel I can get on the market and the ability to replace the vid card (like i can now). If the battery last 2 seconds fine. Just give me the option...oh and dual-boot with windows.

Reply Score: 1

suser Member since:
2005-08-04

Lumbergh:
Please, please give us desktop replacement people an option. I don't care how much it cost.

So you do not care what it cost's as long as it's not QT.



Score: -5

Reply Score: 1

RE:RE[3]: Good Thing
by Anonymous on Sun 7th Aug 2005 18:05 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Almost, have you ever seen a full version of OS X on sale anywhere?

Actually yes, though your point is still valid. The full version of Tiger is the only version available now. There was an upgrade disk for Macs bought during the transition but that is not available any longer.

On the other hand you can not purchase a full version of the x86 OS X yet and chances are will not be able to for quite some time. When the first production Macs become available they will come with OS X pre-installed, with disks to do a reinstall. There won't be a need to have a software only release of x86 OS X until 10.5 comes out since any machine Apple would want you to install it on would have come with OS X. Continuing this line of thought it would not surprise me if x86 version of 10.5 was upgrade only, again requiring the original install.

That puts it out to 2009 or 2010 before you could get a legitamite copy of full x86 OS X without also purchasing a Mac. So the only method available to install OS X on x86 before 10.5 (at the earliest) would be of questionable legality at best. I do not see this stopping people from doing the install any more than it stops a significant portion of the world from installing Windows without a license.

So sure it can be done, maybe these clever hackers will even come up with a way to make it easy. The chances of anyone doing this without violating the license agreement anytime soon is not high though. Copyright law in the U.S. does not allow the installation on multiple computers by the way. Making multiple copies of the medium for back up is largely considered legal under fair use. This right does not include installation on multiple machines.

Kokopelli

Reply Score: 0

No piracy, huh?
by Anonymous on Sun 7th Aug 2005 18:12 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

From the article:

> Files will be obtained at your own risk and neither the author "Kal" or anyone else related to OSx86 condones the use of pirated material.

No, of course not ... we don't put up with pirates here. And that's why we've given you detailed instructions on the illegal deployment of stolen software. Now move along ...

Reply Score: 0

RE[7]: LOL
by Anonymous on Sun 7th Aug 2005 18:31 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Because I can buy an arbitrary number of copies of OS X for my iMac, or my Mac Mini. And of course if the purchase of OS X without the purchase of hardware is stealing money from Apple, then I am of course stealing money from Apple for as long as I do not purchase new hardware for my regular OS X upgrades. The longer I go, and the more copies I purchase without hardware, the less and less per copy of OS X has Apple made off of the sale of the hardware to me. The point of course was that his wording is silly hyperbole.

Tell me you are jokling.. If you buy 5 copies of Tiger and have a single Mac Mini to install it on then you have 5 unused licenses. There are 3d party manufacturers of PPC hardware where, with some effort, you could install those copies and by and large do so legally I think (never wnet that deep into the licensing agreement). You would only get support from Apple on the Mini though.

Now if you have 5 Macs and buy one copy of Tiger and install it on all 5 machines than this is in violation of the license agreement among other things, but at least you purchased the software.

If you download a copy off of the web and install it on a non-Apple machine though you are at the least guilty of copyright infringement. There is no legal way to get a copy of OS X on x86 at this time and in order to receive it a person needs to agree to a NDA among other things. Discounting the software license entirely the developer enters into a contractual obligation with Apple to receive anx86 development box at this time. So fo a good while yet any such activity is illegal in one way or another.

Perhaps the non-licensed copies will help Apple in the long run but that does not in any way make it legal, nor is it what Apple wants at this stage. At least publically.

Kokopelli
(I really wish OSNews would allow login from WAP...)

Reply Score: 0

RE[8]: LOL
by japail on Sun 7th Aug 2005 18:37 UTC in reply to "RE[7]: LOL"
japail Member since:
2005-06-30

> Tell me you are jokling.. If you buy 5 copies of Tiger
> and have a single Mac Mini to install it on then you
> have 5 unused licenses.

You misunderstand. It's a matter of purchasing new releases of OS X, not multiple copies of the same release . That would, well, be rather pointless.

Reply Score: 1

RE[9]: LOL
by Anonymous on Sun 7th Aug 2005 18:45 UTC in reply to "RE[8]: LOL"
Anonymous Member since:
---

japail,

the problem people are having with your argument is that you were trying to spin the notion that its necessary to buy a new Mac with every update of OS X because Apple is somehow losing out for you not doing so. By making that argument however, you're negating the fact that the origional Mac purchase was already made which makes subsoquent Mac purchases not necessary.

Reply Score: 0

RE[10]: LOL
by japail on Sun 7th Aug 2005 18:50 UTC in reply to "RE[9]: LOL"
japail Member since:
2005-06-30

If by people you mean you then I think it's safe to assume that you cannot see how the statement made was plainly simplistic and absurd. Instead of telling me that I'm "spinning" something, you can always attempt to use a less inflammatory and more technically valid argument than the one I replied to--claiming that every sale of OS X sans hardware was taking money from Apple.

Reply Score: 1

RE[11]: LOL
by Anonymous on Sun 7th Aug 2005 18:58 UTC in reply to "RE[10]: LOL"
Anonymous Member since:
---

I called it spinning because theres no other way to describe it. What you're asking is for Apple to get less money than they are now, while also losing control of their platform... all so that they can get more install-base.

Apple would prefer to get more install base, keep their margins the same (if not increase them) while also keeping control of their platform.

Reply Score: 0

RE[12]: LOL
by japail on Sun 7th Aug 2005 19:08 UTC in reply to "RE[11]: LOL"
japail Member since:
2005-06-30

Actually it's called sarcasm, not spinning. In that the original comment's content led to absurdity.

Reply Score: 1

RE[13]: LOL
by Anonymous on Sun 7th Aug 2005 19:28 UTC in reply to "RE[12]: LOL"
Anonymous Member since:
---

"Actually it's called sarcasm, not spinning. In that the original comment's content led to absurdity."

Using sarcasim when somebody is being serious with you is rude... hence the need for the pajoritive response.

Reply Score: 0

RE[14]: LOL
by japail on Sun 7th Aug 2005 19:31 UTC in reply to "RE[13]: LOL"
japail Member since:
2005-06-30

You mean using the term 'spin' to refer to 'sarcasm?' You can freely insult me all that you want, just don't characterize my sarcasm as spinning some fairytale that it isn't. That's all.

Reply Score: 1

RE[8]: LOL
by Anonymous on Sun 7th Aug 2005 18:38 UTC in reply to "RE[7]: LOL"
Anonymous Member since:
---

"Perhaps the non-licensed copies will help Apple in the long run but that does not in any way make it legal, nor is it what Apple wants at this stage. At least publically."

Your response was right on the money until you got to this point.

Having OS X on vanilla PCs doesn't help Apple inthe short or long term. Increasing install base to the exclusion of money sold as a result of also selling hardware does Apple a dis-service.

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous
Member since:
---

I finding it funny that the same people that are on here are jumping up and down that they can suddenly think they can load the evil apple OS on there machines are the same people who where up in arms about Apple putting DRM on there machines, proving that they actually do need to do that very thing. All those that say, I bought the software I can do what I want with it, come off it pull the other one, you're not going to buy anything from Apple, you're going to try and download it

As a few have said, I can remember the uproar that when around with the CherryOS and Safari giving code back to GPL, etc, I agree, what a bunch fecking hypocrites

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Hyprocritical.
by Anonymous on Sun 7th Aug 2005 18:43 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

What on Earth has cracking OSX to run on standard PC's got to do with the GPL? Who ever said these people ever had anything to do with the GPL?

Just because you are on a site that sometimes talks about free software, does not mean that everything that is spoken about, is spoken about in relation to the GPL.

For your information, the GPL and free software in general has nothing at all to do with stealing.

Not that I really would call this stealing. At the end of the day there are a lot of people out there (myself included) who would have welcomed an easy to use alternative to Windows - but who refused to pay the inflated charges that Apple routinely impose for their sub par hardware. (They even admitted it wasn't up to the job - because evidently they have switched).

I am in no way a thief - but I am still nonetheless able to disagree with Apple's decision not to make OSX avaiable to the wider community. If cracking these restrictions enables this to happen, then maybe it will make Apple think again - and in the long run to finally have someone who can compete with MS on their own ground can only be a good thing.

GJ

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous
Member since:
---

Take it as read that you cannot stop people running your software on pc's made by whoever, by a EULA. You can only make it technically impossible to do it, if you want to prevent it. I know people don't want to hear this, but it is the way the law is in most important markets.

Now, many people say that if Apple does not do prevent unbundling, they go broke. The argument must be, they cannot make hardware which will compete with Dell. Therefore they have to induce people to buy it, by bundling it with a superior OS. Think about the implications of this. What it says is, as soon as the market (not Mac users, the market!) perceives that Windows or Linux is the equal of MacOS, they are bust. Surely this is not a smart bet to be making. Surely you either have to get your hardware business competitive or close it down. You have to make your OS business profitable, or the market will close it down. Personally, I think they will fail the management challenge. They will somehow lock the software to their own hardware, it will sell at a 30% premium, Mac lovers will buy it, but not enough others, and 10 years from now they'll be mentioned in the same breath as Amiga. It is a bankrupt strategy. Whether it is executed by EULA (which is impossible) or by DRM, the strategy is a hiding to nothing.

You have to take on board the implications of going from 15% to 5% in 10 years. The market is telling you your business model is not working. I think they know it, but the question is, can they face the implications? What the Mac loyalists need to do is stop repeating what the strategy actually is, and consider what viable one they can adopt. The present one will not fly much longer.

Reply Score: 0

RE[10]: LOL
by Anonymous on Sun 7th Aug 2005 18:50 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

You misunderstand. It's a matter of purchasing new releases of OS X, not multiple copies of the same release . That would, well, be rather pointless.

Ah, valid point there. But since you can not buy OS X for x86 presently, much less without a Mac, what difference does that make? You can transfer your 10.3 license to another machine providing You purchased a full 10.4 license. No one is stopping you, even from installing it on 3d party hardware. Just do not expect support from Apple unless it is a licensed platform. Even if it is not allowed by the EULA I doubt Apple would care, you are simply using a product you paid for that is past the market lifecycle. This is not depriving Apple of any sales since you paid for both the 10.3 and 10.4 license.

As a Apple and Linux user I could care less if people install OS X on their x86 boxes, so long as they purchase a license for OS X on x86 for exclusive use on that box. It is the infringing of license, and more importantly to me, the attempts to justify the behavior that bothers me.


Kokopelli

Reply Score: 0

RE[11]: LOL
by japail on Sun 7th Aug 2005 18:57 UTC in reply to "RE[10]: LOL"
japail Member since:
2005-06-30

It wasn't directly in reference to OS X on the x86, it was of the notion that purchasing OS X without purchasing hardware with it was taking money rightfully belonging to Apple. The point was that notion was silly. If I buy N copies of releases OS X and only one iMac and one Mini (what I own now), the amount of money that Apple is losing every time I buy OS X compared to if I purchased the "average" in new hardware simply grows and grows. Despite that Apple is really making more money from me, because I'm not going to buy a new Mini or a new iMac with the same frequency that I will purchase new releases of OS X.

Reply Score: 1

RE[12]: LOL
by Anonymous on Sun 7th Aug 2005 19:09 UTC in reply to "RE[11]: LOL"
Anonymous Member since:
---

"It wasn't directly in reference to OS X on the x86, it was of the notion that purchasing OS X without purchasing hardware with it was taking money rightfully belonging to Apple."

Buying OS X without buying a Mac doesn't take money from Apple. Its the practice of buying OS X and installing it on a vanilla PC which is the problem. The reason is because you're benefiting from OS X without having bought the required hardware from Apple you would have otherwise needed.


"If I buy N copies of releases OS X and only one iMac and one Mini (what I own now), the amount of money that Apple is losing every time I buy OS X compared to if I purchased the "average" in new hardware simply grows and grows"

But Apple isn't losing money then. The additional licenses are just gravy because you already purchased the Mac and Apple got their money. The problem only comes when you don't buy a Mac but install OS X on vanilla PCs.

Reply Score: 0

RE[13]: LOL
by japail on Sun 7th Aug 2005 19:15 UTC in reply to "RE[12]: LOL"
japail Member since:
2005-06-30

> Buying OS X without buying a Mac doesn't take money
> from Apple. Its the practice of buying OS X and
> installing it on a vanilla PC which is the problem.

Despite my only problem with the original comment being that its position was silly (software sales without hardware sales being theft, essentially), I think it would still bother the overzealous if someone bought an x86 Mini (or any other x86 Mac) and then used the licensed copy of OS X on another PC that they purchased or put together, instead. They could pay Apple directly $500 for a copy of OS X, and if they used the software on a series of Dell computers, they would still throw rocks and carry on and behave as if the immoral bandits were stealing money from Apple.

Reply Score: 1

RE[14]: LOL
by Anonymous on Sun 7th Aug 2005 19:36 UTC in reply to "RE[13]: LOL"
Anonymous Member since:
---

"Despite my only problem with the original comment being that its position was silly (software sales without hardware sales being theft, essentially)"

Its theft because Apple requires you to buy the hardware if you want to benefit from the software. If you benefit from the software without having first bought the software, then that is taking money away from Apple.


"I think it would still bother the overzealous if someone bought an x86 Mini (or any other x86 Mac) and then used the licensed copy of OS X on another PC that they purchased or put together, instead."

It would because you want to run OS X on a PC (Lets assume its something of higher calibar than the Mac mini) and you only allowed Apple the margins of a low end Mac. Then Apple lost the sale of a higher-end x86 Mac for you doing so. We want to see Apple get all the money they are owed. When you go about making sure that Apple only gets the minimum margins possible, you're doing Apple a disservice.


" They could pay Apple directly $500 for a copy of OS X, and if they used the software on a series of Dell computers, they would still throw rocks and carry on and behave as if the immoral bandits were stealing money from Apple."

I'm sure some may, but THEY are the trolls. Paying $500 for OS X to be installed on any old PC would be very fair.

Reply Score: 0

RE[15]: LOL
by japail on Sun 7th Aug 2005 19:46 UTC in reply to "RE[14]: LOL"
japail Member since:
2005-06-30

> It would because you want to run OS X on a PC (Lets
> assume its something of higher calibar than the Mac
> mini) and you only allowed Apple the margins of a low
> end Mac. Then Apple lost the sale of a higher-end x86
> Mac for you doing so.

Apple lost no sale here. I'm reminded horribly of Ralph Nader stealing the election from Al Gore, or Ross Perot from stealing it from George H.W. Bush. What is wrong with people?

Reply Score: 1

RE[16]: LOL
by rayiner on Sun 7th Aug 2005 19:55 UTC in reply to "RE[15]: LOL"
rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

LOL. So true.

Reply Score: 1

RE[16]: LOL
by Anonymous on Sun 7th Aug 2005 20:10 UTC in reply to "RE[15]: LOL"
Anonymous Member since:
---

"Apple lost no sale here."

Yes they did. If you wanted to run OS X on a computer thats of higher calibar than a Mac mini, you must buy that from Apple... and then they would get the appropriate margin as a result. If you bought the mini to install OS X on a Dell, then the lost margin is stollen from them.

Reply Score: 0

RE[17]: LOL
by japail on Sun 7th Aug 2005 20:25 UTC in reply to "RE[16]: LOL"
japail Member since:
2005-06-30

So now the "caliber" of the computer for which I have purchased a copy of OS X not only determines what future computers I may use it on, but also whether or not Apple was going to make another sale. Excellent. Stolen margins abound. Yeah, I guess they should just buy it for a Mini and then install it on the computers that they already own. Let's see, that's $0 for a computer you already own. Well that's cheaper than the Mini.

Reply Score: 1

x86 commodity & apple
by mannyv on Sun 7th Aug 2005 19:02 UTC
mannyv
Member since:
2005-07-18

One reason that Dell is so successful is every PC is pretty much the same, including the OS. That OS, of course, is Windows. No matter how nice Sony Vaios look or Alienware boxes perform, underneath they've got Windows, which means they're basically the same as that cheapo Dell box.

With osx86 edition, that's no longer true. There will be a real differentiator: the OS. That alone should allow Apple some leeway in pricing.

Over the last few years, corp. IT has been assaulted with maintenance issues associated with Windows PCs. There hasn't really been a practical alternative, Linux notwithstanding. With osx86 they have a platform that's easy-to-use and doesn't have the extreme maintenance requirements of Windows PCs.

What's lacking right now is the management infrastructure. osx86 has to work with the current system management tools, and until that happens deployment will be more difficult.

If Apple sees this as a direction they want to take, we should see Apple starting to partner with system management tool vendors like IBM Tivoli, BMC, CA, Mercury, etc.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Good thing
by Brad on Sun 7th Aug 2005 19:17 UTC
Brad
Member since:
2005-07-06

"Or, you walk down to CompUSA and buy a copy!"

Wrong, the license states that you cannot install it on non mac hardware. So even if you buy a copy of it, your still in the wrong. And the reason is simple. Mac OS is so cheap to buy because the hardware subsidizes the development of OSX, without having hardware to sell with it, apple would probably be charging several hundred dollars more.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Good thing
by japail on Sun 7th Aug 2005 19:21 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Good thing"
japail Member since:
2005-06-30

That just isn't how things work. Apple could try selling OS X for several hundred dollars more, but unless you have some reason as to why you think that the market would accept that, I think you're living in a fantasy land. And more to his point, it doesn't matter how Apple comes about the pricing of OS X, because he has no obligation to oblige them. Since he doesn't view the EULA as binding and there's little in the way of support for it being binding, whether he's in the wrong or not is rather ambiguous.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Good thing
by Anonymous on Sun 7th Aug 2005 19:43 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Good thing"
Anonymous Member since:
---

"Apple could try selling OS X for several hundred dollars more, but unless you have some reason as to why you think that the market would accept that, I think you're living in a fantasy land"

You're right. They wouldn't pay more. So Apple can't sell OS X to vanilla PC users. Maybe now you will understand that.


"it doesn't matter how Apple comes about the pricing of OS X, because he has no obligation to oblige them. "

Agreed. A person can install it illegally and steal money from Apple. But the discusson is not whether or not that can or will be done... its about what Apple can or should do to grow. We've now established that OS X on non Apple PCs does not benefit Apple.

Reply Score: 0

RE[5]: Good thing
by rayiner on Sun 7th Aug 2005 19:27 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Good thing"
rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

My point is that the license is not valid, because:

a) It assumes powers that are not within its rights as a copyright license;

b) There is no signed nor verbal proof of agreement. Certainly, nothing at the level that would hold up in court.

I don't care if its not profitable for Apple to sell OS X at whatever they sell it for. I only care about Apple to the extent that it benefits ne. Apple is like-minded. They don't care about me either, beyond the extent to which I benefit them as a consumer. If they can't make money selling the product at the price they are selling, then they shouldn't do it. If I can take advantage of their stupidity, well, kudos for me! More than one company (eg: Microsoft with MSN) has had to back-off selling something at a loss and trying to make up for it by forcing a bundling agreement. Apple should be no different.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Good thing
by japail on Sun 7th Aug 2005 19:35 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Good thing"
japail Member since:
2005-06-30

What's really disturbing to me is how readily certain parties are willing to cede arbitrary powers to EULAs simply because they like Apple products. Despite the repeated abuses that have come with strict control over products with obfuscation, stipulations tossed into licensing, and legislation like the DMCA, they are perfectly happy to support this sort of thing. I guess some people really like having 20 minutes of advertisements that they cannot skip on DVDs that they purchase, being told what they can use software for, and any number of other rather unreasonable things.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Good thing
by Anonymous on Sun 7th Aug 2005 19:51 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Good thing"
Anonymous Member since:
---

"What's really disturbing to me is how readily certain parties are willing to cede arbitrary powers to EULAs simply because they like Apple products"

More disturbing to me, is how people are so quick to disregard contracts so that they can get something for less then what is required of them.

Reply Score: 0

RE[8]: Good thing
by japail on Sun 7th Aug 2005 19:55 UTC in reply to "RE[7]: Good thing"
japail Member since:
2005-06-30

Like going into an Apple store and stealing copies of OS X.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Good thing
by Anonymous on Sun 7th Aug 2005 19:48 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Good thing"
Anonymous Member since:
---

"I don't care if its not profitable for Apple to sell OS X at whatever they sell it for. I only care about Apple to the extent that it benefits ne."

Exactly. And when people steal money from Apple by installing OS X on Vanilla PCs, Apple is losing money to create a better OS for you.


"If I can take advantage of their stupidity, well, kudos for me!"

kudos for you. You got something for nothing... or for less than you were supposed to get it. Congratualtions... you're a thief!

Reply Score: 0

RE[7]: Good thing
by rayiner on Sun 7th Aug 2005 20:06 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Good thing"
rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

Exactly. And when people steal money from Apple by installing OS X on Vanilla PCs, Apple is losing money to create a better OS for you.

Oh yes, because Apple stays awake at night thinking about "hmm, how can we make a better OS for Rayiner" and not "hmm, how can we make Rayiner shell out more $$$ for iPods". I'm perfectly happy to be their consumer, but I have no illusions that I am anything more than that, and if you do, you're a complete idiot.

kudos for you. You got something for nothing... or for less than you were supposed to get it. Congratualtions... you're a thief!

What was I supposed to get it for? I don't see how price on the box at CompUSA isn't the price I'm supposed to get it for. And in any case, is it theft to take advantage of a company's pricing policy? Every time I fly out of Atlanta, I book my flight at least a month in advance. During the winter, my tickets only cost $140 round-trip. There is no way Airtran makes money on that ticket. No, their profits come from the people who book the week before and pay $270 - $300. Do I feel like a heel for cheating them out of $150? Or do I just laugh and make fun of the idiots who wait till the last minute and pay out the nose?

Reply Score: 1

RE[8]: Good thing
by Anonymous on Sun 7th Aug 2005 20:20 UTC in reply to "RE[7]: Good thing"
Anonymous Member since:
---

"Oh yes, because Apple stays awake at night thinking about "hmm, how can we make a better OS for Rayiner" and not "hmm, how can we make Rayiner shell out more $$$ for iPods"."

I think the thinking probably goes more along the line of... How can we make a better OS for Rayiner and how can we get a a fair amount of money for having done so?


"What was I supposed to get it for?"

For the price of a Macintosh computer and the price of any upgrades you might also choose to purchase. When you purchase OS X for a vanilla PC, thats money lost for Apple because OS X is subsadized by the sale of Mac hardware.


"And in any case, is it theft to take advantage of a company's pricing policy? "

No, not at all. Its theft to go against the EULA which requires that the software be installed on an Apple computer.


"During the winter, my tickets only cost $140 round-trip. There is no way Airtran makes money on that ticket. No, their profits come from the people who book the week before and pay $270 - $300."

If there was a clause that precluded you from buying extra tickets at the discounted rate and then selling it at that price to those who purchased late... then that would be illegal too.


"Do I feel like a heel for cheating them out of $150?"

I hope not. You didn't cheat them out of anything. Their business model allows them to sell you tickets at that price while still maintaining a profit.


"Or do I just laugh and make fun of the idiots who wait till the last minute and pay out the nose?"

You can do that too.

Reply Score: 0

RE[9]: Good thing
by rayiner on Sun 7th Aug 2005 20:50 UTC in reply to "RE[8]: Good thing"
rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

I think the thinking probably goes more along the line of... How can we make a better OS for Rayiner and how can we get a a fair amount of money for having done so?

Bullshit. More like, "how do we make the OS better so Rayiner will spend more for it". A subtle distinction, yes, but the motivation is completely different. Companies are in the business of making as much money as they can within the bounds of the law. Consumers are in the business of getting as much stuff as they can as cheaply as possible, within the bounds of the law. There is no obligation, no allegience, no good-will, and no other such silly notions. It's an adversarial system and I like it that way.

For the price of a Macintosh computer and the price of any upgrades you might also choose to purchase.

If that was the price, that's what it would say on the price label.

When you purchase OS X for a vanilla PC, thats money lost for Apple because OS X is subsadized by the sale of Mac hardware.

I don't think you understand the concept of "subsidized" prices. When we say "the price of X is subsidized by the revenues for Y", X and Y are not inevitably linked. Otherwise, its a bundling agreement. What they are is linked as a trend. Example: if George buys an XBox, he'll tend to buy games for it. The price of the XBox is subsidized by revenues from the games. If George doesn't buy any games, he still paid the fair price for the XBox. The fact that this fair price didn't make Microsoft any money is irrelevent.

Don't forget the original motivation of these "X subsidizes Y" arrangements: to make more money. Apple isn't pricing OS X at $200 (or whatever it costs) out of the goodness of their hearts. They do it because it ultimately helps Mac sales (by keeping people on the platform with upgrades). It's a gamble, and if they lose the bet, it was just that --- a lost bet, not theft!

No, not at all. Its theft to go against the EULA which requires that the software be installed on an Apple computer.

Where do you live? I ask because even if we assume that an EULA is a contract, a breach of contract is a completely different thing from theft. The two things aren't even tried by the same courts! Beyond that, you're speaking as if the EULA is a law. It's not. At best its a contract, but there is not enough evidence to prove that it even has that level of force. And even if it is a contract, you have to question whether its terms are legal, considering the substantial amount of legislation and case-law precedence against such agreements.

If there was a clause that precluded you from buying extra tickets at the discounted rate and then selling it at that price to those who purchased late... then that would be illegal too.

That's an interesting analogy, but you just brought a very different element into the game: redistribution or transfer of ownership. The law gets very weird with regards to redistribution, and we're not talking about making copies of OS X86 for your friends, so your analogy is useless. It's more akin to if Airtran had a clause saying "we'll sell you the ticket at this price, but once you have to go eat at this resturant that sponsors us". Would that be enforcable? Highly doubtful.

I hope not. You didn't cheat them out of anything. Their business model allows them to sell you tickets at that price while still maintaining a profit.

I have no obligation to help them make a profit. If I told all my friends to book a month in advance, and they lost money because they count on late-bookers for their profits, I'd feel just dandy. The law doesn't care about Apple making money. It just cares about its copyright being protected. Beyond that, Apple is on its own.

Reply Score: 1

RE[10]: Good thing
by kellym9 on Sun 7th Aug 2005 21:36 UTC in reply to "RE[9]: Good thing"
kellym9 Member since:
2005-08-02

"More like, "how do we make the OS better so Rayiner will spend more for it".

Thats exactly what I said. A better product at a fair price that is so compelling that you might buy it rather than be content with your existing OS on Apple hardware.



"A subtle distinction, yes, but the motivation is completely different.

I disagree.



"Companies are in the business of making as much money as they can within the bounds of the law. Consumers are in the business of getting as much stuff as they can as cheaply as possible, "

And there's nothing wrong with that.


"Consumers are in the business of getting as much stuff as they can as cheaply as possible, within the bounds of the law."

Unfortunately, what people are talking about here is not getting something as cheaply as possible within the boundries of the law but outside of it.


"If that was the price, that's what it would say on the price label."

It does.


"I don't think you understand the concept of "subsidized" prices. When we say "the price of X is subsidized by the revenues for Y", X and Y are not inevitably linked."

I'm using that terminology because the topic is being taken out of context by talking of OS X being installed on vanilla PCs. If we take that factor out of the equation, then it would be inappropriate for me to say that it is "subsidized by" because it negates the fact that Mac hardware and the OS are one product.


"Don't forget the original motivation of these "X subsidizes Y" arrangements: to make more money. Apple isn't pricing OS X at $200 (or whatever it costs) out of the goodness of their hearts. They do it because it ultimately helps Mac sales (by keeping people on the platform with upgrades)."

Apple does profit from the sale of upgrades to the OS... but they only do it because they can. Its pretty insignificant to their bottom line. The reason why they upgrade their OS is to keep their platform competative thus giving reason for new and repeate customers. They could make the upgrades if they wanted to and the end result would probably be of little consequence.


"It's a gamble, and if they lose the bet, it was just that --- a lost bet, not theft!"

By calling it a gamble, you're deemphasizing the fact that they are one product. The gamble desciption is incorrect because its based on the notion that these are two seperate products not unlike the PC piecemeal approach.


"Where do you live?"

U.S.



"I ask because even if we assume that an EULA is a contract, a breach of contract is a completely different thing from theft."

But the breach of contract in this case has a very direct implication in lost sales. Calling it theft or breach of contract is symatics IMHO because the end result is still taking something that doesn't belong to you.



"you're speaking as if the EULA is a law. It's not."

EULAs are contracts and they're held up by the law.



"At best its a contract, but there is not enough evidence to prove that it even has that level of force."

Just because a contract hasn't been tried in court doesn't negate its principal. If I sign a contract with somebody... I'm not allowed to breach it until that contract is tried in court.


"And even if it is a contract, you have to question whether its terms are legal, considering the substantial amount of legislation and case-law precedence against such agreements."

I don't see any reason to see why they wouldn't be legal at all. I think tose that thinkn otherwise are simply trying to get something for less than is required of them.


"That's an interesting analogy, but you just brought a very different element into the game: redistribution or transfer of ownership. The law gets very weird with regards to redistribution, and we're not talking about making copies of OS X86 for your friends, so your analogy is useless."

I disagree, because your argument was about buying a Mac mini and then transfering that license over to Dell PC. Its very applicable to my analogy.



"It's more akin to if Airtran had a clause saying "we'll sell you the ticket at this price, but once you have to go eat at this resturant that sponsors us". Would that be enforcable? Highly doubtful."

If thats what the contract says... its very enforcable.


"I have no obligation to help them make a profit."

No, but you don't have the right to restrict them from making a profit. Its the same with concert tickets. Its illegal to scalp tickets. If a cop catches you selling outside the venue, you will be arrested.



"The law doesn't care about Apple making money. It just cares about its copyright being protected. Beyond that, Apple is on its own."

It cares about their copyright... and there is no reason to believe that the courts wouldn't side with Apple should someone breach their EULA.

Reply Score: 1

RE[11]: Good thing
by Anonymous on Sun 7th Aug 2005 21:58 UTC in reply to "RE[10]: Good thing"
Anonymous Member since:
---

"I'm using that terminology because the topic is being taken out of context by talking of OS X being installed on vanilla PCs. If we take that factor out of the equation, then it would be inappropriate for me to say that it is "subsidized by" because it negates the fact that Mac hardware and the OS are one product."

- There is no "fact" that Apple hardware and OS X are "one product." If they are one product, then legally, they need to be sold together, and exclusively together.

"By calling it a gamble, you're deemphasizing the fact that they are one product. The gamble desciption is incorrect because its based on the notion that these are two seperate products not unlike the PC piecemeal approach."

-No, it is a gamble, because they do sell them seperately, thus they are not one product.

"But the breach of contract in this case has a very direct implication in lost sales. Calling it theft or breach of contract is symatics IMHO because the end result is still taking something that doesn't belong to you."

-Unfortunately (for the sake of your argument), the law states that a breach of contract is one thing, theft is another.

Purchasing OS X for use on non-Apple-hardware is neither contract breach, nor is it theft. This is not a case of "symatics[sic]," it's a case of Apple trying to write their own laws through the use of EULAs, and hoping that nobody will call them out on it (though Apple is not the only company to do this).

"EULAs are contracts and they're held up by the law."
No, they are not upheld by the law, and if they ever did make it to court, it would be ruled that they are misleading, as in their current iteration, the user has no choice but to purchase the product in question before they even have the opportunity to view the EULA, let alone decide to agree or disagree to it.

"'It's more akin to if Airtran had a clause saying "we'll sell you the ticket at this price, but once you have to go eat at this resturant that sponsors us". Would that be enforcable? Highly doubtful.'"

"If thats what the contract says... its very enforcable."

It's not the same, though, because the customer has to agree or disagree at the time of purchase, thus the contract is valid. It would be more appropriate if Airtran sold you the ticket without saying anything, and then, as you're about to board the plane, an Airtran representative presented you with a EULA, which stated that your agreeance is implied by your boarding the plane. And, AND, if you decided to disagree, they refuse to refund you your money for the ticket. THEN it would be applicable to software EULAs, and the courts would side with the consumer on that one.

"No, but you don't have the right to restrict them from making a profit. Its the same with concert tickets. Its illegal to scalp tickets. If a cop catches you selling outside the venue, you will be arrested."

Actually, yes, I have every right to restrict them from making a profit as long as I don't break a law doing so. Since the legality of the EULA is very heavily called into question, I suggest you find another argument to try to refute this with. If I want to lead a massive boycott against Apple Computers, I can, and no law says otherwise. If Apple made a stupid marketing decision, and I can take advantage of it legally, thus causing Apple to lose money, then no law says, "Now WAIT a minute, you're causing them to lose their profit, so... y'know. Shame on you, you bad, bad boy."

"It cares about their copyright... and there is no reason to believe that the courts wouldn't side with Apple should someone breach their EULA."

There IS reason to believe that, though. The EULA in its current form is extremely misleading. The customer has no choice but to agree to the EULA, as they have already purchased the product, and they would not receive a refund if they disagreed- thus they would lose their money. This is hardly fair to the customer, both legally and ethically.

Reply Score: 0

RE[11]: Good thing
by rayiner on Sun 7th Aug 2005 22:37 UTC in reply to "RE[10]: Good thing"
rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

Thats exactly what I said. A better product at a fair price that is so compelling that you might buy it rather than be content with your existing OS on Apple hardware.

Nope. What you said implied that their motivation was making a better product, and being able to make some money from it. That's not the case. Their motivation is making money, and making a better product is just one way to accomplish that.

Unfortunately, what people are talking about here is not getting something as cheaply as possible within the boundries of the law but outside of it.

I don't think you can say that clearly. What is obvious is that the act of hacking MacOS X is not illegal. I think the Lexmark precedent establishes that pretty clearly. Now, whether you think using such a hacked copy on non-Apple hardware is legal depends on your view of the legality of Apple's EULA. Not just the legality of EULA's in general (which is sketchy in and of itself), but Apple's EULA specifically, with its bundling clause.

It does.

Actually, it doesn't say anything of the sort, either at Apple's webstore nor on CompUSA's. I'll bet it doesn't say anything on the box either.

By calling it a gamble, you're deemphasizing the fact that they are one product.

If they were one product, they'd have one pricetag. I'm sure Sony would love to use that reasoning to get you to buy a WEGA with a PS2, but they don't, because it's a stupid line of argument. If they sell is seperately, it's a seperate product, period.

But the breach of contract in this case has a very direct implication in lost sales. Calling it theft or breach of contract is symatics IMHO because the end result is still taking something that doesn't belong to you.

Legality is all about semantics. And here in the US, legal versus illegal is all that matters. And I'm not taking anything, I'm buying something that they're selling to me. If Apple is counting on unenforcable (and probably illegal) bundling agreements to make up losses on that sale, that's really their problem. And excuse me if I don't see "breach of contract" as "theft", especially when its a case of Apple trying to have their cake (selling standalone copies of OS X to keep existing users happy) and eat it too (preventing users from using OS X without first buying a Mac).

EULAs are contracts and they're held up by the law.

They've also been struck down by the law. It probably depends on the nature of the EULA. Given the Lexmark case, I have a strong feeling Apple's EULA would not hold up in court.

Just because a contract hasn't been tried in court doesn't negate its principal. If I sign a contract with somebody... I'm not allowed to breach it until that contract is tried in court.

The argument here isn't whether or not you're allowed to breach the contract, its about whether there is a contract at all! Any given contract may not hold up, but the question is whether the kind of "contract" Apple is pushing is even valid.

I don't see any reason to see why they wouldn't be legal at all. I think tose that thinkn otherwise are simply trying to get something for less than is required of them.

Yes, we're trying to get something for less, it's the American way! The question is whether its legal or not. And if you don't see why it wouldn't be illegal, you're blind.

I disagree, because your argument was about buying a Mac mini and then transfering that license over to Dell PC.

That statement is completely and utterly clueless. Licenses are granted to people and redistribution pertains to people. You are the same person whether you use it on a Dell or a Mac, so there is no redistribution here.

If thats what the contract says... its very enforcable.

What??? If you think that, this argument is pointless. If Microsoft's bundling MSN with a discounted computer is illegal, what makes you think bundling a resteraunt service with a discounted ticket is legal?

No, but you don't have the right to restrict them from making a profit. Its the same with concert tickets. Its illegal to scalp tickets. If a cop catches you selling outside the venue, you will be arrested.

Interesting you mention this, because it somewhat undermines your argument. Traditionally, scalping laws have not been couched in "breech of contract" terms, likey because they'd be unenforcable if they were. Rather, they've been couched in terms of the state's or municipality's control over the terms of commerce. That's why you get arrested when you scalp tickets, instead of having a breech of contract lawsuit from Ticketmaster show up in your mailbox! Again, since you're not reselling OS X86, such justifications would be irrelevent.

Reply Score: 1

RE[10]: Good thing
by kellym9 on Sun 7th Aug 2005 21:37 UTC in reply to "RE[9]: Good thing"
kellym9 Member since:
2005-08-02

BTW, I decided to log on so you know who I am.

You and I used to get into these debates several years ago. I'm sure you remember me.

Reply Score: 1

Conquer and Divide
by Anonymous on Sun 7th Aug 2005 19:32 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

This message forums show a great convergence to a general conformity to message. It hides general disillusioned in an a-political manifestation, but propagates a continum of diverified interest under a collective that is singular in nature. This, however, is a fictitious rationale that is hedged on the core belief that something formulated in the contemporary will be a solution that is tangible. It fails to take into consideration that many of these arguments have pondered many years ago (think Unix, Classes).

This forum would make a great sociology experiment. What needs to be discovered is why people have emotional attachment to objects that are clearly artificial abstractions in nature. Computers are a construct, communities (Windows-Linux-OSX) are mindless conformity. This debate about what operating system is better is pointless. Maybe it is a substitute for a lack of "religion" or contrived heterogeneous interactions and social conditioning.

Reply Score: 0

RE[6]: Good Thing
by Anonymous on Sun 7th Aug 2005 19:36 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

My point is that the license is not valid, because:

a) It assumes powers that are not within its rights as a copyright license;

b) There is no signed nor verbal proof of agreement. Certainly, nothing at the level that would hold up in court.



Click through license agreements have been upheld by the courts, and for that matter are explicitly listed in statute under at least VA, and MD (plus of course the eSign act).

Click through agreements have been overturned but only where the agreement was deceptive in nature or otherwise invalid. The use of affirmative agreement (such as click through) has never been found invalid in and of itself and is considered legally binding by statute and case law as far as I know.

Kokopelli

Reply Score: 0

RE[7]: Good Thing
by rayiner on Sun 7th Aug 2005 19:43 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Good Thing"
rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

They've also been struck-down in courts, and there is no definitive precedent one way or the other. At least in Georgia (where I live), there is nothing on the books regarding the legality of EULA's.

Reply Score: 1

didn't take long
by Anonymous on Sun 7th Aug 2005 19:40 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I thought this would happen after it was released. Well there you go, so much for Apple's plans not to compete with Windows. Let's see how they deal with the DRMed release.

Reply Score: 0

Ummm....
by Anonymous on Sun 7th Aug 2005 19:47 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Come on people. OSX is a magic trick. It wonderful nature (it IS very nice) is because of the fact that its made for the hardware. Its closer to a Xbox than a Dell. OSX "just works" because of that.

Sure OSX can be cracked for Dells....but it will run like crap. The magic will be gone.

It amazes me that on a nerdy site so many people can't see that!

Reply Score: 0

RE: Ummm....
by rayiner on Sun 7th Aug 2005 19:58 UTC in reply to "Ummm...."
rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

Oh yes, because nerds have such a deep faith in "magic". There is nothing "magic" about OS X. The only place software/hardware integration plays a role is in how well the OS detects plug & play hardware. It doesn't make Finder run any faster or Safari crash any less! The fact that there are reports that the Apple Developer machines run OS X really well, when they are for all intents and purposes a Dell (down to the customized Intel motherboard!) just proves that there is no "magic" in Apple hardware.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Ummm....
by Anonymous on Sun 7th Aug 2005 20:09 UTC in reply to "RE: Ummm...."
Anonymous Member since:
---

There is nothing "magic" about OS X. The only place software/hardware integration plays a role is in how well the OS detects plug & play hardware. It doesn't make Finder run any faster or Safari crash any less! The fact that there are reports that the Apple Developer machines run OS X really well, when they are for all intents and purposes a Dell (down to the customized Intel motherboard!) just proves that there is no "magic" in Apple hardware.

Great, you miss the point. No, Apple's hardware isn't made by elves that can do no wrong. Its not better hardware always. Thats not the "magic."

The whole trick is that there are only a few thousand combinations of Macs out there. They are much easier to support because there isn't the BILLIONS (maybe trillions) of possibilities for how the box is put together. Apple designers know that ____ , _____, or ____ will be in an Apple box. There is less of a need to test billions of different configurations. So, less time spent on that means more time spent on development. Magic.

OSX on Dells will suck because of drivers. No way to get around that. Maybe....just maybe....if you had a box that has THE EXACT SAME PARTS (as in same motherboard, same sound card, same video card, same controller card, same- sick of this yet? you get my point) as the Intel Mac it will work. So out of the BILLIONS (maybe trillions) of beige box combinations a few thousand might work ok. But for most, OSX will suck on there.

Jeeze.....its not that hard to figure out.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Ummm....
by Anonymous on Sun 7th Aug 2005 20:15 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Ummm...."
Anonymous Member since:
---

No, no! I won the golden ticket. Apple's products *are* made by elves!

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Ummm....
by rayiner on Sun 7th Aug 2005 20:15 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Ummm...."
rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

Computers are more or less the same. As long as you've got the same chipset and the same graphics driver, you'll get the same result. An Intel Mac is going to be a standard Intel chipset (maybe a dozen different choices all told), with a standard ATI or NVIDIA graphics card (just a few choices all told). That's pretty much it. There'll be millions of standard beige boxes that'll work just peachy with OS X86. Indeed, since Dell tends to ship such bog standard Intel stuff as well, Dell's will work better with OS X than most PCs!

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Ummm....
by Anonymous on Sun 7th Aug 2005 20:22 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Ummm...."
Anonymous Member since:
---

Computers are more or less the same.

The devil is in the details.

As long as you've got the same chipset and the same graphics driver, you'll get the same result.

And the same wireless card. And the same network adaptor. And the same modem. And the same sound card. And the same....

An Intel Mac is going to be a standard Intel chipset (maybe a dozen different choices all told), with a standard ATI or NVIDIA graphics card (just a few choices all told). That's pretty much it.

And that would be simple if Intel had ONE chipset made by ONE manufacturer. But its not like that.

There'll be millions of standard beige boxes that'll work just peachy with OS X86.

Keep telling yourself that, won't make it true.

Indeed, since Dell tends to ship such bog standard Intel stuff as well, Dell's will work better with OS X than most PCs!

To bad that WITHIN DELL'S CATALOG you could put togther at least thousand different combinations of chipsets, graphic adaptors, hard drives, sound cards, wireless chipsets, etc.

Reply Score: 0

RE[5]: Ummm....
by Anonymous on Sun 7th Aug 2005 20:26 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Ummm...."
Anonymous Member since:
---

Actually, hes right.... There is or at least could be millions of PCs that could run OS X... but thats not the point. Sure, theres a double affect of Apple making sure that the hardware is up to spec, but the real issue is about who gets the profit from the hardware sale. If Apple sells its OS with a $100 margin to these PC manufacturers, then they lose a sale to an individual who wanted to run OS X and would otherwise have purcahsed the computer from Apple.... thus allowing Apple a much greater margin.

Reply Score: 0

RE[5]: Ummm....
by rayiner on Sun 7th Aug 2005 21:08 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Ummm...."
rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

And the same wireless card. And the same network adaptor. And the same modem. And the same sound card. And the same....

When was the last time a network driver made your computer "run like crap"? And when was the last time you saw a computer with a modem? And when was the last time you saw a sound card that wasn't supported by AC97 drivers?

And that would be simple if Intel had ONE chipset made by ONE manufacturer. But its not like that.

Intel chipsets do only have one manufacturer (Intel), and in a given market segment, generally only has one or two chipsets. And Intel chipsets are highly compatible. They've got the same audio interface, the same PIIX IDE interface, etc.

To bad that WITHIN DELL'S CATALOG you could put togther at least thousand different combinations of chipsets, graphic adaptors, hard drives, sound cards, wireless chipsets, etc.

The interfaces to hard drives (as well as CD/DVD burners, DVD drives, etc) are standardized, so you need one driver. The interfaces to sound cards are standardized (all Dell machines ship with motherboard audio by default), so you need one driver. Since the network interface is generally in the chipset, we don't need to count its driver as a seperate combination. So I'll give you wireless adapter, just cuz I'm feeling nice. So we're talking about three things: chipset, graphics card, and wireless card. Let's enumerate them, shall we?

Chipset: Intel 865G, Intel 945G, Intel 945P (the latter two are almost identical, differing only in features and not driver-level interfaces). Plus, two mobile chipsets.

Graphics Card: ATI or NVIDIA (all unified drivers). Not counting Intel, cuz that's integrated into the chipset so we counted it once already.

Network Card: Two options for wireless cards (integrated or 3Com).

All told, that's about 20 combinations to cover 90% of Dell's machines. Hardly "thousands".

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Ummm....
by Arun on Mon 8th Aug 2005 01:09 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Ummm...."
Arun Member since:
2005-07-07


The interfaces to hard drives (as well as CD/DVD burners, DVD drives, etc) are standardized, so you need one driver.


Not really... Have you ever written a IDE device driver or a SCSI one perhaps.. Each vendors chipset is different and have a bunch of registers that need to be programmed. Please look at how much effort goes into the linus IDE stack to support multiple controllers from mulitple vendors...

Reply Score: 1

Legality of Reverse-Engineering
by rayiner on Sun 7th Aug 2005 19:54 UTC
rayiner
Member since:
2005-07-06

The Lexmark case is a pretty good parallel to this Apple situation. Printer manufacturers make their money selling cartridges, and sell their printers at a loss. They often use technological measures to ensure that you can only use their printer with their cartridges. By the arguments of the pro-Apple people on this forum, this is both legal and ethical, since if you use their printers with cloned catridges, you are "taking money away from them". The cold dose of reality is that when Lexmark sued a cartridge company that bypassed this protection, they lost twice: first during trial, and then on appeal.

Ars as a good article about a situation here: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20041026-4352.html

It has a particularly good quote from the judge that applies perfectly to the Apple situation:

Generally speaking, "lock-out" codes fall on the functional-idea rather than the original-expression side of the copyright line. Manufacturers of interoperable devices such as computers and software, game consoles and video games, printers and toner cartridges, or automobiles and replacement parts may employ a security system to bar the use of unauthorized components. To "unlock" and permit operation of the primary device (i.e., the computer, the game console, the printer, the car), the component must contain either a certain code sequence or be able to respond appropriately to an authentication process. To the extent compatibility requires that a particular code sequence be included in the component device to permit its use, the merger and sc?s ?aire doctrines generally preclude the code sequence from obtaining copyright.

Reply Score: 4

Mainland China is...
by lesls on Sun 7th Aug 2005 20:03 UTC
lesls
Member since:
2005-08-07

so pleased.

Now they will only have to buy a Single Mac Mini running OSXonIntel, and can do cheapo clones for the other billion computers.

Thank Mao - or whomever it is that those godless red commies are worshipping this millenium.

Or did you think this crack would only be for nice white hacker boyz, to save them a bit of pocket cash?

Reply Score: 1

RE[8]: Good Thing
by Anonymous on Sun 7th Aug 2005 20:07 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

They've also been struck-down in courts, and there is no definitive precedent one way or the other. At least in Georgia (where I live), there is nothing on the books regarding the legality of EULA's.

Perhaps because we are not discussing EULAS in particular but electronic signatures in general.

Click through agreements have been overturned but due to fault in the agreement not die to the nature of acquiring agreement. Put another way, written contracts have been found invalid but that does not make the concept of a written contract invalid.

What constitutes a binding electronic agreement is of course handled at the State level. However the Federal government has provided guidance. It is possible that Georgia has overturned the validity of a click through agreement or never established Statute to cover electronic signatures, but I doubt it.

If you have some case law invalidating click through agreements as a method of obtaining consent I would be happy to look it up and be proven wrong. Guidance from the Federal level and all State Law that I know of hold it as a valid agreement within certain limitations though.

Kokopelli

Reply Score: 0

Apple experience
by Anonymous on Sun 7th Aug 2005 20:23 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

You might want Mac OS X for generic PC boxes, but the whole Apple experience is the hardware AND the OS/software combination.

Sure you can rip a BMW engine out and place it in a Toyota, but the experience won't be the same. You don't get the hardware innovation in suspension, steering, seats, safety and other attributes that make a Mac a Mac.

If you want to know the complete Apple experience you just have to buy a Mac. Just like you have to buy a BMW.

The reason people want Mac OS X for cheap generic PC's is because of Microsoft's incompetance.

If M$ quits being supporting big IT departments, anti-malware companies, high cost of ownership, along with allowing the snoops into their OS , by making their OS decent looking and secure. Then the demand for Mac OS X on generic PC's will wane.

Apple's x86 announcement was just the threat M$ needed.

It's sad that's the only thing that can motivate them to change.

IMO M$ should have been broken up long ago, but the US intelligence dept pulled strings in the Justice Dept.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Apple experience
by japail on Sun 7th Aug 2005 20:27 UTC in reply to "Apple experience"
japail Member since:
2005-06-30

Vroom vroom the BMW comparison surfaces once more.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Apple experience
by Anonymous on Sun 7th Aug 2005 20:31 UTC in reply to "Apple experience"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Stop trying to make it about
"the Apple experience". There are PC manufacturers that can make a computer just as well as Apple if they wanted. Its not about some secret ingreedient Apple has... (although it was at one time when PC manufacturers couldn't design a good PC to save their lives) but it about the OS. a PC can be made to run JUST as well as an Apple branded one..

Apple has the "killer app" if ever something like that existed. They have the element that allows their PC made of the same high-end generic parts that any other PC can have. Apple's killer-app is OS X.

With this, Apple will have all the benefits of any other PC while also adding something more. The key here is differentiation. It the number one element that will help sell Apple's PCs over other company's.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Apple experience
by Anonymous on Mon 8th Aug 2005 00:10 UTC in reply to "RE: Apple experience"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Really?

But only if they really, really want too, right?

Then why haven't they done so and reaped the rewards from all the PC users that salivate over Apple's designed. I'm sure there would be plenty of takers.

You are full of sh*t 5

Reply Score: 0

RE: Apple experience
by Anonymous on Sun 7th Aug 2005 23:24 UTC in reply to "Apple experience"
Anonymous Member since:
---

what inovations? everything apart from the ppc cpu is standard pc hardware made by standard pc hardware manufactors.

Reply Score: 0

RE[8]: Good Thing cont.
by Anonymous on Sun 7th Aug 2005 20:28 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

They've also been struck-down in courts, and there is no definitive precedent one way or the other. At least in Georgia (where I live), there is nothing on the books regarding the legality of EULA's.

I did a quick google for 'click through agreement case law ' and the first three links upheld my arguments. It is possible something later down the list refutes it but at least from what I can see your argument is somewhat flawed.

In fact the links discuss click through agreements for software in specific and (within certain provisions) say they have been upheld.

Kokopelli

Reply Score: 0

legality and morality
by Anonymous on Sun 7th Aug 2005 20:34 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I don't see anything wrong with this. If people buy a copy of OSXi and want to run it on non-Apple machines, so what? It should be their right to use it however they want, so long as they aren't infringing on the rights of others. And from what I know of Apple, they'll sell copies of new versions, so there will be a way to obtain the OS legally without buying a Mactel.

What's with everyone talking about piracy? Will OSXi be a major target for piracy if it runs on any old x86 box? Of course it will, but that doesn't make it wrong to allow the OS to run on generic machines. The people pirating OSXi would be the ones at fault, not those hacking it to be more compatible. Should we hold the companies making x86 PCs responsible too? Apple would be making ridiculous amounts of money if all these other PC companies didn't exist, so aren't the other companies denying Apple its "right to make money"? Americans need to start seeing through the BS from software companies and the RIAA and MPAA. We need to ignore their statistics about how much money they think they should have made. Someone running OSXi on a non-Apple x86 machine isn't a lost $2000 Intel PowerMac sale, just as someone downloading a cam of a new movie isn't a lost $8 ticket sale. What if every time I want to use a computer, I use a friend's Mac? Should Apple be able to sue me saying I should buy a Mac for myself? What if I tell my friends OSX sucks and they shouldn't use it? Strange things start happening when you buy into this new perceived "right to make money".

Regarding EULAs, I see no reason to honor them. People think they're buying software, but really all they're getting for the money they pay at the store is some packaging and a coaster. If they want to use the software, they must agree to what amounts to a contract with no consideration that they didn't have an opportunity to read before they thought they bought the software. If they don't agree, good luck returning the media to the store. The store assumes the customer copied the software and only offers exchanges. The EULA situation is worse than any hardware example I can think of. If I bought a Microsoft mouse and found a note inside saying that by using the mouse, I agree to allow Microsft to sue me if I use it with a machine not running Windows XP, at least I could return the mouse. EULAs are nothing more than legal slight of hand that companies get away with because people are ignorant of contract and copyright law. I don't think people would license nearly as much software if they knew they weren't buying it.

Reply Score: 1

RE: legality and morality
by Anonymous on Sun 7th Aug 2005 21:05 UTC in reply to "legality and morality"
Anonymous Member since:
---

"I don't see anything wrong with this. If people buy a copy of OSXi and want to run it on non-Apple machines, so what? It should be their right to use it however they want, so long as they aren't infringing on the rights of others."

Its infringing upon Apple because thats a lost sale of an Apple computer.


"And from what I know of Apple, they'll sell copies of new versions, so there will be a way to obtain the OS legally without buying a Mactel."

Oh you can bet that people would buy them. Its certinly not for a lack of desire. The problem comes that it requires roughly 15 OS X sales to make up for the margins lost of one Mac computer. Apple would most likely lose money on the strategy if it were adopted or thrust upon them.


"Will OSXi be a major target for piracy if it runs on any old x86 box? Of course it will, but that doesn't make it wrong to allow the OS to run on generic machines. "

What makes it wrong is that it precludes Apple from making money on the sale of Mac hardware and have it instead be allocated to other companies who did not invest the resource to develop the OS.


"The people pirating OSXi would be the ones at fault, not those hacking it to be more compatible"

Enabling a crime to happen for no other purpose other than for a crime to happen makes that person just as lresponsible.


"Should we hold the companies making x86 PCs responsible too?"

Only if they were the ones selling the OS to run on their hardware.


"Apple would be making ridiculous amounts of money if all these other PC companies didn't exist, so aren't the other companies denying Apple its "right to make money"?

Apple isn't automatically entitled to the entire PC market. They're just entitled to getting the money they are owed for the sale of a product. When that product is a copy of OS X witherout there ever have been a Mac hardware sale to go with it, Apple would be losing money.


"Americans need to start seeing through the BS from software companies and the RIAA and MPAA. We need to ignore their statistics about how much money they think they should have made."

Agreed. But thats not relivant to the topic at hand. If someone buys a copy of OS X for their vanilla PC and not for an Apple Mac, thats a quanifiable number we can calculate. The RIAA calculates its numbers based on decreased song sales... never factoring in that they might be making less money because the music isn't as good.


"Someone running OSXi on a non-Apple x86 machine isn't a lost $2000 Intel PowerMac sale."

Maybe not a $2,000 sale... but it is a lost sale.. whether it be a $500 lost mac sale or a $6,500 lost Mac sale. Eitehr way, it *IS* a lost Mac sale.


"just as someone downloading a cam of a new movie isn't a lost $8 ticket sale."

It is if you would have seen that movie in the theatre.


"What if every time I want to use a computer, I use a friend's Mac? Should Apple be able to sue me saying I should buy a Mac for myself?"

No, because a Mac was purchased to allow you its use.


"What if I tell my friends OSX sucks and they shouldn't use it?"

Then he has the ability weigh your opinions and see if what you said has any validity then use that information for his next computer purchase.


"Regarding EULAs, I see no reason to honor them."

You mean any reason other than its against the law?


"People think they're buying software, but really all they're getting for the money they pay at the store is some packaging and a coaster."

That and the right to use the software. Don't forget that.


"If they want to use the software, they must agree to what amounts to a contract with no consideration that they didn't have an opportunity to read before they thought they bought the software."

You're entitled for a refind if you don't agree to the terms.


"If they don't agree, good luck returning the media to the store."

If the store wont accept the refind the developer will.


"If I bought a Microsoft mouse and found a note inside saying that by using the mouse, I agree to allow Microsft to sue me if I use it with a machine not running Windows XP, at least I could return the mouse."

As you can with software.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: legality and morality
by Anonymous on Sun 7th Aug 2005 21:35 UTC in reply to "RE: legality and morality"
Anonymous Member since:
---

The problem is that the legality of EULAs is called into question. They are not always upheld by the courts, and in Europe, they mean just about squat.

If software makers want to make all the extra, non-copyright-related provisions in their EULA legally enforceable, then they need to have the EULA presented to the potential customer before the time of sale. I don't see how they would have any trouble enforcing their EULA if the customer agreed to the terms set forth before any money was laid out. However, to package the EULA with the software, and wait to present the EULA and give the customer a chance to agree-- they are simply banking on the fact that nobody is going to question the legality.

"It SAID that this document is legally binding, thus it must be legally binding without question, because big corporations never make legal mistakes."

>>"I don't see anything wrong with this. If people buy >>a copy of OSXi and want to run it on non-Apple >>machines, so what? It should be their right to use it >>however they want, so long as they aren't infringing >>on the rights of others."

>>Its infringing upon Apple because thats a lost sale >>of an Apple computer.

-It's pretty obvious that your debating tactics involve twisting around what a poster meant, or ignoring what they said and restating your original argument, as though you had actually refuted their point. But I'll nibble on this one.

Apple is not entitled by law to sales of its product. Furthermore, I feel no moral obligation to purchase Apple hardware, just because I bought a copy of their operating system which AFTER THE FACT states that it can only be installed on Apple hardware.

Back to my original point, as far as the law is concerned, currently, when I buy a copy of OS X from wherever, Apple is only entitled to whatever relevant legal provisions that are already in place.

As I stated before, if they want to stop you at the cash register and say, "Hey, this software that you want to purchase requires you to agree to this EULA before you buy it," and they hand me a copy of said EULA, then you'd better believe that I'm going to sit there and read through it, word for word. And if I see something in there that I don't like, chances are that I will not only refuse to agree to it, but I will make sure that everybody else within earshot knows that I don't agree to the terms, and that they had better read it carefully and not "just agree to it so they can get the hell out of there."

That is just about the only way a EULA could beheld legally. Otherwise, at the time of purchase, if I don't sign any agreement related to the software, then I am only legally bound to U.S. copyright law.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: legality and morality
by Anonymous on Sun 7th Aug 2005 22:51 UTC in reply to "RE: legality and morality"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Enabling a crime to happen for no other purpose other than for a crime to happen makes that person just as lresponsible.
Yes, but I think using a product as you wish is moral and given the controversy surrounding EULAs, probably legal too.

It is if you would have seen that movie in the theatre.
And how will the MPAA prove that? Or are pirates supposed to be presumed guilty unless they can prove they wouldn't have seen the movie in a theatre?

No, because a Mac was purchased to allow you its use.
My point is if the Mac wasn't available, I might have bought one. I'm glad you don't defend the fictitious "right of sale" in this case.

That and the right to use the software. Don't forget that.
No, no, NO! That's the way it should be, but it's not the way things actually are. If buying the media granted use of the software, we wouldn't be having this argument because installing OSXi on any computer would be covered by fair use.

If the store wont accept the refind the developer will.
Sure, at the expense of the customer's time and money for shipping and correspondence. I'm not advocating making the refund process easier. If companies want to make it painful, fine, but then they shouldn't complain when the customer uses the product in undesired ways.

Reply Score: 0

this flame war is great news for apple
by Anonymous on Sun 7th Aug 2005 20:35 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

everybody here is contradicting one another, yet you guys all have one thing in common. you're salivating over OS X... be it legal or pirated version. apple has already won you over. gg.

Reply Score: 0

v PC users are so cheap
by Anonymous on Sun 7th Aug 2005 20:41 UTC
suspended page ?
by ariel on Sun 7th Aug 2005 21:05 UTC
ariel
Member since:
2005-07-06

when i try to visit the website on the article i get a suspended page.. someone else?

Reply Score: 1

RE: suspended page ?
by Anonymous on Sun 7th Aug 2005 21:07 UTC in reply to "suspended page ?"
Anonymous Member since:
---

ditto

Reply Score: 0

RE:  suspended page ?
by Anonymous on Sun 7th Aug 2005 21:09 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Wow, I do not think it has even made /. yet.

Kokopelli

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]:  suspended page ?
by Anonymous on Sun 7th Aug 2005 21:11 UTC in reply to "RE:  suspended page ?"
Anonymous Member since:
---

yeah this must have been fresh off the presses... OSNEWS was definitely 1 ^ on /.

Reply Score: 0

mirror?
by Anonymous on Sun 7th Aug 2005 21:14 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

mirror?

Reply Score: 0

mirror?
by Anonymous on Sun 7th Aug 2005 21:17 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

yeah how about a mirror...tried getting it cached @ archive.org but no go there....I wonder if Stevie just sh*t his pants or something, because that was damn quick

Reply Score: 0

A heads up
by Anonymous on Sun 7th Aug 2005 21:37 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Tried the site, it said their account has been suspended.

Reply Score: 0

What do you guys want????
by Anonymous on Sun 7th Aug 2005 21:40 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I have never owned an Apple, but I like the company. They put out good products all around. Im not even going to comment on most of the above ridiculous posts.

I'm just going to say this: SOME PEOPLE JUST WONT BE HAPPY UNTIL APPLE IS RUN INTO THE FREAKIN GROUND.

You want Apple to lower thier prices comparable to the crap PCs for $199-299? It wont happen. This company has provided an excellent entry point (Mac mini) for you, what else do you want? I wish they would have never decided to switch to x86.

Reply Score: 0

RE: What do you guys want????
by kellym10 on Sun 7th Aug 2005 21:43 UTC in reply to "What do you guys want????"
kellym10 Member since:
2005-08-02

"You want Apple to lower thier prices comparable to the crap PCs for $199-299? It wont happen"

Well, Apple's prices are equal to comperably equipped PCs... They don't however sell a computer in that range.

Reply Score: 1

RE: What do you guys want????
by Anonymous on Tue 9th Aug 2005 14:47 UTC in reply to "What do you guys want????"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Yes, apple people keep saying this, crap pcs and so on. Need to take a look inside, you'll see the identical chips, graphics cards, disks and so on. There is no harware difference. none. This is the whole problem. They are selling crap pcs too - if that is what they are - but they are selling them for several times the price.

Reply Score: 0

Google Cache
by brewin on Sun 7th Aug 2005 21:51 UTC
brewin
Member since:
2005-06-30
osx on x86 and osx desktop
by carmello on Sun 7th Aug 2005 21:53 UTC
carmello
Member since:
2005-08-07

rayiner,

I think its more that Apple doens't support all x86 hardware, so I think you are allowd to install it on every x86 box you can find but it will not work on every x86 box.

Anonymous,
But project looking glass may change that, not realy mature yet but can become something realy nice.
From what I have seen from the OSX GUI (only movie demo's), looking glass gives you more power and freedom.
I am currently much more impressed what I have feld and experciened with looking glass.

Reply Score: 1

RE: osx on x86 and osx desktop
by kellym10 on Sun 7th Aug 2005 21:55 UTC in reply to "osx on x86 and osx desktop"
kellym10 Member since:
2005-08-02

"I think its more that Apple doens't support all x86 hardware, so I think you are allowd to install it on every x86 box you can find but it will not work on every x86 box."

carmello,

Apple has said that they are going to restrict OS X from being installed on non-Apple PCs... (They they said that other OSes being installed on Apple hardware would not be restricted)

Reply Score: 1

UR Money....
by Anonymous on Sun 7th Aug 2005 21:53 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

So the fact that MS + Apple makes Billions n Billions of profits HUGE markups upsets people here...???

But they all talk about is how much they should be charging...

How much people should be willing to pay for lines of code ....that in the end hardly change...
.........

Reply Score: 0

RE: UR Money....
by kellym10 on Sun 7th Aug 2005 21:58 UTC in reply to "UR Money...."
kellym10 Member since:
2005-08-02

"So the fact that MS + Apple makes Billions n Billions of profits HUGE markups upsets people here...?"

The debate isn't about huge markups or not... They really isn't any. Apple's prices are very much in line with the rest of the PC industry. The thing people want is to be able to run OS X on PC hardware without buying an Apple-branded computer. The reason is not because PCs are less expensive, but because they al;low you to buy less and spend less.

Reply Score: 1

v Bottom Line
by Anonymous on Sun 7th Aug 2005 21:53 UTC
Just one thing to say about it all
by Anonymous on Sun 7th Aug 2005 21:55 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Anyone who thinks that Apple could not sell OX X for commodity hardware and make a hell of a profit is smoking crack plain and simple.

At $130 a copy for OS X apple is making money no doubt.

Reply Score: 0

KellyMcNeill Member since:
2005-07-27

"Anyone who thinks that Apple could not sell OX X for commodity hardware and make a hell of a profit is smoking crack plain and simple."

Nobody is saying that. They're saying that they would make a hell of a lot less than what they could (and do) by selling the whole widget.

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous Member since:
---

I agree with you 100%

Reply Score: 0

here you go
by anand78 on Sun 7th Aug 2005 22:03 UTC
anand78
Member since:
2005-07-07

This Account Has Been Suspended
Please contact the billing/support department as soon as possible.

Reply Score: 1

Another EULA point
by Anonymous on Sun 7th Aug 2005 22:07 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Keep in mind, that the EULA isn't visable at the time of purchase. It may be in the box or on the CD/DVD. Once opened, you cannot return it.

Side note: some companies post their EULA's online for consumers. I am unaware if Apple has this practice; I haven't investigated it.

Just my 2C's worth.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Another EULA point
by tnoflahc on Sun 7th Aug 2005 22:08 UTC in reply to "Another EULA point"
tnoflahc Member since:
2005-08-07

i've already made that point, but thank you for reiterating it :0)

Reply Score: 1

haha
by bullethead on Sun 7th Aug 2005 22:07 UTC
bullethead
Member since:
2005-07-10

Honestly, I own a Macintosh. I have the latest MacOSX on a 12" powerbook. To tell you the truth MacOSX is garbage. I only bought it to be cool like those people who have iPods.

Once I get it going I am going to install Linux on this powerbook. I can't believe that people are so obsessed with MacOSX. It really is garbage (and this is coming from a Mac user).

Reply Score: 1

maybe...
by Anonymous on Sun 7th Aug 2005 22:09 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

you can say that x86 is the worst cpu arquitechture ever, but i bet that there is no other cpu in any other arquitecture that ever dream to bring the same price/performance ratio of x86 cpus.
i think that in few years x86 will be the most powerfull architecture thanks to the loads of money that is used for R&D.

Reply Score: 0

Money
by Anonymous on Sun 7th Aug 2005 22:11 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

@ By kellym10

At the end of the day for the last 15 to 20 years Apple computers have always been more expensive then all or most of x86 and others computers.. Amiga Acorn (when they were big)... etc etc...

$130 for the changes in OSX 10.4 from 10.3 is a huge proffit what I am saying and asking is...

Why do MS and Apple customers / companies allow them such high profits for such common basics....

Apple tried forever to write themselves a new OS in the end they borrowed one and added their own GUI.. which is fine but to charge such a high price and for people to claim Apple are losing money and we should feel sorry for them like they are homeless and pennyless... is a joke and distortion of the truth...

id like to toy with it out side a shop but im sure id get pretty bored.... as theres not much to see...

nothing amazing or magical and its not the next step forward that computing world needs to continue to be centre of attention.

Reply Score: 0

Interesting mathematics?
by Anonymous on Sun 7th Aug 2005 22:12 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Odd, some folks here have stated that they would buy grey hardware on which to run OSX, suggesting they will happily purchase OSX (not copy it) as this will end off being cheaper than Apple hardware?

I'm left scratching my head. Part of the attraction for me when I purchased Apple hardware in the past was the fact that they bundled their OS with their hardware. AND the hardware I purchased worked, and worked WELL out of the box in the configuration I purchased. This essentially makes Apple hardware cheaper, because I don't have to purchase the OS seperately and waste time obtaining 2nd rate flakey drivers from OEMs.

So I don't fully get this whole grey-box obsession with running a hacked-to-pieces OSX on some random Athlon box, when the chances are you'll have to dissable the Apple updates and constantly battle to keep it alive.

What's the point beyond an amuzing proof of concept?

You'll soon learn OSX is ok, but it's not as great as Apple claims, and maybe like me you'll actually prefer using Gnome2 or KDE3.4 You'll notice the file-selector on OSX sucks big time...and drag-and-drop support is worse than either Gnome or KDE.

Reply Score: 0

eula
by Anonymous on Sun 7th Aug 2005 22:15 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

an eula is not a contract.
let's say that i would leave the computer at the eula and
go out for a smoke and my cat steped on the mouse. would the cat have a contract with apple, moraly it could be considerd a contract (maby). and even if it is a contract
it still havto follow the law (wich it dosent where i live) if you signed a papper wich gave someone the rigth to kill you i seriusly doubt that he could say that he had a contract and go free.

there is some freedoms that cant be signed away

Reply Score: 0

RE: eula
by Anonymous on Sun 7th Aug 2005 23:04 UTC in reply to "eula"
Anonymous Member since:
---

A cat? Of course not, get real. Now, if we are talking iguanas...

Reply Score: 0

 RE[12]: Good thing
by Anonymous on Sun 7th Aug 2005 22:16 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

EULAs are legally binding in the U.S. by current case law.

If you do not agree to the EULA and are refused a refund then you have a legal case for getting the refund. That does not mean that the EULA is not binding should you accept it, nor does it mean you can use the software in any way you want if you disagree with the EULA.

Again a little googling upholds the veracity of my argument. Outside of meanderings I have seen no evidence on the thread to contest this whereas I have provided the location of outside sources to uphold my argument.


Further there are specific provisions in copyright law covering software so it does not fall completely under the same provisions as music. Anyone who has read the statute would know that.

On the other hand I agree that we are not discussing theft. Copyright infringement and perhaps breach of contract, but not theft. It is very easy to call copyright infringement theft, but from a legal standpoint they are not the same. It is however easier to call something theft or piracy then to continually type copyright infringement. Inacuracy for the sake of brevity I suppose.

Kokopelli
(AKA Mephisto as whom I have had a few debates here over the years.)

Reply Score: 0

RE: RE[13]: Good thing
by tnoflahc on Sun 7th Aug 2005 22:33 UTC in reply to " RE[12]: Good thing"
tnoflahc Member since:
2005-08-07

A quick Google search turns up several instances where shrink-wrap EULAs were upheld ONLY BECAUSE the offenders violated applicable copyright law. In this case, the EULA was redundant, and the case could have been tried with the same results if there had never been any EULA packaged with the product.

This tells me that the courts will uphold the EULA only if a pre-existing law has been broken. But in the case of Apple computers, there is no law right now that tells me that I can only use Apple software on Apple hardware. This, coupled with the fact that you have no chance to even review the EULA until you have already spent a non-refundable amount of money for the product in question, tells me that, no, Apple's EULA would most likely NOT be upheld in a U.S. court of law.

Reply Score: 2

shutdown
by Anonymous on Sun 7th Aug 2005 22:52 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

We are currently experiencing some difficulties, the site will return shortly.


Yeah ,probably was shutdown by jobs police

Reply Score: 0

RE: shutdown
by Anonymous on Mon 8th Aug 2005 00:11 UTC in reply to "shutdown"
Anonymous Member since:
---

HAHAHHAHHAHHA.... Good!

Reply Score: 0

v Wow
by Anonymous on Sun 7th Aug 2005 22:59 UTC
 RE: RE[14]: Good thing
by Anonymous on Sun 7th Aug 2005 23:20 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---


A quick Google search turns up several instances where shrink-wrap EULAs were upheld ONLY BECAUSE the offenders violated applicable copyright law.


And others where they were upheld. By and large the nature of the contract violation was copyright but not exclusively. As far as copyright violations... Title 17 section 117? With some very specific exceptions the contracts were upheld unless some element of the process invalidates it. Granted it is a mixed bag but currently case law is in favor, not against.

http://www.phillipsnizer.com/library/topics/click_wrap.cfm

http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,46764,00.asp

Any way you look at it presently the actions of the users this aricle is about are not legal. Either they have an illegal copy or they are violating the NDA they signed to get it legally.

Do you care to argue that? As I said a good number of pages back, buy a full licensed copy of OS X for x86 and you can install it anywhere you want. The legality is temorous but as long as you are not reselling it you are unlikely to incur the wrath of Apple. On the other hand you will get no support from Apple either. You might even be able to argue in court and win that the license is not valid. For the moment case law is against you however.

As I understand it bundling is illegal when done as a way to leverage, maintain, or further a monopoly. Apple is not a monopoly so the act of bundling in and of itself is not illegal.

Kokopelli

Reply Score: 0

RE: RE[15]: Good thing
by tnoflahc on Mon 8th Aug 2005 02:01 UTC in reply to " RE: RE[14]: Good thing"
tnoflahc Member since:
2005-08-07

"Any way you look at it presently the actions of the users this aricle is about are not legal. Either they have an illegal copy or they are violating the NDA they signed to get it legally."

The problem with your argument is that the persons in question violated already established laws, which is exactly what I've been saying all along. Or, they violated an NDA which they had signed IN ORDER TO OBTAIN THE PRODUCT.

There is where the difference in our scenarios lay. What I am saying is that unless a contract is signed at the time of purchase, the company has no additional rights other than those guaranteed by the law in that jurisdiction. You are giving examples where either a law was broken, or the person signed an agreement in order to obtain the software, and then they violated the agreement.

Reply Score: 2

v Copy of suspended page
by Anonymous on Sun 7th Aug 2005 23:30 UTC
RE[2]: eula
by Anonymous on Sun 7th Aug 2005 23:35 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

in fact, eulas are almost only valid in the us. in europe they are hardly worth the electrons used to display them...

Reply Score: 0

copywrite
by re_re on Sun 7th Aug 2005 23:40 UTC
re_re
Member since:
2005-07-06

while i agree that is copywrite infringment to crack osx for the cracker.... would it still be infringment if say.. the copywrite was taken out of the installer by the cracker.. and the person using it never had to agree to the copywrite?

i mean..... could apple really prosecute somebody who never saw the copywrite?

Reply Score: 1

copywrite fix
by re_re on Sun 7th Aug 2005 23:43 UTC
re_re
Member since:
2005-07-06

by copywrite i mean EULA

Reply Score: 1

RE: copyright
by Anonymous on Sun 7th Aug 2005 23:47 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

i mean..... could apple really prosecute somebody who never saw the copywrite?

The absence of reading the license might nullify the eula but it does not change the copyright violation itself.

By this argument grabbing music off of P2P would be legal.

Kokopelli

Reply Score: 0

re[2]:copywright
by re_re on Sun 7th Aug 2005 23:56 UTC
re_re
Member since:
2005-07-06

well.. truthfully.... i wouldn't use it anyway.. i disagree with pirating,.... I was just throwing the idea out there lol

Reply Score: 1

RE: Copyright fix
by Anonymous on Sun 7th Aug 2005 23:56 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

by copywrite i mean EULA

I doubt it but weirder things have happened. The copy would still be in violation of copyright law probably.

Kokopelli

Reply Score: 0

Legality
by Anonymous on Mon 8th Aug 2005 00:01 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

EULAS and its like have severe problems. Law, is based on principles. And this is about freedom, make no mistake about it. Now, a lot of ignorant souls have been dissing freedom. Just to the point where you'd think only white people with blond hair and blue eyes would be allowed to utter an oppinion, own land and what not.

Well we've moved on, and apparently forgotten what freedom is about.

Now back to legal principles.

Here's a savvy situation for you.

Jack Jackass Rabbit enters the local software retail store. He tells the clerk that he want's a fresh steaming copy of OSX. The clerk takes down the box from the shelve, hands it to Jack J. Rabbit after he's payed for the product.

Now.. THIS IS THE SHOCKING PART ... Prepare.. it's mind numbing...

Jack J. Rabbit suprinsingly owns that box, everything in it.

I know it's hard to believe, just like the bottle of coke I just bought, it's mine, I can wash my dishes with it, or drink it. It's mine.

Long story short, EULAS are TOTALLY worthless, and I mean totally.

Because Jack J. Rabbit didn't actually read, understand and sign a contract before receiving that box in his hand now did he. That however, would be a different deal all together.

Now, the people who didn't actually buy the product in the first place, hence named pirates, after the jolly good stories told to you as a boy/girl is not condoned under any circumstance.

But make zero mistake about it, it's about freedom, our future and the human legacy.

P.S

Copywright is something different, it's there to make sure it is actually worth creating something.

P.S 2

EULAS are now legal in the US and expect one principle thrown down into decay for each dollar contributed to your political system. It was once called the land of hope if my memory serves me right, it's a shame.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Legality
by rm6990 on Mon 8th Aug 2005 07:35 UTC in reply to "Legality"
rm6990 Member since:
2005-07-04

Jack J. Rabbit suprinsingly owns that box, everything in it.

Ummm, no, you own a license to use the material. You don't own the title to the software. Are you trying to say that when I bought Windows I own it, and the copyright has transfered to me?

Remember, buying a physical object is not the same as buying a license to use copyrighted material. Different laws apply to both. So your arguement doesn't stick. Prctically no laws apply to physical objects, other than anti-theft laws. Copyright law applies to software.

Now, saying EULA's might not be legal is understandable, but trying to say that a copyright license gives you ownership of the material is downright stupid.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Legality
by Anonymous on Mon 8th Aug 2005 09:55 UTC in reply to "RE: Legality"
Anonymous Member since:
---

"Now, saying EULA's might not be legal is understandable, but trying to say that a copyright license gives you ownership of the material is downright stupid."

So stupid that no-one would ever say it. What buying the software gives you is obviously not the copyright, any more than buying a book gives you the copyright, or buying a garden tool gives you the patent. What it does give you is the right to use what you have bought as you like, without post sales restraints.

Tell me one case of a post sales restraint that has been upheld by EC courts, and I'll shut up.

Reply Score: 0

It's finally happening...
by Anonymous on Mon 8th Aug 2005 00:03 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

The end is nigh for Microsoft! From my parents'
basement, I stab at thee!



HAHHAHAHHAHHA*COUGH*HAHHAAHA... DIE!



Apple will really kill M$<----lol

Reply Score: 0

OSX on generic x86 hardware = piracy ??
by Anonymous on Mon 8th Aug 2005 00:18 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

If I bought a copy of the x86 OSX version (whenver it is released, and assuming the updates are sold without hardware), and then hack it so that it runs on hardware I already own, does that equal piracy? If I pay for a legitimate copy, is it not my right (morally speaking) to run it on whatever hardware I damn well please?

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Penguin Member since:
2005-07-06

Exactly. I said the same thing.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Why people wanted Mactel ...
by Anonymous on Mon 8th Aug 2005 00:18 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I knew as much as that. But I have the right to be of a different opinion. I don't want to steal anything.

I too would like to install os x on my Opteron. But Apple created the software and can to a certain extent control its deployment. Again if you have a legal licensed copy of osx for x86 that is not already installed on another computer I say go for it. Such a copy is not likely to be available for a few years yet though.

Kokopelli

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Penguin Member since:
2005-07-06

I see you agree with me. And somebody else had exactly the same idea I had a few minutes ago: it is like selling petrol on condition you use it only for a certain make of cars, but not for others. I doubt they could win a legal case.

Reply Score: 1

v hope apple goes to hell in a hand basket
by Anonymous on Mon 8th Aug 2005 00:30 UTC
Anonymous Member since:
---

Well if the only way for me to run OSX is to run it on Apple's hardware which will be the same as a Dell box just with a fancy case then I hope Apple loses in the OS arena.

I won't buy gas for my car that says you can only use it in a BMW. And I won't by a OS that says you can only run me on Apple. What kind of BS does Apple think it can pull? APPLE THE GAME HAS CHANGED NOW THAT YOU ARE ON X86 WAKE THE HELL UP SLAP SLAP!!!

Have fun Mac zealots. Spend x amount more for the same stinking hardware and think you have something better. Go ahead have fun you mindless zombies.


YEAH! Someone figured it out! Now, this person's economic knowledge is equal to a 16 year olds (Apple likes selling hardware), but at least the concept of "no, bad boy, you can't have OSX on your crap beige box" has gotten through someones head.

Reply Score: 0

A bit off subject, but...
by Anonymous on Mon 8th Aug 2005 00:53 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Does anyone here think it would be possible to create a 'fink' in reverse for OsX86? I was just wond'rin.. It just occurs to me that I would be a lot keener to run linux if I knew could get commercial apps and assorted bits of hardware on it. This isn't meant as criticism, it's just a lot of the applications I really like are commercial and if I'm going to buy some new gadget I would always prefer to get the full feature set available to windows/mac users. I know OsX86 is a superior GUI, but many distros offer an entirely acceptable user experience. Well acceptable to me anyway. The only problem is that it would rather screw apple, unless they did release OsX86 to run on everything. But of course, they say they aren't going to do that...

Reply Score: 0

v ANYONE ONE ELSE
by Anonymous on Mon 8th Aug 2005 00:55 UTC
v ANYONE ONE ELSE
by Anonymous on Mon 8th Aug 2005 00:55 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

No. It wouldn't be piracy. However if the license agreement says you can only run it on hardware manufactured by apple, then you're violating a license agreement. For example, if Microsoft Office license agreement said you can only run it on Windows but you use software like Crossover Office to run it on Linux, you are technically violating their license agreement. Having said that I doubt MS would come after you for that if you've legitimately paid money for it. However for Mac OS X, since Apple really makes money off of hardware, they can stop you from doing that if they found out. Again, having said that I doubt they will.

Software isn't like like physical object. You don't actually "buy" software. You are just licensing it's use.

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Penguin Member since:
2005-07-06

"Software isn't like like physical object. You don't actually "buy" software. You are just licensing it's use."

Which is very bad and it is the very point many of us disagree about.

Reply Score: 1

eMagius Member since:
2005-07-06

Don't like it, don't use it.

Reply Score: 1

Torrent
by Anonymous on Mon 8th Aug 2005 01:14 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Hey,


Look for

Mac OSX Tiger 10.4.1 for Intel x86 full backup from WWDC (NOT Installer) [mactelbase.tar] www.Demonoid.com.torrent

on emule/amule. This torrent is active.

Reply Score: 0

hmm
by Anonymous on Mon 8th Aug 2005 01:46 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

This is OLD news, now i wonder why the sites down...maybe from 80 million people trying to browse the wiki at once and why is this? because a news site has deceided to make a lil tidbit of information linked directly and everyones clicking that link...

Reply Score: 0

I got a good question
by Anonymous on Mon 8th Aug 2005 02:29 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Has anyone here installed using the instructions posted earlier? Are you running just a command line or are you actually running OS X?

Reply Score: 0

DMCA Notice?
by Anonymous on Mon 8th Aug 2005 03:16 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Looks like just that part of the website has been taken down, could be a DMCA notice to the host provider from apple.

The rest of the wiki is still running. Just that hostname is suspended.

Reply Score: 0

v kyyyooooooo kyyyooooooo
by Anonymous on Mon 8th Aug 2005 03:42 UTC
RE[3]: Why people wanted Mactel ...
by morgoth on Mon 8th Aug 2005 03:58 UTC
morgoth
Member since:
2005-07-08

Rayiner - you've absolutely correct in your comments. The powerful and the rich want to control. That's all the DRM and TCPA are. Nothing more, and nothing less. This is the problem with copyrights, and the problem with software patents.

Freedom is very hard to find these days, especially in the US of A.

Dave

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: LOL
by morgoth on Mon 8th Aug 2005 04:01 UTC
morgoth
Member since:
2005-07-08

Quote: "you dont buy it and OWN it, all you own is the license with your lousy $99.00. Jeez."

And that's exactly the problem. If i've paid for it, I damn well own it. None of this license bullshit. Governments should wake up and start actually coming down on the software industry like a tonne of bricks, because quite frankly, it just does what it wants, stuff anyone or anything else. Software doesn't have to comply with quality control, it doesn't have to provide a warranty of usability. It's the *only* thing that's sold to consumers (that I can think of) that gets away with it. It's wrong. Plain and simple, it's wrong. If the software vendor is that worried about the "merchantability" of their software, then they shouldn't be selling it to the public.

Dave

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Good thing
by morgoth on Mon 8th Aug 2005 04:08 UTC
morgoth
Member since:
2005-07-08

Quote: "unless of course you buy an Intel Mac keep it in your closet and never use it. "

Sure. I go out and buy an Intel Mac. I've paid for it. I've paid the "Apple tax", now can I legally go and make OS X run on another Intel based non-Apple box? Your point/argument is moot, I haven't "stolen" it in this example, I've *paid* for it. What is Apple losing? It's not losing a hardware sale, it has it! Yet, according to the law, it's still illegal. I'm not sure for what reasons, but it's illegal. The law is constructed to protect the rich and the powerful, and if you think that it's anything else other than that you're pulling your dick.

Dave

Reply Score: 0

What It Comes Down To...
by Anonymous on Mon 8th Aug 2005 04:10 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Despite my troll-like comments... Really, it comes down to this; if you want OS X and Apple to continue, you will pay for the prodcut in one way or another. Either you will buy a Mac or a legal license to use OS X. Well, actually, that is about all their is to capitalism in general. If you want the product, pay for it, else it won't exist.

Reply Score: 0

re
by Anonymous on Mon 8th Aug 2005 04:34 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I am fully willing to pay for a copy of OSX for the x86. However I am not willing to buy overpriced apple hardware to get it.
I want freedom of choice for my hardware and apple does not give me that.
So yes, I will acquire a copy of OSX for x86 through illegal means, for now. But should apple every release their OS for any PC then I will at that time buy it and support it.

Reply Score: 0

RE: re
by Anonymous on Mon 8th Aug 2005 04:45 UTC in reply to "re"
Anonymous Member since:
---

I hope those illegal means including paying Apple for the copy of OS X, else there will be no OS X. Even if you don't want to pay for that restrictive Apple hardware, and since we have yet to even see it, I don't know how we are coming to that conclusion, if you like the OS, it is in your best interest to pay for it. But, as always, whatever.

Reply Score: 0

Re: Mac OS X
by Anonymous on Mon 8th Aug 2005 04:37 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

When you buy a Mac you buy the hardware innovations and seamless integration with the OS and software.

We pay a bit more in th elow end because Apple only provides the $499 Mini as the low end model. They don't want to play in the low margin area.

In the DP PowerMac and X-Server line they are cheaper for performance than Dells.

http://homepage.mac.com/hogfish/PhotoAlbum2.html

Reply Score: 0

amiga in the same breath as apple
by Anonymous on Mon 8th Aug 2005 04:37 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

then the subject must be best operating systems ever, especially the Amiga OS4 sampling now for release next year.

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous
Member since:
---

This thread got lost in semantics debates (copy vs. stealing, what is an EULA etc) and many interesting points weren't raised and debated.

The funny thing is to see Apple/Mac haters that debate about it, bashing Apple's decision to keep OS X on Macs only... If you think Apple is sh*t and Mac OS X crap, wouldn't it be better for the world that people that don't have Apple branded computer could not install OS X on their machines? You think that Apple would make profit by selling OS X for all x86 machines? But do you really want that? Wouldn't it be better if Apple just went bankrupt so that you don't have to see yet another iPod ad that gives you funny feelings in your tummy?

Can someone tell me what is different now that would prevent Apple profits from sinking into the red like they did when they allowed cloning?

If you hate Apple but think OS X is a good OS, what do you think about the people working for Apple that programmed and designed the thing? Aren't those mindless zombies too? They work for Apple and love the company, how could they make a good OS? Why don't you go spit in their face while telling them "hey guys, great OS!"

And if Apple did release OS X for all x86 machines, would you suddendly forgive Apple for all the things on your list that they did wrong before?

Love-hate relationships are not healthy, it makes me think about violent husbands that still love their wife very much...

Now, I'm not saying you cannot be critical of Apple if you love some of their products, or vice-versa, but some people here have it to the extreme.

So what is wrong with someone wanting to buy and install OS X on their current x86 PC? To that I reply:

What is wrong with Apple not wanting to give you tech support for your possibly crappy machine? If you try to install OS X on a Commodore 64, will you expect to have Apple spend time and money giving you tech support? No maybe you are a hacker that don't expect that, but the masses would, and that would be costly in terms of support. It has been said before, OS X costs much more than 130$ a copy to develop. If Apple were to sell it for every x86 machines, why would you pay more for Apple's hardware to run it? Would you buy a Mac as your next machine? If not then Apple would sell you OS X at a loss, for what?

Also, let's say you install it on your Dell, then find it to be crashy (because it's not designed to run on a Dell and would be somewhat incompatible, while OS X on a Mac is very stable). Isn't it normal that Apple wouldn't want bad publicity by people running around saying "I now have much more problems on my Dell with OS X than I had with Windows"? Do you realize how much money Apple would have to spend to test every kind of x86 configuration to make sure this doesn't happen?

One day, it may happen, but not now, it would require too much investment and too much risks. Apple share of sales is on the rise (now 4.7%, not 2 or 3%), and I can't see "it" happening until they reach a conformable level . Until then, please stop whining about it like Apple would do it because of you whiners. Apple would love to have it's OS run as good on any x86 machine, and that it would be accessible even by poor people. If they don't do it, it's because they think that they could be seriously hurt if they did release OS X for all x86 PCs.

Anyway I'm sure Mr. "20/20 vision in a thread full of blind people" will like to add a little of his hidden (and thus rude) sarcasm, debating with multiple Anonymous posters defending Apple's decision like they were the same person. Most Mac bashers do this, they remember every mistakes and dumb comments made by multiple Mac users on different occasions, and aggregate them in a single "Mac zealot" entity like they represent everyone defending anything about Apple.

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Penguin Member since:
2005-07-06

"Apple would love to have it's OS run as good on any x86 machine, and that it would be accessible even by poor people."

If they really want this, why don't they start by selling their hardware for a reasonable price?
Don't you believe me? Have a look at the cost of a PowerBook here in Europe and then compare it to the cost of, for instance, a HP laptop of similar specs.

Reply Score: 1

Johan Member since:
2005-06-30

a HP laptop of similar specs.

Similar specs? HP are selling laptops with OSX installed now? The cost of developing the entire apple solution includes the high cost of developing OSX. The store price of the box is not the true price of OSX because you pay some of it with the hardware. I prefer it this way, high one time payment, but less incrementally. You may not, but you're free to use HP, but don't assume they are of "similar specs".

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous Penguin Member since:
2005-07-06

So because a PowerBook is more than twice the price of a HP with similar *hardware* specs (and which comes with an OS and plenty of extra software) what you are saying is tha OSX is worth at least 1,300Eur...
In that case I'll keep using linux, thank you.

Reply Score: 1

Johan Member since:
2005-06-30

your welcome. And i'll keep using my ibook which has far more features than oter laptops of the same price range.

Reply Score: 1

RE[8]: Hyprocritical.
by Johan on Mon 8th Aug 2005 06:38 UTC
Johan
Member since:
2005-06-30

And who's fault is it that I could lay my hands on the product by paying much less than "I'm supposed to"?

You could "lay your hands" on it a lot cheaper if you swindled the osx box under your coat and creep out of Apple store. Problem is, that would be breaking the law. Breaching fair use is also breaking the law.

Reply Score: 1

RE[8]: Hyprocritical.
by Anonymous on Mon 8th Aug 2005 06:49 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

And who's fault is it that I could lay my hands on the product by paying much less than "I'm supposed to"?

But right now you can not lay your hands on it for purchase. Perhaps we should drop all this EULA debate till OS X for x86 can be purchased as a product. This is going in circles.

Kokopelli

Reply Score: 0

Has anyone here seen the site?
by Anonymous on Mon 8th Aug 2005 09:10 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Has anyone here seen the site? Have you seen the details? How it works? What are the limitations? You all argue about things that are not important here (legal, morale, ...) - why not focus on technology side of it?

Reply Score: 0

Pirating ?
by Anonymous on Mon 8th Aug 2005 09:43 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

In the first ten comments i read stuff about pirating software. I think its a good move of apple to get more market share. Decent people will buy it anyways and other wouldnt anyways. So in the end more market share means more sales. At least in the beginning.

Quazion

Reply Score: 0

Matt24
by Matt24 on Mon 8th Aug 2005 10:36 UTC
Matt24
Member since:
2005-07-23

What this threat is showing is that with the X86 move Apple gets truely connected to the darkside, where stealing software is quite normal, sad. The Mac community will have a hard time to keep herself pure.

Reply Score: 1

RE[11]: Hyprocritical.
by stormloss on Mon 8th Aug 2005 11:05 UTC
stormloss
Member since:
2005-08-03

japail your dead on the money with the yuppie trophy "zealous" Mac owners comment.

Anonymous (IP: 68.110.94.---) is just a twit.

Reply Score: 1

The Reality
by silicon on Mon 8th Aug 2005 11:08 UTC
silicon
Member since:
2005-07-30

Piracy doesnt mean stealing:
(1)If you do it for a non-profitable purpose.(That you are not selling pirated software.)
(2)If you feel anything is wrong with the company/product (i.e. it has insanely unreal prices and/or absurd conditions - such as this one).
To give an example WinRAR shareware (costs $30 approx.) does much less than a software called IZArc or 7-Zip. Both these are free and have nothing less than WinRAR (they are both easy to use and have wide support for various archive types.)
The truth is piracy wont mean larger profits for a company as people wouldn't still have the money to buy the software and
THEY WOULD SIMPLY MOVE TO LINUX.

Reply Score: 1

RE: The Reality
by Anonymous on Mon 8th Aug 2005 11:41 UTC in reply to "The Reality"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Piracy doesnt mean stealing:
(1)If you do it for a non-profitable purpose.(That you are not selling pirated software.)
(2)If you feel anything is wrong with the company/product (i.e. it has insanely unreal prices and/or absurd conditions - such as this one).

------------------------------------------------------------------

Bloody hell, I'd like you to use that defense in a court of law when court stealing something

Reality maybe if you have a criminal mind

Reply Score: 0

RE: The Reality
by Anonymous on Mon 8th Aug 2005 12:10 UTC in reply to "The Reality"
Anonymous Member since:
---

THEN SIMPLY MOVE TO LINUX and stop finding excuses for why piracy is not stealing. If you don't like the product and its conditions, leave it alone.

Reply Score: 0

RE: The Reality
by Anonymous on Mon 8th Aug 2005 12:06 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I bet you didn't pay for the proprietary Microseft Windows XP piece of shit system you use either. Idiot. It's imbeciles like you who give PC users a bad name.

Reply Score: 0

RE:The Reality
by Anonymous on Mon 8th Aug 2005 12:12 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Software piracy is not stealing regardless of conditions. It is also not legal regardless of conditions.

All I ask is that if you make an illegal copy of software do not attempt to justify it by 'I would not have bought it anyway.' or 'I cant afford to buy it.' Use Linux but don't use a car thiefs justification for your actions.
I am not trying to equate car theft with copyright voilations. The rationalization is the same though.

Kokopelli

Reply Score: 0

don't care
by Anonymous on Mon 8th Aug 2005 12:15 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

while its true that these pirates make some lame excuses for their criminal behavior, its also pretty lame to give a rats hair whether apple loses a sale or not.

apple will sue their grandma for jaywalking...let them defend themselves. Its a tough world...apple gives as good as they get, they are on their own, if you ask me.

Reply Score: 0

i think...
by Anonymous on Mon 8th Aug 2005 12:24 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

a piece of piracy software become, more and more popular software and this make dominate the market...
in the desentralized market incomming's...
or not.... ?!

im sure apple gain a big part of market share.

MAC OS X = easy and simple to use.

Reply Score: 0

someone explain
by Anonymous on Mon 8th Aug 2005 13:38 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

what the big deal is about PURCHASING Apple's OSX and then running it on a vanilla box.

You don't see Sun telling anyone what to run Solaris 10 on. In fact they encourage the spread of their operating system, why doesn't Apple car to do the same?

Reply Score: 0

RE: someone explain
by Anonymous on Tue 9th Aug 2005 01:58 UTC in reply to "someone explain"
Anonymous Member since:
---

what the big deal is about PURCHASING Apple's OSX and then running it on a vanilla box.

The majority of the time, it would run like crap (because of driver support, same problem Linux has) and tarnish Apple's image of "the BMW of computers."

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: someone explain
by Anonymous on Tue 9th Aug 2005 02:44 UTC in reply to "RE: someone explain"
Anonymous Member since:
---

"The BMW of computers" is a myth perpetuated by zealots. The vast majority of the components inside a Mac are exactly the same as in a Windows or Linux PC. I can buy the drive Apple calls a "SuperDrive". With enough work (mostly spent finding the model numbers), I bet I could buy every single component that Apple puts in the PowerMac (beyond the motherboard and CPU, obviously) for a Windows/Linux PC.

And now, with them switching to an Intel processor and chipset (which, with the puny size of Apple, will be the same ones used by everyone else) the only thing distinguishing an Apple computer from a Dell computer will be the OS.

Reply Score: 0

Clear Somethings up
by Anonymous on Mon 8th Aug 2005 13:42 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Apple Fanboys are still not giving up, they prided themselves once at PowerPC Procesor. Guess what it seems that Steve Jobs can be referred as person without spine. And all the brouhaha about hacked OSX, well who uses VMWare for normal day to day computing. When there are tons of Linux distros out there that don't take as much work to get working. We thought Microsoft as an EVIL empire for pushing the DRM SH*T. And beleive me or not it is a big failure. Who cares about OSX when Linux is improving by leaps and bounds daily.

Reply Score: 0

Not necessarily
by Anonymous on Mon 8th Aug 2005 13:45 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

"A lot of recent events leave a clear indication as to why people wanted Macintosh to run on the Intel processor: they simply want to snag a copy of Mac OS X by illicit means."

The crown jewel of the computer branch of Apple is its Mac OSX. In comparison, its hardware is overpriced compared to the Intel/AMD competition. I would be more than glad to spend ~$150 to purchase a copy of Mac OSX, but would be very reluctant to shell out another $1K to get another computer.

I am happy, though not ecstatic with my current Windows machine, and the conversion cost of the Mac platform is simply too high.

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous
Member since:
---

Why go on about piracy, the thing is that they got it to work, i would love this to test osx as i have never used it, i dont see the need to buy an OS that i may not even like, and as for osx i would never be able to test it coz i dont want to spend all that cash on hardware too. Whether or not in your eyes what they did was right, THEY STILL DID IT and well dont to them (even tho the links dead for me).

Reply Score: 0

On EULAs and contracts...
by Anonymous on Mon 8th Aug 2005 14:02 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I've seen some people argue that if you "agree" to the EULA, then you are under contract to follow its rules.

In the USA, this is false. First of all, it's not 100% clear that you are bound by the agreement in the first place. You didn't sign anything, after all. There is no written contract with your name and your signature, signed likewise by the software company. There are some court decisions about this, but it's not fleshed out yet.

But let's forget that. Even so, you aren't necessarily bound by the agreement. An extremely restrictive provision will not hold up in a court of law. For example, I can sign a contract agreeing to be your slave. However, that isn't binding: I simply can't sign away those kinds of rights.

X

Reply Score: 1

By the way...
by Anonymous on Mon 8th Aug 2005 14:18 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

For all you folks talking about stealing and copying, I have a question for you:

You buy an avocado at the store. You eat it, and plant the pit in a pot on your balcony. Is that an act of theft?

You eventually end up with another avocado, and no store was reimbursed for it. By the "look at the endpoints" argument, it doesn't matter how you got it: you now have an item of value, you didn't have it before, and nobody who sells that item got paid for it.

Just because the results sorta mimic theft doesn't mean that theft has taken place, or that someone did something wrong.

And for that matter, let's stop saying "theft." We're talking about copyright infringement, which is illegal but not "theft," any more than tresspassing is "theft" or speeding is "theft." These are completely different offenses. You can make some monetary argument that speeding costs us money, or that I could have made money by selling you a license to cross my property, which you have negated by tresspassing. But unless you can take me to court for theft, it isn't theft. Converting harm into dollar amounts doesn't turn an act into stealing.

X

Reply Score: 0

RE: By the way...
by Anonymous on Mon 8th Aug 2005 16:17 UTC in reply to "By the way..."
Anonymous Member since:
---

Excellent!

I always despise the reports about "$xxxx lost due to piracy". The fact is, they have lost very little money because the vast majority of people who "pirated" the work would never have paid for it at the asking price. Yes, some, but a small percentage. Then again, maybe it *USED* to be that way, thinking of packages like MS Office, AutoCAD, etc... But now people will go out of their way to pirate a $5 shareware app. I guess it has come down to pure unwillingness to fairly compensate those for their work, even if it's reasonable. I wouldn't personally pay several hundred dollars for MS Office, so even if I were to obtain a copy for a one-time project, it's unfair to say that MS has lost money because of that. They wouldn't have ever gotten that money from me, and if I didn't find a copy to use online, I would have found someone with a copy and simply borrowed their computer long enough to do the work. No money lost, unless MS wants to enforce a license agreement to not only a computer, but also a specific user on that computer. Hmmmm, they'd probably love that.

Reply Score: 0

Better analogies
by Anonymous on Mon 8th Aug 2005 14:36 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

You are all liars! Copyright infringement has nothing to do with theft, it is a form of raping!

You are getting something you aren't supposed to get. This is obviously the same thing as raping. Stop the pirate rapists!

It is also similar to murder in some ways. Software piracy is murder!

Reply Score: 0

smy view
by Anonymous on Mon 8th Aug 2005 14:41 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Im a Apple Mac Mini owner. Ive used OS X since Jaguar (couple of years ago). I recently switched totally and sold my quite respectable PC AMD Athlon 3200+ Nvidia 6800, 1gb Ram, quite a nice kick for my gaming.

The major diff ive learned about the Apple Community as opposed to the PC one is Trust. Apple dont include protection in their software, you dont need the CD's inserted to play games.

Apple make most of thier money on hardware, the reason they WILL (remember this is some half-assed developer build) they WILL lock x86 OS X to their hardware is because thats where the revenue lies for them.

From a morale stance, i couldnt give a dam, i will download this X86 build, dig out my older pc and install it.

If i was not a mac-owner, id do the same.

There are too many "do-gooders", the average person on here is a working induvidual, making ends meet, working a hardjob.

Apple are a multi billion dollar company, why should You care if they would lose money? its not YOUR company.

its a fast world. Think of yourself, not some massive corporation that couldnt give a dam about you.

Shane.

Reply Score: 0

Legality of the EULA
by Anonymous on Mon 8th Aug 2005 14:59 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Let us consult our good friend wikipedia, shall we? Three relevant entries I found are:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_license
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrink_wrap_contract
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Computer_Information_Transacti...

These articles seem to fully support the argument that Rayiner is making: the legality of any given term in an EULA can be questionable. The courts are mixed. Some have held that EULA terms are enforceable, some have not. If you'll note the third link I posted, it mentions that VA and MD are the only states which have passed such a law. I'm guessing it's not coincidental that somebody above posted that cases in VA and MD have upheld EULA's.

As you'll read from the first link, whether or not all the terms of an EULA can be enforced can depend on where you are. The 7th and 8th circuits of the US appeals court tend to agree with the "licensed, not sold" argument. Most of the others do not. I'm getting the distinct impression from other posters here that the European courts also do not subscribe to the "licensed, not sold" argument.

Let's also keep in mind that I believe it to be the case that the terms of any given EULA are usually considered individually when the EULA is disputed in court. A company may put the following two terms in their EULA:

- You may not make copies of the software and distribute them.
- You may only use this software on computers with Pentium processors.

The second term may seem very onerous and probably could be struck down in court, but it doesn't strike down the entire license, invalidate the "no redistribution" term and leave the company with no copyright left on its product. Only the second term is held unenforceable.

Actually, as somebody else posted, the first term is not even necessary in the first place because copyright law grants software authors this right. Software authors are free to waive this right completely, by placing the software in the public domain, or partially, by placing restrictions on how the software can be redistributed.

Copyright law allows the software author to define restrictions on how his software can be redistributed. It's perfectly acceptable for an EULA to say something like "if you want to redistribute this, you must first fly to Mars and back, allow us to inspect the contents of your computer at our leisure and buy us a lifetime supply of Juan Valdez Columbian coffee." These may seem very onerous, but they're perfectly acceptable in a license because by default, you have no right to redistribute at all. This is because of copyright law.

Copyright law does not govern use of software. So if I want to apply patches to NT Workstation 4.0 and thereby turn it into NT Server 4.0, I can assuredly and legally do this. If I can get OSx86 to run on a white box PC, I can assuredly and legally do this. And there's nothing illegal about this until it's proven in court that the terms in the respective EULA's are upheld in court. I have never signed an Apple or M$ EULA and have never verbally consented to either EULA. Thus, it's up to the courts and where those courts are as to whether or not I can be held liable under the law.

It's no concidence that the GNU General Public License only governs redistribution and not use. The GPL works by leveraging copyright law, and copyright law does not govern use.

To address the argument of "you agreed to the EULA anyway!" At least in the US, you cannot give up your rights under the law. For instance, you cannot legally sell yourself into slavery. This means that if you agree to an EULA and afterwards it's determined that certain terms of that EULA were not enforceable under the law, then you are not bound by those terms because you cannot give up your rights granted to you by the law. The company had no right in the first place to take those rights away from you.

To follow in Rayiner's footsteps and hopefully show the lunacy in thinking that EULA's are as sacred as the law itself: to disagree with this post and post a response that disagrees with this post (henceforth known as the "Disagreeing Response"), you must track me down and send me 100 beeeeeeellion dollars, I must receive said monies and you may then post your Disagreeing Response. By posting a Disagreeing Response, you implicitly agree to the terms of this contract and indicate your acceptance.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Legality of the EULA
by Anonymous on Mon 8th Aug 2005 16:46 UTC in reply to "Legality of the EULA"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Precisely.

Outside of our topsy-turvy software industry, a "license" is something that gives you more permission to do stuff. That's what the word "license" means.

A proper and enforceable EULA should grant you some capability you don't already have. It shouldn't be a laundry list of new restrictions---or at least, they should stop calling it a "license" agreement.

After you purchased the product and before you agree to any click-through, you already have the right to use the copy which you have just purchased. It probably doesn't help the EULA's legality that it prohibits you from using the software until you sign.

X

Reply Score: 0

RE: Legality of the EULA
by Anonymous on Tue 9th Aug 2005 05:25 UTC in reply to "Legality of the EULA"
Anonymous Member since:
---

And yes, this is a "troll-post," so mod me down, but the correct ordering of the states when you speak of Virginia and Maryland is "MD and VA." Is is both alphabetically correct and geographically correct. When including DC, it is "MD, DC, and VA." Happy Marylander, living in SC, here...

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Legality of the EULA
by Anonymous on Tue 9th Aug 2005 08:15 UTC in reply to "RE: Legality of the EULA"
Anonymous Member since:
---

DVD Jon ?

Reply Score: 0

Underestimating
by Anonymous on Mon 8th Aug 2005 15:50 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I have a feeling everyone is underestimating Steve Jobs.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Underestimating
by Anonymous on Mon 8th Aug 2005 16:07 UTC in reply to "Underestimating"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Yeah he holds a grudge like no other...you think the novak thing on CNN was bad wait till you see Stevie at the end of the month

Reply Score: 0

x
by Anonymous on Mon 8th Aug 2005 16:24 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I think it just shows you the amount of people WHO REALLY want to run OX X.

Reply Score: 0

License Validity
by Anonymous on Mon 8th Aug 2005 17:45 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EULA
---
The enforceability of an EULA depends on several factors, one of them being the court that the case is heard in. Most courts that have addressed the validity of the shrinkwrap license have found them to be invalid, characterizing them as contracts of adhesion, unconscionable, and/or unacceptable pursuant to the U.C.C. Step-Saver (939 F.2d 91)—see, for instance, Vault Corp. v. Quaid Software Ltd. (at harvard.edu) and Rich, Mass Market Software and the Shrinkwrap License (23 Colo. Law 1321.17). A minority of courts have determined that the shrinkwrap license is valid and enforceable: see ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg (at findlaw.com), Microsoft v. Harmony Computers (846 F. Supp. 208, 212, E.D.N.Y. 1994), and Novell v. Network Trade Center (at harvard.edu).

The 7th Circuit and 8th Circuit subscribe to the "license" and "not sold" arguments, while most other circuits do not. In addition, the contracts' enforceability depends on whether the state has passed Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act (UCITA) or Anti-UCITA (UCITA Bomb Shelter) laws. In Anti-UCITA states, the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) has been amended to either specifically define software as a good (thus making it fall under the UCC), or to disallow contracts which specify that the terms of contract are subject to the laws of a state that's passed UCITA.

Recently, publishers have begun to encrypt their software packages to make it impossible for a user to install the software without agreeing to the license or violating the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and foreign counterparts.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrink_wrap_contract
---
Shrink wrap contracts are license agreements or other terms and conditions of a (putatively) contractual nature which can only be read and accepted by the consumer after opening the product. The term describes the shrinkwrap plastic wrapping used to coat software boxes, though these contracts are not limited to the software industry. Web-wrap, click-wrap and browse-wrap are related terms which refer to license agreements in software which is downloaded or used over the internet.

The legal status of shrink wrap contracts in the US is somewhat unclear. One line of cases follows ProCD v. Zeidenberg which held such contracts enforceable (see, e.g., Brower v. Gateway [1]) and the other follows Klocek v. Gateway, Inc., which found them unenforceable (e.g., Specht v. Netscape Communications Corp. [2]). These decisions are split on the question of consent, with the former holding that only objective manifestation of consent is required while the latter require at least the possibility of subjective consent.

Reply Score: 1

okay
by Anonymous on Mon 8th Aug 2005 20:34 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I dont care about these liscenses right now, where can i just get the thing

Z

Reply Score: 0

Sorry charlie
by Anonymous on Mon 8th Aug 2005 21:20 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

If you want Mac OS X and all it's state of the art innovations in hardware and software you just have to pay for it.

It's this cost that covers future R&D.

Even if you get it to run on a generic PC, Apple won't support it and break the hack of future versions.

Actually if your in the market for $1000 machine and up, Apple is very competitive with Dell. It's the low margin area Apple doesn't play, and all the companies that did go there are eiterh dead, dying or left the field.

Only Dell and Apple are making any profit in the PC buisness.

http://www.systemshootouts.org/shootouts/desktop/2005/0430_dt4000.h...


What's nice is Mac OS X, software and hardware connectability is almost the same across all their offerings. So the consistancy is very nice.

Reply Score: 0

another big bang news
by Anonymous on Mon 8th Aug 2005 21:21 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

the weird thing about is that the site is down, and guess what, now they are asking for donations, this little game is getting very popular

Reply Score: 0

RE:
by valeri_ufo on Mon 8th Aug 2005 22:04 UTC
valeri_ufo
Member since:
2005-07-06

is there no mirror of this site outside ???

Reply Score: 1

i would pay
by Anonymous on Mon 8th Aug 2005 22:38 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I would love to buy a mac its just i do nt have the money, if i got this so called "leaked version" i would run it VMware, not natively.

Z

Reply Score: 0

No Mac's for me
by Anonymous on Tue 9th Aug 2005 00:08 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Use freebsd its free and fun and you can use it on the hardwdare you want. I was Mac want-a-be. Now I'm not going to be looking to get one. I don't want to fund a company with the mind of Apple's.

Reply Score: 0

Discussing the lost?
by Anonymous on Tue 9th Aug 2005 01:58 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Its funny how many comments there even though the link has been down since shortly after being posted.

Anyone have a mirror?

Reply Score: 0

Mirror Please
by Anonymous on Tue 9th Aug 2005 02:23 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Anyone have a mirror of this stuff? Would be nice to validate the truth of this post.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Hyprocritical.
by David on Tue 9th Aug 2005 03:06 UTC
David
Member since:
1997-10-01

Thom, violating the terms of the Apple license may be illegal in some places. However, in many places, "shrink wrap" licenses such as the ones that cover most off-the-shelf software have not been proven to be enforceable.

Have you ever been to a dry cleaner's and seen a sign posted that says, something like, "liability for damage to clothing is limited to the price of the cleaning service." Is this true? Not in most places. If the dry cleaner damages your $50 shirt, they're usually responsible to pay you the full cost of replacement. And they know it. Why do they put up the sign then? Because they know that many of their customers do not know the intricacies of the law, and will therefore reluctantly accept a $2.50 refund instead of demanding a $50 restitution. Software company lawyers do the same thing. They throw everything but the kitchen sink into their licenses, knowing that nobody ever reads them. On the other hand, nobody ever actually accepts them, either. So in most countries, they're not valid contracts.

On the other hand, partner contracts, non-disclosure agreements, developer contracts, etc, are actually accepted and signed. So they are enforceable. So whoever put software up on Bittorrent did violate a contract. Whoever downloaded it violated copyright, but they didn't violate any contracts. And once the software is available for sale, their license agreement will still be in a legal gray area.

In my opinion, once OSX x86 is available to buy, it will neither be illegal nor immoral for people to try to install it on whatever machine they want to try to install it on.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: live it up Anon Troll Boy
by stormloss on Tue 9th Aug 2005 09:43 UTC
stormloss
Member since:
2005-08-03

(65.69.81.---) No in my twisted mind I don't see YOUR warez downloading is the same as your shoplifting habits ;)

(65.69.81.---)Said >Hmm, so I can walk into Best Buy, take whatever I want, and when they call security I'll just yell out "don't worry, it's ok, I know this voids my warranty".

Now that would be funny, you getting busted knocking off stuff from Best Buy ;)
Maybe I can buy the security video of that, with a warranty. ;)

Apple has far less to fear from theifs like you, just try upgrading that hacked version of OSX on that plain x86 box. Apple support will just laugh at you, like I'm doing right now ;)

Reply Score: 1

StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

Apple has far less to fear from theifs like you, just try upgrading that hacked version of OSX on that plain x86 box. Apple support will just laugh at you, like I'm doing right now ;)

While I certainly don't think that anyone has an inherent right to run OS X on stock x86 hardware, it *is* pretty hillarious to read the histrionics of Macfans who feel deeply threatened by the very idea. Is it some neurotic fear that such a scenario would lessen the "specialness" of their expensive, "boutique" hardware?

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous
Member since:
---

Eventually it was bound to. Well, its pleasing finally that we are all starting to understand it.

1) It has nothing to do with warez or copyright violations. Copyright is enforceable, but copyright does not give anyone the right to restrict use, post sale. People who say the bar is not enforceable in law are not advocating piracy or copyright violation. They are just talking about the enforceability of post sales restraints on use.

2) It has nothing to do with what Apple 'needs' to do to make money. How they make money is up to them. Its not protected. People who say the bar is not legally enforceable are not commenting one way or the other about Apple's future profitability. Its a different problem. I don't think the closed hardware model will fly, but its a different issue.

3) it doesn't have much to do with whether the EULA is enforceable or not. The particular provisions of the EULA which make you agree only to install it on particular hardware will not be. The rest, or some of it, may be. If you prove some parts of EULAs are enforceable, that is not enough. You have to prove post sales restrictions on use in EULAs are.

4) It does not have to do with whether linked sales are always unlawful. They are not. As long as you are not a monopoly (=25% share) you may get away with linked sales even in Europe. This just says that Apple could get away legally with making it technically impossible to install on white boxes. Yes, of course. That is one thing they have in their (legal) power. They certainly can prevent white box installations, just not by clauses in the EULA.

5) They will not be able to prevent installation on white boxes just by the EULA. This is because they will not be able to prevent it solely by a condition of sale that, post sale, you will not do this. Any more than MS will be able to prevent you running Office on Wine. Or GM stop you from fitting aftermarket tiress or hubs. No Euro court is going to uphold this one.

The moral of this story probably is, get ready for DRM or product activation, because no management team ever willingly abandons a failing strategy!

Reply Score: 0

Hi
by CrazyDude0 on Tue 9th Aug 2005 16:52 UTC
CrazyDude0
Member since:
2005-07-10

Test message

Reply Score: 1

bueller?
by Anonymous on Tue 9th Aug 2005 18:10 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

uhm. way off topic?

Reply Score: 0