OSNews

In that case... Quick, hurry and buy one

I think that is what a lot of people are thinking as their site is not functioning right now-

Also I wounder if there is any chance of them being in the clear. If they are buying their copies of OS X legitimately from Apple and putting Apple Stickers on their PCs, there is a "stick it to the man" part of me that hopes it is enough to satisfy is Section 2A of the Mac OS X End User License Agreement (EULA), which reads:

"to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time."

Because they probably have nothing to compare to Apple's legal team they will be stomped, but I'll cross my fingers for the little guy.

And hope they succeed in what? Toppling Apple? Then nobody gets the OS. Unless Apple _stops_ being a _hardware_ company hoping to see the little guy succeed is hoping to bring the company down.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see a legitimate way to install MOSX on hardware of my choosing, but at the same time Apple doesn't make their money selling the OS. The OS sells their hardware!

Apple doesn't make hardware. They simply slap their logo on hardware made by Asus, Hon Hai (Foxconn), Quanta and other Taiwanese manufacturers who also make Windows machines. Same companies, same factories, same workers.

The OS sells Macs, but recently, Apple has been making the majority of it's revenue from iPod+iTunes sales. It probably wouldn't affect them much to "allow" people to install OS X on third-party systems. This is especially true given the fact that most people that buy Macs in recent years do so more as a fashion statement than anything else.

That said, Apple has the right to create their OS in such a way that it is difficult to install on third-party hardware. However, I as the purchaser of the software have the right (see quote from Title 17 section 117 of the US Code below) to modify that software in order to run it on a computer.

"it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine"

Link: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/usc_sec_17_00000117----000-.h...

Look at Sun...
They give away Solaris for free (open source no less), while selling hardware for running it. Anyone can sell hardware to run Solaris, and bundle Solaris with it.
But sun provide a single point of call for both hardware and software, a single place that will support the entire stack which is guaranteed to work together.
Apple aren't much different, OSX is not guaranteed to run on non Apple hardware, just like Solaris is not guaranteed to run on non Sun hardware.

There is every chance of them being legally in the clear, whether they put stickers on or not. They may get bought off or intimidated off, but legally its pretty cut and dried. No post sales restrictions on otherwise legal use are enforceable. They are anti competitive. If you make cooking knives, you cannot, by post sale restrictions on use, stop people using any chopping boards but your own branded ones. If the Eula says you can only use this software if you take off your shoes and bow to Cupertino first, you don't have to. Simple. They are right to say they're doing nothing illegal. Violating Eulas is not illegal. Neither is it actionable to break those provisions of a Eula which are unlawful.

If you argue its a license not a sale, you need to produce cases. There are none. Its a sale.

Going to be interesting, this one.

Regarding that apple-sticker on the box:

I'm very sure Apple got a registered trademark and that they decide who are allowed to use it and call their machines Apple ones or not. So with sticker or not it's not an Apple machine, because they got no right whatsoever to call their product and Apple product.

Aside using the Mac name (OpenMac) which they've now stopped, I really can't see what the legal problem is.

The kernel is open source anyway, the OS X licence (hopefully) will be legally purchased. Granted there's a breach of the EULA, but (as I said in my other post) I think the legal ground of EULAs somewhat questionable (and certainly not moral - but who has moral in big business )
Psystar's website even specifies that this device is aimed at experienced users.

Once again, Apple are more interested in their lock in's than consumer choice. (Or maybe they're just scared that if OS X was pitted up against a variety of hardware (in much the same way Windows and Linux are) then OS X's 'perfect' image of stability and simplicity would get knocked down several pegs).

The buyers can forget about support from apple on any problems with mac os x and the hardware

Edited 2008-04-14 23:14 UTC

Well yeah, I've already said (3 times now) that I completely agree with a "non-support for non-Apple hardware" policy.

"Psystar's website even specifies that this device is aimed at experienced users."

== You will probaby run until problems with this but we don't give a shit we just want to earn money selling systems capable of running OS X.

Same with their FAQ informing people to look up which updates work or not on insanelymac aswell == We won't help you at all if something doesn't work, let someone else fix that, we just want to sell this system and earn money, f--k you!

Why buy one of these when you could build a similair configuration cheaper yourself, or the one you want, or already have one, they are just trying to earn money on others work, both Apples and the people who crack the OS and make it run.

That analgy makes no sense. If you break and enter then you are clearly breaking the law.

Installing OS X on non-Apple hardware isn't a breach of copyright, data protection, nor any other IT law that springs to mind. The EULA simply isn't law. It's just a licence agreement in much the same way that a "void warrenty" sticker is if you open up some bits of hardware. You're not breaking the law by breaking the sticker but you're voiding your licence with the manufacturer should your hardware break.

So it comes back to my "non-support for non-Apple hardware" argument. Apple have every right not to offer you refunds nor technical support, but I fail to see how they can issue legal warnings to those who choose to run their software (which has still been legally purchased) on non-Apple hardware.

Edited 2008-04-14 23:00 UTC

I agree, the analogy is way off in left field. It might be more relevant if it was compared to taking a retail disc of OS X and installing it on someone else's computer without their permission.

But give me a break, you have every right to pick your own lock with said lock-pick, just like you have every right to install OS X on your own PC. And if you want to play to the letter of the EULA, do what the parent suggests and slap an official Apple sticker on the side of the case.

Actually, when you purchase and install the software you are signing an agreement (electronic signing in the form of 'I Agree' is also considered one) where by under the conditions set down by the licence agreement (you don't own the software, you licence it off the company) you agree to a certain set of conditions - in the case of Apple, you are not allowed to (or hack the software to) run it on non-Apple hardware.

Does upholind this matters? yes it does, I wish people would spend a little time thinking the impact of what dismissing EULA's would mean; the EULA is a licence contract, your are essentially saying that licence contracts me NOTHING - then what about all those companies who purchase IP off one and another? what about companies who licence software and use it as part of their own.

I wish people here would think about the issue a little more in depth and realise that a precedent set in one area of the industry *COULD* creep through and affect everyone else. Its not just a matter of 'the EULA screws over users' as people here like to claim - its a matter of whether licence contracts (or even contracts!) are even able to be up held in court!

Again, you DON'T purchase software, you LICENCE it, and when you agree to the EULA, you are SIGNING a contract with the software company under what conditions the software is being licensed to you for!

This may be splitting hairs, but at what point do you actually agree to a contract with Apple?

1) At the retail store where you purchase the copy of OS X? No, I am not given a chance to read the contract before I purchase the software.

2) At installation? Maybe, it would depend on the install. If I click on the "I Agree" button during a normal install, you might have a better case for it. However, if I extract the packages manually onto my drive, I would never be presented with the installation license agreement and therefore never have a chance to accept it.

Slightly different topic: the EULA states that the software must be installed on an Apple-labeled computer? I have seen the argument all over the web to just slap an official Apple sticker on the machine. But, I have never seen a counter-argument to this. Would someone care to provide one?

Er, no. Virtually every jurisdiction in the world has stipulations on validity of contracts, to the point that contracts can be invalidated even if agreed to by both parties.

Some jurisdictions prevent minors from entering into contractual agreements, for instance, which would immediately invalidate a license "contract". Some jurisdictions refuse to recognize "click-throughs" as acceptance, particularly when there is no recourse for the customer to refuse and be properly refunded for "contractual" terms added after the sale transaction. Some jurisdictions weigh the factor of consideration, whereby a contract essentially can't favor one party over the other without relatively equal benefit to both parties. And most jurisdictions, frankly, view software as any other copyright-protected product, and in doing so, enforce the appropriate protections for consumers and content producers, regardless of the EULA.




We had a scam going on here in Toronto, and I'm sure it's happened in other regions, whereby private parking-enforcement companies would "ticket" people on private property with a violation notice designed to look like an official municipal parking ticket and a subsequent threat of legal action if the fine was not payed. The city has had to pass bylaws and regulations prohibiting that type of action, because it was deemed illegally coercive. So it is with EULA's. Just because they look legal, doesn't make them legal. But by the same token, just because an EULA isn't really valid, doesn't provide freedom to violate the other laws that protect software, such as copyright.



See my point above. Many jurisdictions question the license vs. ownership theory. When you purchase a book, you're not purchasing a license to read the book. When you purchase a DVD, you're not purchasing a license to view the movie. Software is covered by the very same copyright laws. The idea that software is somehow "above" this is simply ridiculous, and the idea that it is somehow entitled to stronger restrictions is ludicrous. Software is content, nothing more. There are sufficient laws in place within most jurisdictions that can be applied to prevent the unlawful copying and distribution of it, enforcing controls on what you can do with legally purchased content simply exceeds the boundaries of what free government should do.

Frankly, the software vendors know this, which is why so many of the dominant ones are trying to move to software-as-a-service, because it nicely by-steps all of that. It provides an annuity-based revenue stream, and allows them to bypass the sticky issue of consumer rights.

Note, that's not to say I advocate software theft. And anyone that slaps a copy of OSX onto a non-Apple platform is stealing the software, unless they are also removing it from the original Apple system they purchased it on, or purchasing it from a store.

But EULAs have nothing to do with it. Copyright law is sufficient.

Actually, when you purchase and install the software you are signing an agreement (electronic signing in the form of 'I Agree' is also considered one) where by under the conditions set down by the licence agreement (you don't own the software, you licence it off the company) you agree to a certain set of conditions - in the case of Apple, you are not allowed to (or hack the software to) run it on non-Apple hardware.

Does upholind this matters? yes it does, I wish people would spend a little time thinking the impact of what dismissing EULA's would mean; the EULA is a licence contract, your are essentially saying that licence contracts me NOTHING - then what about all those companies who purchase IP off one and another? what about companies who licence software and use it as part of their own.

I wish people here would think about the issue a little more in depth and realise that a precedent set in one area of the industry *COULD* creep through and affect everyone else. Its not just a matter of 'the EULA screws over users' as people here like to claim - its a matter of whether licence contracts (or even contracts!) are even able to be up held in court!

Again, you DON'T purchase software, you LICENCE it, and when you agree to the EULA, you are SIGNING a contract with the software company under what conditions the software is being licensed to you for! "

A EULA simply does not meet the requirements of a contract. There is no "consideration" (payment) as you have already bought the software and there is no offer as the "contract" only takes away rights that the user otherwise has.
Thus, a EULA is not a contract. It has no more legal standing than the "warranty void if removed" stickers on various products.

When a company licences another's software/technology, an actual contract is drawn up and is agreed to before payment or reception of the software/technology. Besides, these contracts also (typically) grant the recipient redistribution rights that they would not otherwise have.
(Even when buying software libraries on the internet, you have to agree to the licence terms before payment and receipt of said software.)

Of course contracts are enforceable in law, but EULAs are not contracts. They are simply a pseudo-legal "agreement" that is used to scare the consumer into not exercising their legal rights. (Note that I have yet to see a EULA that even refers to itself as a contract.)

Aside from all that, even in some bizarre alternate universe where EULAs are legally binding, this particular case only depends on the phrase "Apple-labelled computer". Does that mean I can scrawl "Apple" on a post-it and slap it on the side? What if I use one of the apple-logo stickers that came with my iPod?

Again, you DON'T purchase software, you LICENCE it, and when you agree to the EULA, you are SIGNING a contract with the software company under what conditions the software is being licensed to you for!

So what is it? A license? Or a contract? Can't be both at the same time. Since the misnamed EULA puts restrictions on the end user outside the scope of Copyright law, it must be deemed a contract.

Since it is a contract, most serious countries have safeguards against one sided and unenforceable contracts. On of the stipulations is that a contract needs to be signed by both parties, with a valid signature.

Since clicking OK does not constitute a unique and authentic signature, most EU countries deem shrink wrap EULA's unenforceable.

Really? I dont see my signature anywhere on any contract or other legally binding document.
All I did was click a button. Clicking a button != signing a contract.
Just because Apple (and other software companies) lawyers wants you to think it is doesn't mean it is so.

Even if it was a contract it doesnt mean all the clauses are valid and legally binding.

Maybe this is a better analogy. You buy some pepper and it has only one legal use according to the EULA - for soup. When you try to add the pepper to steak, Apple's legal team barges in and takes you to court. They're controlling how you use what you are supposed to own.

Of course, this doesn't apply only to Apple. Microsoft, the music, gaming and movie industries, etc. all do this to some extent.

Edited 2008-04-15 04:17 UTC

It's like this. You buy a lock-picking tool set that can open any door. Then you argue that because you bought the lock-pick, you can live in anyone's house without their permission. Just because you bought it doesn't mean the EULA can go to hell.

Until a judge deems it so it's nothing like that.

That analogy.. doesn't fit too well. A better one, using the same basic example would be that you buy a set of lockpicks and upon opening the box you're greeted with a letter informing you that you can only legally use this set of lockpicks on kitchen doors.

"But can the EULA legally uphold such a restriction of use if the user legally purchased an OS X licence?"

The license was legally purchased yes, with the stipulations on how it can be used as well. Is all part of the license, which is the EULA.

Wrong analogy.

Correct analogy would be: Buying music from I-Tunes music store and being only legally be able to listen to it on an Apple branded MP3/AAC player.

"But can the EULA legally uphold such a restriction of use if the user legally purchased an OS X licence? "

The only thing that will happen is that you void the warranty for OSX.
It's not a lease so if you bought it you own it and can do pretty much whatever you want with it, within the laws of copyright.

You said "license". That's precisely what users buy when they bring home a nice box of Leopard. What's a license? Official or legal permission to do or own a specified thing. It is not analogous to buying a product - where contract merely governs the *sale* but not *use* of the product.

In the pro-leagues, just because a team bought a player (in effect, a contract), doesn't mean that said player is a slave. The team is still bound to a contract. Likewise with EULA.

Obviously you haven't bought a license to run it on a PC.

But where are the clones? There ought to be clones...
Well, maybe next year.

Awesome. There should be more Stephen Sondheim references on this website. Seriously. Like every day.

Edited 2008-04-14 23:35 UTC

"Don't bother, they're here"

to tell you the truth if i purchased any piece of equipment, from PC's to Mac's if it failed after 30 days i certainly wouldn't be replacing the parts myself. Perhaps you can't replace the motherboard on the mac mini, but then you can't replace the motherboard on a dell as they are pretty much bespoke to the case, and again if i purchased a white box generic pc from my local supplier, if it failed after 30 days i would get him to replace the motherboard.

Except, of course, that you're only allowed to read the contract after you've bought the item. Thus, the contract is not part of the sale and is unenforceable.

There's a reason this has not been challenged before.

Actually no. You don't agree to anything when you buy the software, you just hand over some cash. You do however "agree" to it during the install, but there are the following issues:

1. You don't actually sign your name, you just click a button. It might not be a valid contract.

2. You can't use the product unless you agree. That might be a breach of fair-use.

3. You aren't notified of these restrictions at the point of sale.

Until someone challenges in court and raises these issues, it's not clear at all whether EULA are worth the paper they're (not) written on.

Edited 2008-04-15 04:24 UTC

For arguments sake lets say the above is true (which many dispute), this is not an issue for the company selling the computer. Note we are talking about an End User License Agreement, the seller of the computer is not the End User.

No. This shows a box that works as a big version of the Mac Mini.

Not really, if you look at the spec you are getting less than a Mac Mini with the hardware config. By the time you add the iMac equivalent video car, firewire ports, and additional HDD you are up above the $700, add the OS and you get to $850 odd, and you still don't have a built in webcam, monitor, keyboard, mouse etc.

It is however a product that Apple does not offer, a stripped down machine that can be Upgraded... that is where the value is.

You're comparing a single product (the Open) to multiple product lines within Apples brand, and complaining that it doesn't match any of them.

You cannot fairly compare a BYOKMV system to an iMac. They are targeted at completely different market segments.

The Open is best compared to the Mini -- which is targeted to the same general audience as the Open. People who have a keyboard, mouse, and video display.

When compared to the mini, you have to max-out the most expensive mini model to even get close to the specs of the Open. Even then, you're looking at limitations such as: No upgradeable CPU. The mini maxes out at 2GB RAM, the Open at 4GB. The HD's aren't even close to the same in capacity or performance (the Open has higher capacity, faster drives)....

Even with the $50 for the firewire card, and $155 for the OS X install, and an extra $80 for iLife '08 the $685 Open is significantly cheaper than a $950 mini.

To compare the Open to anything other than the Mini is completely confusing the situation, the target markets, and obvious premium that Apple charges for slow hardware that comes in a small, white box.

Assuming that updating the system takes an hour each time I need to do what software update would normally handle...

At $265 in savings over a mini, and that the opportunity cost for an hour of my time is $26.50, (I'm low-balling, but you get the point) I can do ten installs and still break-even.

The mini maxes out at 2GB RAM, the Open at 4GB.

No. While Apple only sells a 2GB option, it doesn't mean you can't open the box and put in 4GB.

Even with the $50 for the firewire card, and $155 for the OS X install, and an extra $80 for iLife '08 the $685 Open is significantly cheaper than a $950 mini.

Except that the Mac mini models are $599 and $799. Not $940.

That's still way cheaper than buying everything to make this generic box equal to everything that comes with a Mac mini.

Edited 2008-04-16 16:54 UTC

Yet again, a mac mini has onboard video, with no options to upgrade. This opencomputer has options to upgrade it's video card. For me, that sets it up there with the powermac.

They make really good points?

Can I run updates on my Open Computer?
The answer is yes and no. No because there are some updates that are decidedly non-safe. Yes because most updates are not non-safe. It's best to check on InsanelyMac for this information but when in doubt don't update it. You may have to reinstall your OS X if it is a non-safe update.

At least they have a sense of humor! :-)

Edited 2008-04-15 06:14 UTC

Yeah, like making the point that certain models of Apple computers have a substandard graphics card (at the very least, compared to the rest of the hardware).

Or I suppose no Mac people have ever complained about that? :o)

Edited 2008-04-15 06:25 UTC

I believe it's not permitted... unless the computer you are running it on is an Apple product.

I may ask a honest question: The qualification to be able to run Mac OS X comes just from a special BIOS configuration? So, for example, you buy a normal PC mainboard, do something to the BIOS (i. e. you use a flashing tool to overwrite it with something else) and now your PC will boot and run Mac OS X? Is it really that easy?

I agree with your idea that a simple exchange of the BIOS would not turn a generic x86 board into an Apple clone. But I can't imagine that this is the only significant difference between generic x86 and Apple-made systems...

If I understood it correctly, Intel Macs do not use a BIOS strictly speaking, but EFI. And it is kinda picky about the hardware, so those running hackintoshes had to choose their hardware carefully (Intel graphics chipsets seem to be universally accepted, though so it seems to be just a matter of picking up an Intel mobo with EFI instead of a BIOS). Then they have to hack a kernel module (or whatever Apple calls it) to disable the DRM module or something close to that effect and that's it!

There are some glitches here and there but apart from that you can barely tell that it is not working on Apple hardware. Or that's what they say on some Mac we