Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 14th Apr 2008 21:44 UTC
Apple The website of a Miami-based networking and security solutions reseller became inaccessible Monday, shortly after the company began advertising an unauthorized Mac clone for a fraction of the cost of Apple's cheapest system. Dubbed OpenMac, the USD 400 offering from Psystar Corporation is described as 'a low-cost high-performance computing platform' based on the ongoing OSX86Project - a hacker-based initiative aimed at maintaining a version of the Mac OS X operating system for everyday PCs. The website is back online now, and the machine has been renamed to Open Computer. Update: Psystar says they will continue to sell the Open Computer system, despite the fact that it appears to violate Apple's EULA. "We're not breaking any laws," they insisted.
Order by: Score:
Cease and Desist
by sultanqasim on Mon 14th Apr 2008 21:52 UTC
sultanqasim
Member since:
2006-10-28

I smell a cease and desist letter coming...

Reply Score: 6

RE: Cease and Desist
by dimosd on Mon 14th Apr 2008 22:35 UTC in reply to "Cease and Desist"
dimosd Member since:
2006-02-10

I smell a cease and desist letter coming...


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

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Cease and Desist
by voidlogic on Mon 14th Apr 2008 22:41 UTC in reply to "RE: Cease and Desist"
voidlogic Member since:
2005-09-03

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.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Cease and Desist
by macUser on Tue 15th Apr 2008 02:41 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Cease and Desist"
macUser Member since:
2006-12-15

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!

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Cease and Desist
by Vinegar Joe on Tue 15th Apr 2008 03:32 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Cease and Desist"
Vinegar Joe Member since:
2006-08-16

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.

Reply Score: 6

RE[5]: Cease and Desist
by kaiwai on Tue 15th Apr 2008 03:35 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Cease and Desist"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

"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.
"

Correct, Quanta IIRC is the worlds largest laptop maker. Hence, when ever I hear someone talk about 'Apple's superior quality' I can't help but laugh. I'm a Mac user, but I'm under not illusion thinking that Intel and all the other third party create 'special edition' parts specifically for Apple.

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: Cease and Desist
by tyrione on Tue 15th Apr 2008 06:14 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Cease and Desist"
tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

"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 hell they don't make their own hardware.

All the hardware is prototyped, designed, tested and certified by Apple.

They outsource the mass production but they most certainly make their own hardware.

Don't confuse development with mass production.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Cease and Desist
by jasutton on Tue 15th Apr 2008 04:40 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Cease and Desist"
jasutton Member since:
2006-03-28

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.


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...

Reply Score: 5

RE[5]: Cease and Desist
by droidix on Tue 15th Apr 2008 05:05 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Cease and Desist"
droidix Member since:
2008-03-13

That's an excellent point, and straight from the law. I've read this passage before but must of missed the adaptation clause, which is essential for the legality of a hackintosh.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Cease and Desist
by the_thunderbird on Tue 15th Apr 2008 13:43 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Cease and Desist"
the_thunderbird Member since:
2005-08-19

Where the heck did you get the idea that Apple makes most of it's money from the iPod and iTunes?

Most of it's money comes from Macs and always has come from Macs.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Cease and Desist
by Vinegar Joe on Tue 15th Apr 2008 14:09 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Cease and Desist"
Vinegar Joe Member since:
2006-08-16

Where the heck did you get the idea that Apple makes most of it's money from the iPod and iTunes?

Most of it's money comes from Macs and always has come from Macs.


From 2006:

"Apple's music-related business accounted for 59 percent of the company's total revenue and was up 145 percent compared to same period a year ago."

http://www.mp3.com/stories/2946.html

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Cease and Desist
by Johann Chua on Wed 16th Apr 2008 04:41 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Cease and Desist"
Johann Chua Member since:
2005-07-22

Most of it's money comes from Macs and always has come from Macs.


Even years after the Mac debuted Apple made most of its money from the Apple II family.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Cease and Desist
by bert64 on Tue 15th Apr 2008 10:33 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Cease and Desist"
bert64 Member since:
2007-04-23

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.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Cease and Desist
by alcibiades on Tue 15th Apr 2008 07:57 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Cease and Desist"
alcibiades Member since:
2005-10-12

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.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Cease and Desist
by aliquis on Tue 15th Apr 2008 17:30 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Cease and Desist"
aliquis Member since:
2005-07-23

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.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Cease and Desist
by Laurence on Mon 14th Apr 2008 22:51 UTC in reply to "RE: Cease and Desist"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

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).

Reply Score: 15

RE[3]: Cease and Desist
by Mellin on Mon 14th Apr 2008 23:13 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Cease and Desist"
Mellin Member since:
2005-07-06

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

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Cease and Desist
by Laurence on Mon 14th Apr 2008 23:18 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Cease and Desist"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

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


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

Reply Score: 5

RE[5]: Cease and Desist
by segedunum on Tue 15th Apr 2008 09:54 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Cease and Desist"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

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

Bugger. Many people would argue they get non-support for Apple hardware anyway.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Cease and Desist
by aliquis on Tue 15th Apr 2008 17:35 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Cease and Desist"
aliquis Member since:
2005-07-23

"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!

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Cease and Desist
by aliquis on Tue 15th Apr 2008 17:17 UTC in reply to "RE: Cease and Desist"
aliquis Member since:
2005-07-23

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.

Reply Score: 0

That damn EULA argument again:
by Laurence on Mon 14th Apr 2008 22:36 UTC
Laurence
Member since:
2007-03-26


At issue is Section 2A of the Mac OS X End User License Agreement (EULA), which stipulates that users are allowed "to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time." As such, the OpenMac (and any other Mac system based on non-Apple hardware) would appear to stand in direct violation of Apple's terms.


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

Sure Apple can argue about a "non-support policy for non-apple hardware", but I really can't see how court could uphold such an EULA if the end user does legally pay for their OS X licence in the first place.

Reply Score: 5

Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

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.


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

Reply Score: 13

droidix Member since:
2008-03-13

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.

Reply Score: 2

kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

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.


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!

Reply Score: 2

droidix Member since:
2008-03-13

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?

Reply Score: 8

kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

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.


Some would claim that at the point of sale; for me, that can't be correct because in NZ (along with most other countries) there are consumer protections which allow one to take back the product. Others would say that as soon as you put it in the machine and agree to the EULA displayed (and it is displayed, if you choose to ignore it - tough). Where as I would go so far as to say that once you have installed, agree and it works, you have closed the deal.

You have agreed to all the terms and conditions of the EULA, and there fore, you have signed a contract with the software company to use the software only in the manner as outlined in the EULA; if you have an issue with the EULA, then get a lawyer and ask whether you can re-negotiate it - otherwise it is a situation of 'put up or shut up'.

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?


Apple-labelled meaning, a machine with Apple firmware; the same definition they used for their PowerPC; there is nothing stopping anyone from creating a PC, the line is drawn when you use Apple intellectual property (aka Apple Firmware) to enable you to run Mac OS X on a non-Apple machine - it would require, even if just a couple of lines of code, Apple firmware or emulation of it. All which violate it. Hence the reason why it was never a breach of contract to sell PowerPC equipment, it was the burning off the Apple firmware on the non-Apple machine which is a breach of contract.

Reply Score: 2

droidix Member since:
2008-03-13

Apple-labelled meaning, a machine with Apple firmware; the same definition they used for their PowerPC; there is nothing stopping anyone from creating a PC, the line is drawn when you use Apple intellectual property (aka Apple Firmware) to enable you to run Mac OS X on a non-Apple machine - it would require, even if just a couple of lines of code, Apple firmware or emulation of it. All which violate it. Hence the reason why it was never a breach of contract to sell PowerPC equipment, it was the burning off the Apple firmware on the non-Apple machine which is a breach of contract.


Again, splitting hairs, but does the contract actually define "Apple-labeled" as "machine with Apple firmware" or, does it reference another document that does?

I might be wrong on this, but no actual copyrighted Apple firmware code is used for EFI emulation in modern day hackintoshs. Please correct me if I am mistaken.

Reply Score: 2

kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Again, splitting hairs, but does the contract actually define "Apple-labeled" as "machine with Apple firmware" or, does it reference another document that does?


You are the one coming up with the term 'Apple-labeled', the MacOS X EULA is quite clear, alo

Reply Score: 2

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

You have agreed to all the terms and conditions of the EULA, and there fore, you have signed a contract with the software company to use the software only in the manner as outlined in the EULA; if you have an issue with the EULA, then get a lawyer and ask whether you can re-negotiate it - otherwise it is a situation of 'put up or shut up'.


Utter nonsense. As others have already tried to explain, I can sign a contract with ten billion million signatures, but if that contract violates some basic rights I have as a human, that contract will not stand the test of any judge in the western world.

There are known cases of EULAs that stated things like "the user is not allowed to publicise negative information about this product". Such an EULA would violate a very basic human right in the western world: the right to free speech. Consequently, such an EULA would never stand the test of common law (breach of contract is a common matter, not a criminal one).

By telling me I cannot install my copy of Leopard on a non-Apple computer, the EULA violates basic property rights; and at least in The Netherlands (but I'm sure this goes for other western countries too), property rights are way up there with the right to free speech, since they are a cornerstone of western society. Signing any contract that violates this right, whether you knew about it or not, will mean nothing; I don't think there will be any judge in the western world that will not smash the Apple EULA to smithereens.

Contrary to popular belief, you actually DO own software. You paid for it, just like you paid for a DVD or a CD. The same copyright laws apply, and the same property rights apply. Just because Steve included a bunch of text with an "I agree" button underneath doesn't change anything about all this. A contract that violates basic rights you have as a human will BY DEFINITION be void.

EDIT: Assuming you install it on just one computer, of course.

Edited 2008-04-15 07:04 UTC

Reply Score: 6

jal_ Member since:
2006-11-02

As others have already tried to explain, I can sign a contract with ten billion million signatures, but if that contract violates some basic rights I have as a human, that contract will not stand the test of any judge in the western world.


True. At least, a contract is not legaly binding if you agree to your rights (i.e. as described in law) being violated. However, I doubt whether the OS X EULA (and Vista's for that matter) contains much that would 'violate some basic right'.

There are known cases of EULAs that stated things like "the user is not allowed to publicise negative information about this product".


Irrelevant, as, as far as I know, the OS X EULA does not contain such a statement, and even if it would, that's not what prevents you from using the software on a different machine.

By telling me I cannot install my copy of Leopard on a non-Apple computer, the EULA violates basic property rights;


It'd be a very ammusing excersize seeing you trying to defend that in a court of law. You may claim it's a type of tie-in sale ("koppelverkoop" in Dutch law) and you may feel disgruntled about it, but Apple really doesn't take any property from you (that's what property rights are about) when they prevent you from using a product on a machine of your choice.

Signing any contract that violates this right, whether you knew about it or not, will mean nothing;


I'm pretty sure that a contract that transfers the ownership of something you have to someone else is perfectly legal binding. It is called "sale". You must have some really strange notion of "property rights".

I don't think there will be any judge in the western world that will not smash the Apple EULA to smithereens.


Perhaps not, but that's because there'll be no actual court case. Remember that Microsoft's Vista license has similar provisions like preventing you from running Vista in a virtual machine. I'm pretty sure these are reasonably sound licence agreements, and I'm also pretty sure we won't see many court cases about them.

Contrary to popular belief, you actually DO own software.


Now really? Good think you know this for sure, as I always thought the software is licensed to you instead of sold to you. Come to think of it, I'm pretty sure the only thing you actually own is the DVD, the case etc. Come on Thom, present hard evidence instead of blurbing about.

You paid for it, just like you paid for a DVD or a CD.


I paid to go see a movie in a theatre? Do I now own the theatre? Or the movie? I paid to rent a car. Do I now own the car?

The same copyright laws apply, and the same property rights apply.


You also do not own the contents of a CD or DVD. They are not licensed to you as software is, but there's very strict regulations about their use.

A contract that violates basic rights you have as a human will BY DEFINITION be void. EDIT: Assuming you install it on just one computer, of course.


1) The OS X EULA does not violate any basic right, as far as you have demonstrated.
2) If I install it on two computers, it's OK for my basic rights to be violated???


JAL

Reply Score: 1

bert64 Member since:
2007-04-23

Many years ago, i had a piece of software for the Amiga... It came in a cardboard box and stated on the back that there were terms and conditions inside.
Inside, was a paper bag holding the floppy disks with the terms printed on it. By opening the bag to access the floppies you were accepting the terms. If you reject the terms, you were guaranteed a refund providing the bag hadn't been opened.
It would probably have been better if the text were printed on the back of the box, but it was a large block of text that would have made the packaging quite ugly.

Reply Score: 1

elsewhere Member since:
2005-07-13

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.


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.


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!


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.

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!


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.

Reply Score: 10

mallard Member since:
2006-01-06

"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.


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?

Reply Score: 3

r_a_trip Member since:
2005-07-06

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.

Reply Score: 5

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

you are SIGNING a contract with the software company under what conditions the software is being licensed to you for!


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.

Reply Score: 2

exigentsky Member since:
2005-07-09

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

Reply Score: 5

Al2001 Member since:
2005-07-06

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.

Reply Score: 1

neowolf Member since:
2005-07-06

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.

Reply Score: 1

RE: That damn EULA argument again:
by DrillSgt on Mon 14th Apr 2008 23:21 UTC in reply to "That damn EULA argument again:"
DrillSgt Member since:
2005-12-02

"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.

Reply Score: 2

RE: That damn EULA argument again:
by siimo on Mon 14th Apr 2008 23:32 UTC in reply to "That damn EULA argument again:"
siimo Member since:
2006-06-22

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.

Reply Score: 2

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

"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.

Reply Score: 4

RE: That damn EULA argument again:
by rajan r on Tue 15th Apr 2008 09:34 UTC in reply to "That damn EULA argument again:"
rajan r Member since:
2005-07-27

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.

Reply Score: 1

RE: That damn EULA argument again:
by aliquis on Tue 15th Apr 2008 17:17 UTC in reply to "That damn EULA argument again:"
aliquis Member since:
2005-07-23

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

Reply Score: 2

Send in the clones
by ari-free on Mon 14th Apr 2008 22:42 UTC
ari-free
Member since:
2007-01-22

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

Reply Score: 2

RE: Send in the clones
by EricCFlem72 on Mon 14th Apr 2008 23:33 UTC in reply to "Send in the clones"
EricCFlem72 Member since:
2008-04-14

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

Reply Score: 2

RE: Send in the clones
by Darkelve on Tue 15th Apr 2008 06:04 UTC in reply to "Send in the clones"
Darkelve Member since:
2006-02-06

"Don't bother, they're here"

Reply Score: 2

confused
by transputer_guy on Mon 14th Apr 2008 23:49 UTC
transputer_guy
Member since:
2005-07-08

Well the website was working a moment ago, just got too slow to continue.

These guys seem to be all over the place, the OpenComputer seems to be a recent business addition to what otherwise looks nothing like your typical PC builder. I don't think I'd buy from them in a million years but I would like to know the exact spec of their machine so I could get the motherboard directly and do the rest myself.

I have a MiniMac & Leopard so I am not too happy with Apple when this very closed hardware failed after only 30 days, motherboard no less. If it had been an open platform I could have replaced the board myself and could do upgrades at will. It bugs me no end that Apple will not sell user expandable boxes with out paying several times as much. I really only want MiniMac with a little bit more capability and dual video out, this OpenComputer would be ideal for what I want.

Reply Score: 5

RE: confused
by REM2000 on Tue 15th Apr 2008 08:35 UTC in reply to "confused"
REM2000 Member since:
2006-07-25

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.

Reply Score: 2

Competition
by sbergman27 on Mon 14th Apr 2008 23:55 UTC
sbergman27
Member since:
2005-07-24

We tend to focus on MS, but real competition in the Apple arena would make for a stronger Mac platform and benefit us all, whether we use that platform or not. The Mac user base would be larger, and MS's proportionately smaller, if Apple did not insist upon owning it all. Apple's corporate selfishness has consequenses for everyone. I applaud any effort aimed at opening Mac as a platform. (Even if they can't actually call it a Mac.)

Reply Score: 6

Cost
by LobalSurgery on Mon 14th Apr 2008 23:59 UTC
LobalSurgery
Member since:
2006-09-07

They will do the Leopard installation for free, but only if you buy the software from them for $155 extra. So the $399 "Mac" is now actually $550, or else you supply Leopard yourself. Kind of odd that it's actually cheaper to buy the OS from Apple, though I'm not sure how these guys will manage to purchase copies anyway, now that they've gone public. If they even supply a Leopard DVD, who wants to bet that it's a burned copy?

I like to root for the underdog, but I have a feeling this one will be over way too soon.

However, this was worth a chuckle:

Can I run updates on my OpenMac?

"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."

Edited 2008-04-15 00:00 UTC

Reply Score: 1

regarding the legality
by Ethyriel on Tue 15th Apr 2008 01:49 UTC
Ethyriel
Member since:
2005-07-07

I'm sure they have some just passed the bar exam lawyer chomping at the bit, wanting to challenge the legality of the EULA. That probably doesn't bode well, but maybe he's up to it and gets a sympathetic judge.

If they aren't prepared, they really jumped the gun and they don't have a chance. Or maybe they're just trying to show Apple the market for an xMac.

Hopefully they'll stick it out long enough to fill orders after a few reviews.

Reply Score: 1

Breach of Contract
by Dengar12 on Tue 15th Apr 2008 02:14 UTC
Dengar12
Member since:
2008-04-15

Installing OSX on a non-apple computer would be a breach of contract according to the EULA, which is essentially the contract you are agreeing to when you purchase the operating system. So Macintosh is allowed to sue you for breaching.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Breach of Contract
by monodeldiablo on Tue 15th Apr 2008 02:58 UTC in reply to "Breach of Contract"
monodeldiablo Member since:
2005-07-06

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.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Breach of Contract
by HappyGod on Tue 15th Apr 2008 04:22 UTC in reply to "Breach of Contract"
HappyGod Member since:
2005-10-19

Installing OSX on a non-apple computer would be a breach of contract according to the EULA, which is essentially the contract you are agreeing to when you purchase the operating system. So Macintosh is allowed to sue you for breaching.


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

Reply Score: 7

RE: Breach of Contract
by Splinter on Tue 15th Apr 2008 06:42 UTC in reply to "Breach of Contract"
Splinter Member since:
2005-07-13

Installing OSX on a non-apple computer would be a breach of contract according to the EULA, which is essentially the contract you are agreeing to when you purchase the operating system. So Macintosh is allowed to sue you for breaching.


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.

Reply Score: 2

Looks bad for Apple
by pandronic on Tue 15th Apr 2008 05:58 UTC
pandronic
Member since:
2006-05-18

Looks bad for Apple ... this tells Apple's customers or potential customers that they are selling them 400$ worth of hardware for 2000$.

I always thought that Apple hardware was overpriced, but not like that.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Looks bad for Apple
by tyrione on Tue 15th Apr 2008 06:16 UTC in reply to "Looks bad for Apple"
tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

Looks bad for Apple ... this tells Apple's customers or potential customers that they are selling them 400$ worth of hardware for 2000$.

I always thought that Apple hardware was overpriced, but not like that.


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

Reply Score: 2

RE: Looks bad for Apple
by Splinter on Tue 15th Apr 2008 06:30 UTC in reply to "Looks bad for Apple"
Splinter Member since:
2005-07-13

Looks bad for Apple ... this tells Apple's customers or potential customers that they are selling them 400$ worth of hardware for 2000$.

I always thought that Apple hardware was overpriced, but not like that.


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.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Looks bad for Apple
by bryanv on Tue 15th Apr 2008 18:09 UTC in reply to "RE: Looks bad for Apple"
bryanv Member since:
2005-08-26

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.


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.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Looks bad for Apple
by bryanv on Tue 15th Apr 2008 18:15 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Looks bad for Apple"
bryanv Member since:
2005-08-26

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.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Looks bad for Apple
by Macrat on Wed 16th Apr 2008 16:52 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Looks bad for Apple"
Macrat Member since:
2006-03-27

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

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Looks bad for Apple
by thedaemon on Wed 16th Apr 2008 16:54 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Looks bad for Apple"
thedaemon Member since:
2008-04-04

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.

Reply Score: 1

Good point on their website
by Darkelve on Tue 15th Apr 2008 06:09 UTC
Darkelve
Member since:
2006-02-06

It might look a bit shady (actually it does not to me but I can see why people would think that), but they make really good points on their website. Even if Psystar are going nowhere with this, hopefully it will at least make Apple think (think well, not only different :p) .

Edit: I've changed my mind... at least legally, it looks pretty shady/uncertain... x)

Also, it looks like hell finally froze over...

Edited 2008-04-15 06:22 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Good point on their website
by jensa on Tue 15th Apr 2008 06:14 UTC in reply to "Good point on their website"
jensa Member since:
2006-12-01

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

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Good point on their website
by Darkelve on Tue 15th Apr 2008 06:24 UTC in reply to "RE: Good point on their website"
Darkelve Member since:
2006-02-06

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

Reply Score: 3

Virtual Machines
by Glynser on Tue 15th Apr 2008 06:59 UTC
Glynser
Member since:
2007-11-29

Just a question, is it allowed to run MacOS on a Virtual Machine? Because that wouldn't (and couldn't) be an "Apple-labelled computer" as well...

Reply Score: 1

RE: Virtual Machines
by Darkelve on Tue 15th Apr 2008 07:00 UTC in reply to "Virtual Machines"
Darkelve Member since:
2006-02-06

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

Reply Score: 2

Who needs authorisation?
by Googol on Tue 15th Apr 2008 07:11 UTC
Googol
Member since:
2006-11-24

Noone. It's a PC. Its mainboard is capable of booting OSX. How does this make for a clone..? There are plenty mainboards now that can boot OSX, that does not make them 'clones', especially not unauthorised ones. It is the other way round: Apple runs now on PC hardware, given the right BIOS.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Who needs authorisation?
by Doc Pain on Tue 15th Apr 2008 12:36 UTC in reply to "Who needs authorisation?"
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

Noone. It's a PC. Its mainboard is capable of booting OSX. How does this make for a clone..? There are plenty mainboards now that can boot OSX, that does not make them 'clones', especially not unauthorised ones. It is the other way round: Apple runs now on PC hardware, given the right BIOS.


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...

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Who needs authorisation?
by DeadFishMan on Tue 15th Apr 2008 15:29 UTC in reply to "RE: Who needs authorisation?"
DeadFishMan Member since:
2006-01-09

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


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 websites, I have yet to try that myself...

Edited 2008-04-15 15:37 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Who needs authorisation?
by alcibiades on Tue 15th Apr 2008 17:35 UTC in reply to "RE: Who needs authorisation?"
alcibiades Member since:
2005-10-12

No its not quite that simple. Go to osx86 and read the forums.

But, its getting closer and closer to that. And yes, essentially the only difference now between an Intel PC shipped by Apple and one shipped by Dell is EFI.

Reply Score: 2

Its not really about Eulas
by alcibiades on Tue 15th Apr 2008 07:11 UTC
alcibiades
Member since:
2005-10-12

It is about post sales restrictions on use. They are unlawful in all of the OECD. You cannot tell people what to do with what they have bought, not in a Eula, not in a signed contract. Contrary to anti trust law.

Eulas can be valid. But not where their provisions conflict with consumer protection or anti trust law.

Apple cannot stop you from installing OSX on whatever you want. MS cannot stop you using Office under Wine. You cannot sign away your consumer protection rights by sending in a guarantee form.

Anyone who thinks its not a sale needs to produce a case showing it. Not an Indian or Chinese case, a case from the US, Canada or EU. In the present case, they need to produce a US Court decision. Where is it?

Its a sale. Consequently, you can do what you want with it.

Notice, this may not apply to arrangements whereby in exchange for an annual fee, a company obtains a "license" to software on a certain number of stations. That really may well be a license or a lease or rental or whatever. But going up to the cash register and walking out with a retail copy, that one is a sale. Whatever the Eula says.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Its not really about Eulas
by rajan r on Tue 15th Apr 2008 09:16 UTC in reply to "Its not really about Eulas"
rajan r Member since:
2005-07-27

Uhm, perhaps in certain European countries, but you clearly don't have an understanding of contract law, at least in the context of common law countries. When you buy, say, Leopard - you're not buying the *software* itself, rather, a license to use it. That's why the source code of Leopard does not come with the box you buy at a Apple Store: you didn't buy the software, merely the right to use it in a limited manner.

As for post-sales restrictions of use, that's a bit complicated, but in most countries, especially common-law ones (where "business efficacy" and "officious bystander" is widely practice in deciding these cases), I don't think there's much of a problem because 1) the contract can be read (online or elsewhere) prior to buying it, and 2) the software can be refunded and returned if you don't agree with the EULA.

As for anti-trust, it is possible (competition law, for efficacy's sake, needs to be vague) - but extremely unlikely. It's hard to rule Apple's position a monopolistic one (it's like saying Ford has a monopoly of producing Ford cards). For one, there is no remote chance where users *have* to use Mac OS, thus no reason for Psystar doesn't have a case to say they needed to sell the computers with OS X.

It would be significantly easier on Psystar if they didn't offer to install Leopard for users: they won't be the one breaking the EULA, it would be the users. And they wouldn't be offering to break contract law.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Its not really about Eulas
by alcibiades on Tue 15th Apr 2008 17:40 UTC in reply to "RE: Its not really about Eulas"
alcibiades Member since:
2005-10-12

Cite one EU case in which post-sales restrictions on use have been enforced. Just one.

Eulas may have enforceable clauses, but post sales restrictions on use are not enforceable in the EU because they are anti-competitive.

Reply Score: 4

Yet another stupid company wasting money
by rajan r on Tue 15th Apr 2008 09:28 UTC
rajan r
Member since:
2005-07-27

Antitrust law doesn't work that way. Psystar not only have to prove monopoly (gee, Apple having a monopoly on products it produces? Shock), it has to prove how this monopoly is harmful for competition. Considering that users have more choices than Macs, I don't see how there is unfair co-mingling of products.

The analogy of a car that can only drive on certain roads doesn't exactly stand: nobody is forcing car companies from not doing that. The reason why car companies don't add contractual obligations for their customers restricting where they can drive is purely because it makes no business sense whatsoever.

Judges would be EXTREMELY vary of making such a judgment in favour of Pystar - the precedence would force the entire industry to change business practices. In any case, it is unlikely Pystar would survive, financially, a legal tussle with Apple - especially when they aren't in a significant legal edge here (if they have any).

Their lawyer, had they bothered to hire one, ought to be disbarred for gross negligence.

Reply Score: 2

EULAs are invalid
by Carewolf on Tue 15th Apr 2008 09:53 UTC
Carewolf
Member since:
2005-09-08

EULAs are invalid because they conflict with no less than three different laws (depending on your juristiction).

1. When buying the product you acquire the right to use it. E.g. Placing a "opening the laptop voids warrenty" sticker on the lid is not valid because it violates the sale, the same applies to EULAs.
2. Contracts are an exchange of rights between to parties. To be valid both parties have to get something from the contract. Since you already have the right to use your software, the EULA does not provide you with anything extra.
3. You can not sign a contract by clicking an okay-button, and even if you could, you are legally allowed to click okay while disagreeing with the contract because of point 1 and 2.

Edited 2008-04-15 09:56 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE: EULAs are invalid
by rajan r on Tue 15th Apr 2008 10:57 UTC in reply to "EULAs are invalid"
rajan r Member since:
2005-07-27

3. You can not sign a contract by clicking an okay-button, and even if you could, you are legally allowed to click okay while disagreeing with the contract because of point 1 and 2.


You probably should take an introductory course in contract law: of course you can agree to a contract with an "Okay" button. You can agree to a contract by raising your hand (like they do in auctions), nodding your head, or simply exchanging money. Remember the sales part of buying software? When you hand over money to the cashier - there is no signing of contracts, no? Yet, why is it valid?

As long as there is evidence of offer and acceptance, it is a completely valid contract.

2. Contracts are an exchange of rights between to parties. To be valid both parties have to get something from the contract. Since you already have the right to use your software, the EULA does not provide you with anything extra.


This is what is called "consideration" - there is consideration. When you buy a Leopard box from a store, it's a sales contract. You expect a product that works, and a license you have purchase being something you can agree to and valid. You do not buy the right to use the software. Now, you want to use the software - you have to agree to the terms of the license - the EULA.

There is consideration - in exchanged for agreeing to the terms, you get the right to use the software. If you don't agree with the contract, you can get an entire refund on the software you have bought.

It is extremely difficult to prove that this consideration is "past consideration" (in other words, no new consideration for the end-user) in common law jurisdictions. For one, the enormous precedence this would set is that most, if not all, "subject-to" contracts would be made invalid - with enormous repercussions to business efficacy.

It is possible that parts of the EULA is illegal, especially when there is specific law against such terms (clauses). But as a whole, EULA is a valid contract, even if there are invalid terms - good luck trying to convince a judge otherwise.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: EULAs are invalid
by Carewolf on Wed 16th Apr 2008 11:37 UTC in reply to "RE: EULAs are invalid"
Carewolf Member since:
2005-09-08

I don't have to prove that EULAs are invalid. They have been tested in most courtrooms in the world, and have been thrown out of every single one, except for some states in the US.

If you live in California like Apple does - they are invalid, if you live outside the US - they are invalid.-

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: EULAs are invalid
by WereCatf on Wed 16th Apr 2008 11:43 UTC in reply to "RE: EULAs are invalid"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

It is possible that parts of the EULA is illegal, especially when there is specific law against such terms (clauses). But as a whole, EULA is a valid contract, even if there are invalid terms

EULAs are valid. BUT only in some parts of the world! I do suggest you to remember that when claiming they are valid.

good luck trying to convince a judge otherwise.

Atleast here the judge clearly said the EULA is invalid, both the EULA in the case and EULAs as a concept. But that applies only to Finland, I can't say about any other countries for sure.

Reply Score: 2

contract
by Mellin on Tue 15th Apr 2008 10:03 UTC
Mellin
Member since:
2005-07-06

it will be harder to buy software if everyone has to sign a contract and mail it

Edited 2008-04-15 10:04 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: contract
by Darkelve on Tue 15th Apr 2008 11:10 UTC in reply to "contract"
Darkelve Member since:
2006-02-06

Harder, but more fair.

Because now, no one reads the things anyway!

Reply Score: 2

Apple seriously need to be challenged
by xpr0nstar on Tue 15th Apr 2008 11:40 UTC
xpr0nstar
Member since:
2008-04-15

I truly want to see Psystar gives Apple a serious legal battle. The part of EULA that restricts users from installing legally-purchased OSX on non-Apple hardware has, in my opinion, no legal or moral basis. Users can't do it simply because Apple says so. There is no other good reasons beside the fact that it makes Apple tons of money. If I'm willing to forego the warranty and tech support, Apple should allow me install on whatever hardware I choose.

Reply Score: 3

*sigh*
by chrish on Tue 15th Apr 2008 12:00 UTC
chrish
Member since:
2005-07-14

These things have decent enough specs, but are crippled by the Intel integrated video, just like the MacBook and Mac Mini. Why bother?

Reply Score: 2

Apple response?
by Darkelve on Tue 15th Apr 2008 12:11 UTC
Darkelve
Member since:
2006-02-06

Does Apple usually communicate their position if something like this happens? And how long does that take (the time needed to consult a lawyer perhaps)?

Oh, to be a fly on the wall in Cupertino...

Edited 2008-04-15 12:12 UTC

Reply Score: 2

EULA aside
by Adurbe on Tue 15th Apr 2008 12:22 UTC
Adurbe
Member since:
2005-07-06

the hardware isnt even that good! nor cheap! If you consider it includes no OS nor any software, by the time you add it up to the same as a mac mini its more costly!

Always be wary of the upsell...

Reply Score: 2

RE: EULA aside
by bryanv on Tue 15th Apr 2008 17:51 UTC in reply to "EULA aside"
bryanv Member since:
2005-08-26

the hardware isnt even that good! nor cheap! If you consider it includes no OS nor any software, by the time you add it up to the same as a mac mini its more costly!


How exactly do you figure that it's more expensive?

Mac Mini 1: 1.83Ghz, 1GB RAM, 80GB 5400RPM HD, combo (CD burner, DVD reader) drive, USB2.0, FireWire, OS X: $579 with education discount.

Mac Mini 2: 2.0Ghz, 2GB RAM, 160GB 5400RPM HD, super (dvd/cd burner) drive, USB2.0, FireWire, OS X: $914 with education discount.

Open: 2.2ghz, 2GB RAM, 250GB 7500RPM HD, DVD/CD burner, USB2.0 FireWire, OS X: $605

More than $300 less than the price of a mini that has slower components.

Now, you tell me which model of the Mini compares better against the Open?

I custom-configured the second mini option to more closely reflect the specs being touted by the Open. The sad fact is that the Mini cannot (in it's current generation) go as fast, the HD's are inferior (in both capacity and speed), and the RAM is more limited.

Note I included the cost of the firewire card & OS X in the Open, which reflects a custom configuration that adds nearly $200 to the base price of the system.

Clearly, if this actually works as advertised, and isn't too much of a pain to handle system updates, then I'd say this is the way to go.

Especially for people like me, who have an existing OS X 10.5 license being unused, laying around, and already have the software they need. I have an iBook G4, and already have licenses for everything I use regularly, and have versions in Universal Binary format (except for MS Office, which I'm trying to wean my wife off of). In theory, I wouldn't need to drop the $155 on the OS X install, and could instead invest $50 in a good Apple keyboard with an 'eject' button on it.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: EULA aside
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 15th Apr 2008 17:57 UTC in reply to "RE: EULA aside"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

and could instead invest $50 in a good Apple keyboard with an 'eject' button on it.


I have three Apple keyboard collecting dust here. Feel free to drop by and pick one up for free ;) .

Reply Score: 1

DMCA
by miscz on Tue 15th Apr 2008 12:29 UTC
miscz
Member since:
2005-07-17

I haven't read the whole thread but I think we're forgetting something. Isn't it illegal in USA to circumvent protection mechanisms like DRM in OSX?

For example, libdvdcss2 seems to be illegal to use there so why would cracking OSX kernel and modules wouldn't be? And no "I've bought this DVD" or "I own my machine" arguments seem to work.

Reply Score: 4

RE: DMCA
by Doc Pain on Tue 15th Apr 2008 12:54 UTC in reply to "DMCA"
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

I haven't read the whole thread but I think we're forgetting something. Isn't it illegal in USA to circumvent protection mechanisms like DRM in OSX?


You're mentioning a valid point. Let me add an idea:

What exactly is circumvention? First of all, a vendor claims a product, let's say a DVD media, to be "copy protected", but if I put it into my drive and type "cdrdao copy" and then get a copy without no problems, have I circumvented something?

Or more simple: I make a drawing on a piece of paper and sign it with "This paper is copy protected!" Then, you put it on your copier and press "Start", you'll get a copy without any problems. Have you circumvented my copy protection?

That's just for the principle, or for the semantics of "circumvention". Circumventing seems to mean something like to bypass a working means to prevent a certain action.

In order to circumvent the restrictions of Mac OS X ("does not run on generic x86 hardware"), which means would have to been taken to make it running? As I questioned in a posting above, excahnging a computer's BIOS would eventually work, but according to your idea, this would have nothing to do with Mac OS X itself - it wouldn't be touched.

For example, libdvdcss2 seems to be illegal to use there so why would cracking OSX kernel and modules wouldn't be? And no "I've bought this DVD" or "I own my machine" arguments seem to work.


I hate this "illegal" stuff. The same stupidity usually causes problems when trying to implement something to work "out of the box"; just because some company uses proprietary codecs instead using free ones... I'm sure you get the idea.

The same is true for DRM. If you change something within the system's kernel in order to avoid the DRM mechanisms to work, are you doing something illegal? This is according to my example above: When the mechanism does not work at all, has it been circumvented effectively?

Edited 2008-04-15 12:56 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Buy from these guys or avoid them?
by Karig on Tue 15th Apr 2008 14:43 UTC
Karig
Member since:
2007-04-27

Well. Now that we've been arguing about EULAs a bit, here's the $64,000 question: Would you guys advise buying an OpenComputer or OpenPro with Mac OS X Leopard installed from this company? (I own a Mac Mini and am strongly tempted to throw some money at Psystar for an upgrade, and they seem to be on the up-and-up, claiming to have been around for thirty years [see: http://www.psystar.com/about_psystar.html])

Reply Score: 2

bryanv
Member since:
2005-08-26

This is working very hard to change my mind on purchasing an Apple-branded system.

For less than the cost of a mini, I can have a better performing system, that will be far easier to upgrade.

There is a large part of me thinking, "What have I got to Loose?"

If Apple manages to block installs or brick boxes in the future, at least I can hock the box off as a windows PC on ebay or craigslist. By then I'll have been able to save up more money dedicated to buying Apple branded hardware.

As a stop-gap solution to end my current state of having computers that are 7 years old without being able to afford (in cash) the system I -really- want, this makes DAMN good sense.

I can get what I need now, continue to save for what I want, and sell what I get now in the future when I've saved enough for what I want.

This is an idea I think I can sell the wife on.

Reply Score: 4

Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

"that will be far easier to upgrade."

Except it's not. You can't get any security updates without the fear of hosing your system. If you fit a new piece of equipment and it doesn't have drivers, it's no use, nobody is going to write them for you, and you're certainly not going to get any support.

It'd be less upgradable than a regular Mac, and require re-installing the OS regularly, as well as trawling forums whenever something doesn't work because the whole system is hacked onto hardware it isn't meant to be on.

Reply Score: 2

bryanv Member since:
2005-08-26

I meant upgradeable in hardware terms.

I could replace the processor.

I could add ram without a freakin' razor blade or putty knife.

I could plop an extra internal (high RPM, no less) drive in the case.

I could put a new graphics card in the box.

Beyond that, I can't think of anything hardware wise I'd want to add without replacing the system wholesale.

As for installing the OS with every point-release, I don't see that as much of a pain compared to letting software-update do it's thing.

As for security, it'll be safely fire-walled away on my home network, so I can't imagine any huge threat other than zero-day exploits in the browser such as URL injection and we all know that's a gamble anyhow.

The idea for me would be that this box would be a short-term hold-over until I can save the $ for a real Mac, configured the way I want it.

I can afford one of these boxes today. A MacPro will take me another year or more to save up the money. Futher, if I bought this box today, I can sell off all my old kit, (and I mean -all- of it!) and probably get a couple hundred bucks for it. The idea is to take that money, sell off the Open, and that'll go a long-way to being able to afford the real Mac in a shorter time span.

The base Open computer is less than -HALF- the price of the low-end mini (with education discount), has a faster processor, twice the ram, and a desktop HD instead of a friggen slow-ass laptop drive.

If plugging a mac keyboard into the thing makes the keyboard eject button work, this is so worth it that it's just not funny.

Reply Score: 2

snozzberry Member since:
2005-11-14

You can't get any security updates without the fear of hosing your system.


If only Leopard had some kind of mechanism for making restore point backups...

Reply Score: 2

Love the idea
by motang on Tue 15th Apr 2008 15:28 UTC
motang
Member since:
2008-03-27

I would love to get one of these, the price is right but there is no proof that OS X works on it, if there is then I will be one of the first ones ordering this.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by mind!dagger
by mind!dagger on Tue 15th Apr 2008 16:21 UTC
mind!dagger
Member since:
2007-06-26

If Psystar stops selling their equipment with OS X pre-installed then Apple has no legal ground. If a customer wants to place Linux or OS X onto it it, yes, screw Wind, then it is not any of Apple's business.

Reply Score: 2

Great
by Foranamo on Tue 15th Apr 2008 17:16 UTC
Foranamo
Member since:
2005-07-06

I think it's great. In my opinion apple hardware is a bit expensive. I've never liked osx but atm I can't even try it out as I don't have the money for a Mac.

Apple has sued over less, hasn't it? I wonder if psystar delivers to europe and with what cost..

Reply Score: 1

Monopoly of Rotten Apple
by rakamaka on Tue 15th Apr 2008 18:48 UTC
rakamaka
Member since:
2005-08-12

MS has monopoly on windows software

Mac has monopoly on software+hardware

Linux has monopoly on nothing.because Mr .Linus can never think beyond his Kernel and thus have no idea what modern hardware is out there besides his compiler and keyboard..
It needs powerful compelling vision like of Bill Gates to make some working and affordable operating system for masses

Edited 2008-04-15 18:51 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Monopoly of Rotten Apple
by sonic2000gr on Tue 15th Apr 2008 19:13 UTC in reply to "Monopoly of Rotten Apple"
sonic2000gr Member since:
2007-05-20


It needs powerful compelling vision like of Bill Gates to make some working and affordable operating system for masses


- Linux works and is affordable (as in free). It still presents quite a few challenges for non-technical users (who would never care to install an OS themselves)

- Mac works but is not affordable. At best, it is at least becoming more popular and this will eventually force the prices to go down.

- Last, Vista is neither affordable, nor working... not as promised any way. At least SP1 improved things somehow, but it is still a lemon.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Monopoly of Rotten Apple
by Dano on Wed 16th Apr 2008 01:52 UTC in reply to "RE: Monopoly of Rotten Apple"
Dano Member since:
2006-01-22

These are some stupid arguments that I am tired of hearing. I think that people who talk about this stuff have never actually used the operating systems that they reference...

- Linux works and is affordable (as in free). It still presents quite a few challenges for non-technical users (who would never care to install an OS themselves)


Linux: Yeah it's free. Yes it works, but still with different levels of refinement and may not work perfectly with your hardware. Patching the kernel to get a device working blows. And the applications that are available are pretty much limited to the standard open source or freeware fare which can pretty much be run on any OS...Mozilla, Open Office, Gimp, Google Earth. I mean you could run these applications under any OS...OS/2, FreeBSD, MacOS and Linux...it's all of the same boring application base when it comes to software on Linux. At least Linux has a good choice of file systems and has some kick-ass media players that blow away quicktime and iTunes.


- Mac works but is not affordable. At best, it is at least becoming more popular and this will eventually force the prices to go down.


Mac Works? I own a MAC and I think it sucks. Many open source applications on a MAC has to run in X11 (even OpenOffice unless you try out the beta Aqua version) which provides a choppy application interface at best on the MAC. Free Quicktime blows chunks...you can't queue movies in it and playback is choppy with any format outside of Quicktime movies. iTunes seems smoother to me on Windows than Leapard. There are not a lot of good Mac apps available that you don't have to purchase. If you going to run Microsoft Office (Apple advertises that it's now available for Mac) you mind as well run it on Windows. It's funny that Apple slams Microsoft for Vista and then acts like it was their good graces that forced Microsoft to bring Office to the Mac. Microsoft has already abandoned the Mac in almost every other way including dropping IE and Media Player for the Mac. Even Media Player 9 for the Mac is better than quicktime. You will be running VMWARE or Parallels with Windows if you want to use your Mac in a business environment. Why do people think the Mac is better for graphics? Adobe is only doing 64 bit apps on Windows due to Apple not extending the Carbon programming API to 64 bits. You can't even customize the window colors in Leapard. Coverflow is about all I can think of that you can get that is not available on Windows, and the feature is pretty much useless as it obscures the documents to the right and left of the one you are looking at. And what happened to those nice transparent windows? Mac is so over rated...people believe all of that S**T they talk about on the Mac commercials.


- Last, Vista is neither affordable, nor working... not as promised any way. At least SP1 improved things somehow, but it is still a lemon.


Vista comes with many new PCs...which means it will be affordable. Apple charges way to much for older hardware. Vista had many bugs in the beginning, but it still worked fine on a new Shuttle PC I put together. Service Pack 1 has caused Vista to be a pretty damn sweet desktop to work on. Any $600 PC should run it fine as you can get a Core Duo and 2 Gigs of ram for this amount of cash. People dump on Vista for the annoying securing features (which can be turned off). They also complain about application compatibility...but hasn't Apple broken this in the past more than once? For sure. I mean I still run Procomm for DOS on Vista x64 with VirtualPC (which is also free from MS).

If you sit down with a Mac next to a well configured Vista machine for a week, honestly you will find out that you can run WAY more applications on Vista even with broken compatibility from security improvements than Mac. I run Vista x64 at work and I have more apps available for even x64 than my Mac at home. Vista x32 on another computer I own runs practically any modern Windows app.

What is with the archaic Apple one button mouse support...even on laptops...one button! I hate holding down my mouse to do things that should be done on the right button. Even with a two button mouse, the right button menu never has the correct options in them! What is the point of hacking BIOS to get Mac OS X running on a PC when it's so lame? The attraction is similar to what Amiga people feel about Workbench.

I guess my point is here, it's all about applications and application development. Windows has the most apps, and Visual Studio is the king of application development hands down. XCode on Mac is a jumbled mess. I am going to give my Mac away to a relative soon as they have drunk the coolaid also. For the money that Apple charges, I will be sticking with PCs for a long while...XP is still available and Vista has some neat features.


Dano

Edited 2008-04-16 02:08 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Monopoly of Rotten Apple
by Manik on Wed 16th Apr 2008 11:18 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Monopoly of Rotten Apple"
Manik Member since:
2005-07-06

Your rant, made short :

Linux sucks. It's free, and it works, but it runs the same boring application base as any other system.

Mac sucks. Nothing free on the Mac, plus it has less apps than Windows. Apple doesn't mind with X11 not working correctly, which is a pain to run the boring application base. Plus they want developpers to ditch Carbon and use Cocoa, broking application compatibility. Microsoft has abandoned the Mac. And there is this one button mouse thing (frankly, I didn't expect that one, it's so "passé").

Vista, at least, doesn't suck. Everything is better on my Vista box. Yeah, there is some application compatibility broken, but look at the Mac, it's worse.


Your rant, made even shorter :

Everything sucks, save Vista.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Monopoly of Rotten Apple
by Dano on Wed 16th Apr 2008 14:43 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Monopoly of Rotten Apple"
Dano Member since:
2006-01-22

It's not a rant, it's a conversation. People keep talking out of their ass about what is good and what isn't...they have never even used these systems. That's the real point.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Monopoly of Rotten Apple
by sonic2000gr on Wed 16th Apr 2008 19:48 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Monopoly of Rotten Apple"
sonic2000gr Member since:
2007-05-20

Save for the MAC (which I only toyed with but know quite a few people who love OSX), I've been using Vista since RTM and Linux since the Slackware 2.0 days. Constantly.

Reply Score: 2

If Apple allowed GNUDarwin
by fithisux on Tue 15th Apr 2008 20:20 UTC
fithisux
Member since:
2006-01-22

to make real progress I would have no objection to pay 100$ to Apple to buy the machine with GNUDarwin. But to install Hackint0sh why? First it is closed source and second Apple does not allow it.

Reply Score: 2

EULAs...
by mmu_man on Tue 15th Apr 2008 23:20 UTC
mmu_man
Member since:
2006-09-30

Usually include abusive clauses that wouldn't even hold in court, depending on the country you trial them.

Reply Score: 2

What motherboard(s) is Pystar using?
by steveh2005 on Thu 17th Apr 2008 20:36 UTC
steveh2005
Member since:
2007-06-28

Hey, just curious if anyone knows which motherboards Pystar is using to allow a non-altered Intel Mac OS X Leopard disk image to be installed onto?

Thanks!

Reply Score: 1