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.
Permalink for comment 309691
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

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.

Talk about a bloody hyperbole. Damn, I could use that 'violation of human rights' for not being able to go down the road and purchase 25grams of weed from my local dealer - yeah, as if protesting to the cops about my 'rights to purchase weed' is suddenly going to invalidate the controlled substances law *rolls eyes*

I answered this post by starting at the bottom, think about what you said here, and what you said at the bottom of the post - then think about what you blathered on about in this post.

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).

Pardon? that is another example of hyperbole. The example YOU are referring to is the issue of (I'm sure there have been others) is that of the pet shop benchmark and the clause in .NET Framework which prohibited benchmarks being used without the permission of Microsoft.

Sugar buns, do you know what you do? you shun that product, you refuse to use that product - and if it is so bad, more people will do. You refuse to use the product until the company changes their policy. Its called the market mate. I know in Europe you like big nanny state coming in to protect you from the mean old companies, corporation and *froth froth* businesses, but perish the thought, how about using the power of consumer pressure instead?

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.

Oh bullshit. You are making out that you were FORCED into signing a contract against your will. You are making out that you have no choice but to run Mac OS X. You CHOOSE to purchase MacOS X, therefore you CHOOSE accept ALL the restrictions. Don't like the restrictions, then don't bloody well use the product! We aren't talking about a market where a monopoly is FORCING you to use a product. You have VOLUNTARILY chosen Mac OS X, and CHOSEN to take on those restrictions.

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.

Again, bullcrap. You don't own a damn thing. If you OWNED the software, then you could reverse engineer it, you could resell copies of it, you could install it on as many computers as you want, you could do what ever you damn well please, because you would OWN the software, not merely licence it under a set of restrictions.

How about taking a look at the bigger picture before saying such STUPID and IRRATIONAL statements claiming that some how you OWN the software. You might OWN the CD, the box, the book, but the intellectual property on it, you have licenced it FROM a company for a set of conditions. Again, if you don't like those conditions, then don't bloody use it!

Do you *REALL* think you OWN Linux when you download it? of course not! it is licenced under restrictions, just like any other product. And guess what perky buns, if you don't like it, YOU have the right to refuse to use it! its called the freemarket, learn about it some time!

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

Hang on, you puked the above amount of crap then finish off saying, "install it on one computer"? Mate, wake up, you just then, in that small sentence have placed restrictions on the software AFTER declaring that to be a basic violation of your human rights! how the hell do you jump from blathering on about 'human rights' then place a restriction on the use of the software that can be only done via a contract (EULA)! that is a case of broken logic!

Reply Parent Score: -2