Linked by Andrew Youll on Sun 7th Aug 2005 15:36 UTC, submitted by heron
Mac OS X According to the guys at, some intrepid individuals have been able to get OS X running on generic hardware. There is a full explaination and some details on the site.
Thread beginning with comment 14882
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Hyprocritical.
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 7th Aug 2005 18:04 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Hyprocritical."
Member since:

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

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

Reply Parent Score: 5

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

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

Reply Parent Score: 1

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

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

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

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

Reply Parent Score: 0

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

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


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

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

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

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

Reply Parent Score: 1