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.
Thread beginning with comment 309544
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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 Parent Score: 13

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 Parent 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 Parent Score: 1

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 Parent Score: 2

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 Parent 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 Parent Score: 4

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 Parent Score: 1

aliquis Member since:
2005-07-23

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

Reply Parent Score: 2