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.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-09-18
True, but I shouldn't have to return it. It's deceptive, and a pain in the arse. EULA's post purchase hurt the consumer. Which is why they should be illegal.
It's like buying a bever pelt, then later the seller shows up and says.. ohh by the way you can't use that to make anything, you're only allowed to shove it in your ear. You say, he should be able to return it, I say make some boots.
Member since:2007-02-17
I really don't see your point. i don't find the EULA deceptive at all. Is it a pain in the ass to have to read the EULA and then return the product if you don't agree, yes. Is it a deceptive no, because you as a user already know that every piece of software that you buy commercially has a EULA attached and so you already know that there are terms you have to agree to before you can use the software. I also wouldn't be surprised if you as a future user of the product in question couldn't do your due diligence as a consumer and go to said companies site and read the EULA there. Even if you don't find the EULA on the company's site, then all your complaints will do is force the store to print out a nice pamphlet for you with the EULA before you purchase. You would be forced to read and agree to the terms before you purchased the product and thus negating the user the ability to even purchase the software. Its even more inconvenient than returning the software and getting your money back.
Apple has the right as a company to protect its products and the way it does that is by letting the user know what apple expects from them and then asking them if they agree. If the user doesn't agree then they have all the right in the world to return the software, but just like the with any other media Apple owns the software you are trying to use, just because the you own the DVD it doesn't mean that you own the software. Anyone who says otherwise are trying to justify theft, plain and simple. You don't own the movie on a DVD, you don't own a the music on your cd, hell you don;t even own the music on your iPod. You own the right to listen/watch the media you have but you don't own them. You can't sell tickets to screenings of The Matrix, You can't remix and sell your version of a popular song. The EULA may or may not be valid but using the software at your discretion still isn't your right as far as I know. It's the right of who ever distributes the software.
Member since:
2005-07-06
Some people here are claiming that the whole idea of an EULA is invalid; all I say is that within the EULA, it is valid, but not all the clauses are valid. Just because one clause is invalid, doesn't make the whole thing invalid.
As for the buying, you take the software home, throw it into the machine, read the licence, don't agree with the licence, and you take it back. If you can't get a refund in your country, then the issue is with your government and the lack of consumer protection - and nothing to do with 'big bad mean software company'.
The point you make the agreement is when the EULA is presented to you, if you disagree with it, you SHOULD have the right to take it back and ask for a refund. Again, if you cannot do the above, then the laws in your country are deficient.