Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 17th Sep 2008 09:15 UTC, submitted by Andrew Youll
Mac OS X If you want to run Mac OS X on a standard, non-Apple-labelled x86 box, you have various options. You can go all creative and build and install one yourself, and then be weary when installing updates from Apple. You can also buy a Mac clone from PsyStar, and then be weary of Apple's crack team of lawyers. A third option has just become available: EFI-X.
Thread beginning with comment 330673
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: hmm...
by sardaukar on Thu 18th Sep 2008 09:06 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: hmm..."
Member since:

Wouldn't EFI-x break

3. Violation of Patent
4. Violation of Contract

in your list?

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: hmm...
by looncraz on Fri 19th Sep 2008 20:25 in reply to "RE[4]: hmm..."
looncraz Member since:

Depends entirely on how it is implemented.

Contract, surely not, unless the makers licensed the technology, there is no contract to violate ( an EULA is NOT a legal contract, but merely explicit permissions and limitations of liability which may or may not be legally applicable depending on the wording ).

The patent is of no issue here, as the entire manner by which the technology is implemented is outside the domain of Apple's patents. Patents are always overruled for the sake of compatibility or in cases of violation of anti-competition laws.

However, if the product directly uses Apple code/binaries then it is in violation of copyright laws. If it includes code that mimics its external ( patentable ) interface, it is legal only as far as is required for compatibility purposes as laid out under U.S. anti-trust/unfair competition laws.

Should the patent be too closely followed, however, as to utilize more than what is permissible by law, then a patent violation can be filed on that segment.

This is to say that external interfaces ( electronic, software, automotive, or otherwise ) are actually NOT patentable ( this includes things such as MOST file formats, fuel&oil filters, tires, rims, sensors, etc... ), but the inclusion of this in a patent application does not disqualify the pending patent from approval. Whereas, internal methods and operations and design are, in fact, protected by patents ( and copyrights ).

Technical example:
In c++ code you have two files for most classes:

Class.h ( header )
Class.cpp ( code )

The header, if publicly released by any legal means, can be used by anyone for compatibility purposes, regardless of software license, as it describes an "immutable" interface to access the class/product. However, C++ classes have certain protectors within the header. public, protected, and private. public and protected members/functions are fully free to use by law, for the sake of compatibility ( and almost exclusively for this ).

Members and functions within the private "section" of the header, however, cannot be directly copied for compatibility unless one can absolutely prove there was no other way to achieve compatibility.

However, the code itself is fully protected as it is likely to contain someone's intellectual property. No portion what-so-ever may be utilized, in whatever form.

The product in question is, apparently, essentially just using a "header" to provide compatibility. Completely legal, and directly stated in law to be such. Even if they had to completely disassemble MacOS X and violate every "term" within the EULA.

--The loon

Reply Parent Score: 2