Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 20th May 2009 13:27 UTC
Hardware, Embedded Systems Hot on the heels of the Russians, we have another clone maker popping up, this time in fish & chips country: Freedom PC. "Powerful and versatile, environmentally friendly yet inexpensive computer systems compatible with any and all of the main operating systems: Mac OS X, Linux or Windows. So YOU can decide which one to use for what YOU want to do. And we give you a choice of models, too - from the low priced and good looking office machine, the ideal choice for business, to the high powered, sleek, gaming media centre. All, with the operating system of your choice pre-installed - or none at all - at prices accessible to all." They offer various models pre-installed with Windows, Linux, or Mac OS X.
Thread beginning with comment 364582
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Comment by darknexus
by PowerMacX on Wed 20th May 2009 15:32 UTC in reply to "Comment by darknexus"
PowerMacX
Member since:
2005-11-06

Well, that sure didn't take long. Soon enough every country will have a company like this.
This is why Apple is just going to have to adapt. They can't go after every one of these companies, in every country (some of which they have no legal authority) without throwing huge expendatures of money at the problem and likely failing or at the very least only partly succeeding.[...]


I find this line of reasoning repeated in every single story about Pystar & friends, but I don't see it as valid. You can make the same argument about almost anything, from software piracy to drunk driving. Is the fact that is "hard" to fight a reason not to bother at all?

The basic excuse used for preinstalling Mac OS X and violating the EULA seems to boil down to "I paid for it, I can install it anywhere I want, no matter what the EULA may say".
The problem with that is that if you ignore that EULA you may just as well ignore *any* licensing terms, so long as you don't violate copyright.
But... what happens then to "upgrade" licenses? Any upgrade that doesn't check for previous versions installs (as a convenience to the buyer) could be installed "legally" even if you don't actually own a previous version, as long as you ignore the fact the the license required it. And if it does check for previous license, by the same line of reasoning that makes people think it would be "valid" to remove any check Apple may add to Mac OS X to make sure you only install it on a Mac, it would be "valid" to remove a similar "check from previous versions" from upgrades.

What do upgrades have to do with Mac OS X? At some point, Apple used to label all OS releases as "upgrades", after all, since you can't buy a Mac without some version of Mac OS preinstalled, any later version could be considered an upgrade. They don't do that now, instead they simply say "to be installed only on Apple-labeled computers".
Upgrades are cheaper because you already paid for a previous version. Mac OS X, at $129 (compared to a full Vista which used to cost upwards $400), is to me an "upgrade" price, because by the EULA you are supposed to have paid for a Mac with a previous version already.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by darknexus
by Gunderwo on Wed 20th May 2009 16:56 in reply to "RE: Comment by darknexus"
Gunderwo Member since:
2006-01-03


The problem with that is that if you ignore that EULA you may just as well ignore *any* licensing terms, so long as you don't violate copyright.


This is where you're wrong. The issue is with a single clause in the EULA that states that you can only install Mac OS X on apple branded hardware. The issue is with the *single* clause that may violate a consumers right to do whatever they wish with a product they bought.

Saying that if this case is lost that we may as well throw out all EULAs is silly. It's like saying we found an invalid, unenforcable clause in a contract so all contracts are now null and void.

Please stop confusing the issue. The issue is with what rights does a consumer have to do what they choose with a product that they bought.

Reply Parent Score: 5

v RE[3]: Comment by darknexus
by mrammb on Wed 20th May 2009 17:05 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by darknexus"
RE[3]: Comment by darknexus
by PowerMacX on Wed 20th May 2009 21:21 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by darknexus"
PowerMacX Member since:
2005-11-06

If my comment had indeed consisted of only the part you quoted, yes. But that was an introduction to the example about upgrades and a possible interpretation of that specific controversial clause in the EULA.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by darknexus
by kaiwai on Thu 21st May 2009 03:38 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by darknexus"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

This is where you're wrong. The issue is with a single clause in the EULA that states that you can only install Mac OS X on apple branded hardware. The issue is with the *single* clause that may violate a consumers right to do whatever they wish with a product they bought.

Saying that if this case is lost that we may as well throw out all EULAs is silly. It's like saying we found an invalid, unenforcable clause in a contract so all contracts are now null and void.

Please stop confusing the issue. The issue is with what rights does a consumer have to do what they choose with a product that they bought.


How is their requirement to be loaded onto an Apple computer any different to say a vendor who offers an upgrade version of their software with the requirement that you're a licence holder of an older version or have installed a legally acquired older version before the install can continue?

Sure, you could go out right now, buy a copy of Windows Vista upgrade and bypass the upgrade checker - which can be done through installing once without a serial then running the installer again but this time putting in the serial thus the installer thinks there is an older version installed. Because you can do it - does it make it legal?

Microsoft requiring you to have installed an older version before an upgrade can occur - is that a violation of your 'rights'? by you demanding that one piece about 'install on Apple hardware taken away' - Apple's requirements are no different to the requirements made for upgrading and thus do you want the upgrade based licensed be dismissed as illegal as well?

How about their requirement that I must be a student or a non-commercial user to use a given piece of software? isn't that a violation of my rights to use the software as I see fit? after all, I did pay for the software so why the heck should the software vendor remotely care whether I am using it in a commercial environment?

If we're going to talk about 'I paid for it and I should be allowed to use it as I see fit' then I think you need to look at the run off effect of such a declaration and how it impacts on the EULA in its entirety.

Edited 2009-05-21 03:43 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by darknexus
by darknexus on Wed 20th May 2009 18:00 in reply to "RE: Comment by darknexus"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

I'm not arguing the morality of this situation, just saying how I see it.
However, remember a few things:
1. The entire eula is not in question, merely the clause prohibiting the installation of OS X onto non-Apple machines. Personally, I hope that this clause is found to be invalid, and not necessarily because I want to install OS X on a non-Mac, but rather because this amounts to a post-sale restriction which should by all applicable laws here in the U.S be shot down. If that one clause is voided, the eula itself still remains in tact minus that one clause, and no other eula is affected directly. However, a similar clause in other eulas, if found, will be determined based on the results of this case, i.e. a precedent will be set.
2. This particular clause is not legal everywhere. It's being contested here in the U.S, whereas in other countries it is already blatantly unenforceable under their laws. So, depending on the laws of the country in question, this may be perfectly legal and aboveboard.

It is not pointless to fight a losing battle, but it is pointless to continue with a strategy that is clearly not working. This is what Apple's legal bs on this issue currently amounts to; Even if they win the battle here, in the U.S, they're not likely to win it everywhere. You can win most of the battles but still lose the war in the end.

Reply Parent Score: 4