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.
I smell a cease and desist letter coming…
In that case… Quick, hurry and buy one
I think that is what a lot of people are thinking as their site is not functioning right now-
Also I wounder if there is any chance of them being in the clear. If they are buying their copies of OS X legitimately from Apple and putting Apple Stickers on their PCs, there is a “stick it to the man” part of me that hopes it is enough to satisfy is Section 2A of the Mac OS X End User License Agreement (EULA), which reads:
“to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time.”
Because they probably have nothing to compare to Apple’s legal team they will be stomped, but I’ll cross my fingers for the little guy.
And hope they succeed in what? Toppling Apple? Then nobody gets the OS. Unless Apple _stops_ being a _hardware_ company hoping to see the little guy succeed is hoping to bring the company down.
Don’t get me wrong, I’d love to see a legitimate way to install MOSX on hardware of my choosing, but at the same time Apple doesn’t make their money selling the OS. The OS sells their hardware!
Apple doesn’t make hardware. They simply slap their logo on hardware made by Asus, Hon Hai (Foxconn), Quanta and other Taiwanese manufacturers who also make Windows machines. Same companies, same factories, same workers.
Correct, Quanta IIRC is the worlds largest laptop maker. Hence, when ever I hear someone talk about ‘Apple’s superior quality’ I can’t help but laugh. I’m a Mac user, but I’m under not illusion thinking that Intel and all the other third party create ‘special edition’ parts specifically for Apple.
The hell they don’t make their own hardware.
All the hardware is prototyped, designed, tested and certified by Apple.
They outsource the mass production but they most certainly make their own hardware.
Don’t confuse development with mass production.
The OS sells Macs, but recently, Apple has been making the majority of it’s revenue from iPod+iTunes sales. It probably wouldn’t affect them much to “allow” people to install OS X on third-party systems. This is especially true given the fact that most people that buy Macs in recent years do so more as a fashion statement than anything else.
That said, Apple has the right to create their OS in such a way that it is difficult to install on third-party hardware. However, I as the purchaser of the software have the right (see quote from Title 17 section 117 of the US Code below) to modify that software in order to run it on a computer.
“it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine”
Link: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/usc_sec_17_00000117—-000-.h…
That’s an excellent point, and straight from the law. I’ve read this passage before but must of missed the adaptation clause, which is essential for the legality of a hackintosh.
Where the heck did you get the idea that Apple makes most of it’s money from the iPod and iTunes?
Most of it’s money comes from Macs and always has come from Macs.
From 2006:
“Apple’s music-related business accounted for 59 percent of the company’s total revenue and was up 145 percent compared to same period a year ago.”
http://www.mp3.com/stories/2946.html
Even years after the Mac debuted Apple made most of its money from the Apple II family.
Look at Sun…
They give away Solaris for free (open source no less), while selling hardware for running it. Anyone can sell hardware to run Solaris, and bundle Solaris with it.
But sun provide a single point of call for both hardware and software, a single place that will support the entire stack which is guaranteed to work together.
Apple aren’t much different, OSX is not guaranteed to run on non Apple hardware, just like Solaris is not guaranteed to run on non Sun hardware.
There is every chance of them being legally in the clear, whether they put stickers on or not. They may get bought off or intimidated off, but legally its pretty cut and dried. No post sales restrictions on otherwise legal use are enforceable. They are anti competitive. If you make cooking knives, you cannot, by post sale restrictions on use, stop people using any chopping boards but your own branded ones. If the Eula says you can only use this software if you take off your shoes and bow to Cupertino first, you don’t have to. Simple. They are right to say they’re doing nothing illegal. Violating Eulas is not illegal. Neither is it actionable to break those provisions of a Eula which are unlawful.
If you argue its a license not a sale, you need to produce cases. There are none. Its a sale.
Going to be interesting, this one.
Regarding that apple-sticker on the box:
I’m very sure Apple got a registered trademark and that they decide who are allowed to use it and call their machines Apple ones or not. So with sticker or not it’s not an Apple machine, because they got no right whatsoever to call their product and Apple product.
Aside using the Mac name (OpenMac) which they’ve now stopped, I really can’t see what the legal problem is.
The kernel is open source anyway, the OS X licence (hopefully) will be legally purchased. Granted there’s a breach of the EULA, but (as I said in my other post) I think the legal ground of EULAs somewhat questionable (and certainly not moral – but who has moral in big business
)
Psystar’s website even specifies that this device is aimed at experienced users.
Once again, Apple are more interested in their lock in’s than consumer choice. (Or maybe they’re just scared that if OS X was pitted up against a variety of hardware (in much the same way Windows and Linux are) then OS X’s ‘perfect’ image of stability and simplicity would get knocked down several pegs).
The buyers can forget about support from apple on any problems with mac os x and the hardware
Edited 2008-04-14 23:14 UTC
Well yeah, I’ve already said (3 times now) that I completely agree with a “non-support for non-Apple hardware” policy.
Bugger. Many people would argue they get non-support for Apple hardware anyway.
“Psystar’s website even specifies that this device is aimed at experienced users.”
== You will probaby run until problems with this but we don’t give a shit we just want to earn money selling systems capable of running OS X.
Same with their FAQ informing people to look up which updates work or not on insanelymac aswell == We won’t help you at all if something doesn’t work, let someone else fix that, we just want to sell this system and earn money, f–k you!
Why buy one of these when you could build a similair configuration cheaper yourself, or the one you want, or already have one, they are just trying to earn money on others work, both Apples and the people who crack the OS and make it run.
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.
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
I agree, the analogy is way off in left field. It might be more relevant if it was compared to taking a retail disc of OS X and installing it on someone else’s computer without their permission.
But give me a break, you have every right to pick your own lock with said lock-pick, just like you have every right to install OS X on your own PC. And if you want to play to the letter of the EULA, do what the parent suggests and slap an official Apple sticker on the side of the case.
Actually, when you purchase and install the software you are signing an agreement (electronic signing in the form of ‘I Agree’ is also considered one) where by under the conditions set down by the licence agreement (you don’t own the software, you licence it off the company) you agree to a certain set of conditions – in the case of Apple, you are not allowed to (or hack the software to) run it on non-Apple hardware.
Does upholind this matters? yes it does, I wish people would spend a little time thinking the impact of what dismissing EULA’s would mean; the EULA is a licence contract, your are essentially saying that licence contracts me NOTHING – then what about all those companies who purchase IP off one and another? what about companies who licence software and use it as part of their own.
I wish people here would think about the issue a little more in depth and realise that a precedent set in one area of the industry *COULD* creep through and affect everyone else. Its not just a matter of ‘the EULA screws over users’ as people here like to claim – its a matter of whether licence contracts (or even contracts!) are even able to be up held in court!
Again, you DON’T purchase software, you LICENCE it, and when you agree to the EULA, you are SIGNING a contract with the software company under what conditions the software is being licensed to you for!
This may be splitting hairs, but at what point do you actually agree to a contract with Apple?
1) At the retail store where you purchase the copy of OS X? No, I am not given a chance to read the contract before I purchase the software.
2) At installation? Maybe, it would depend on the install. If I click on the “I Agree” button during a normal install, you might have a better case for it. However, if I extract the packages manually onto my drive, I would never be presented with the installation license agreement and therefore never have a chance to accept it.
Slightly different topic: the EULA states that the software must be installed on an Apple-labeled computer? I have seen the argument all over the web to just slap an official Apple sticker on the machine. But, I have never seen a counter-argument to this. Would someone care to provide one?
Some would claim that at the point of sale; for me, that can’t be correct because in NZ (along with most other countries) there are consumer protections which allow one to take back the product. Others would say that as soon as you put it in the machine and agree to the EULA displayed (and it is displayed, if you choose to ignore it – tough). Where as I would go so far as to say that once you have installed, agree and it works, you have closed the deal.
You have agreed to all the terms and conditions of the EULA, and there fore, you have signed a contract with the software company to use the software only in the manner as outlined in the EULA; if you have an issue with the EULA, then get a lawyer and ask whether you can re-negotiate it – otherwise it is a situation of ‘put up or shut up’.
Apple-labelled meaning, a machine with Apple firmware; the same definition they used for their PowerPC; there is nothing stopping anyone from creating a PC, the line is drawn when you use Apple intellectual property (aka Apple Firmware) to enable you to run Mac OS X on a non-Apple machine – it would require, even if just a couple of lines of code, Apple firmware or emulation of it. All which violate it. Hence the reason why it was never a breach of contract to sell PowerPC equipment, it was the burning off the Apple firmware on the non-Apple machine which is a breach of contract.
Again, splitting hairs, but does the contract actually define “Apple-labeled” as “machine with Apple firmware” or, does it reference another document that does?
I might be wrong on this, but no actual copyrighted Apple firmware code is used for EFI emulation in modern day hackintoshs. Please correct me if I am mistaken.
You are the one coming up with the term ‘Apple-labeled’, the MacOS X EULA is quite clear, alo
Actually, that term appears quite frequently in license:
http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/macosx105.pdf
Well, its pretty damn common-sense; a machine made under the licence Apple (in the case of the machines contracted out to assemble) and with Apple firmware. In other words, an Apple machine. I don’t know how one could make that any clearer. Its as stupid as those who think they own the software – if they, after purchasing software, OWNED the software then one could easily reverse engineer, copy HUGE chucks (because after all, owning the software would mean also owning copyright over it), and then resell it. The whole software model would go down the toilet.
Those who have purchased the retail version of Mac OS X do not own the copyright, but they do own a copy. Its just one copy and they can’t distribute it to others, but according to the US copyright code, they can do the following as someone earlier pointed out:
The key there is adaptation, which would include reverse engineering if it was necessary to run on your specific hardware.
Don’t be silly. Since the EULA is invalid (in NL at least), you actually DO own that SPECIFIC copy you paid for – you do not own anything else. Not the redistribution rights, not the trademarks, not the copyright. You paid for the COPY of the software, and you OWN that copy, and thus, property rights apply to THAT SPECIFIC copy.
I have actually contacted legal experts today, and asked them about this specific mater. I will double-check their reply with a lawyer’s office, and then turn that into an article. This will settle the matter once and for all (at least as far as The Netherlands is concerned).
If you claim, as you claim, that software EULA are invalid, then why do they include them?
Whats more, if you were going to take that logic, and say you own the software, then wouldn’t you also say that gives you unfettered rights to install it on as many computers as you own? after all, you said EULA’s are invalid, so therefore, any restrictions on use of software would be in the EULA and thus, invalid.
What about free software like opensource software? a licence is essentially a EULA; it places restrictions on what you can and cannot do with the software – by your logical extension, does that mean that software licences are therefore, invalid?
Again, I wish people would actually think about the impact of one declaration has when rolled out to the various possible scenarios. Things don’t occur in a vacuum. You declare something invalid here, and somewhere else, it’ll have an impact.
I’m guessing we don’t sign a contract every time we ‘buy’ music because that ‘contract’ is basically copyright laws. Now with EULA’s they’re ADDING ANOTHER CONTRACT, after you’ve purchased something. You could buy software without an EULA and you still cannot redistribute a million copies.
It is on the basis (I would assume under fair use) that you can make backup copies, tape versions (to play in the car) and rip the music for music players.
The EULA is a contract, it is a contract where by you agree to the idea where by you do not own the software, you are infact licencing the software off the company for a said price with said conditions.
For me, I don’t support the notion of EULA, I hate the very idea of having these sorts of restrictions – which is why I find it funny when I see pea brained half witts mark down my posts (not because my posts are spam, abusive of marketing – simply because they don’t agree with it (which is a violation of the moderation policy, a policy they agreed to, as users, when they signed up to this website)).
If you want to stop people the EULA and restrictions, then stop using software which places restrictions on users – send a message to software companies through your purchasing habits that their behaviour is unacceptable and that you won’t tolerate it.
Err, the moderation system has changed. Up and down votes are based on agreement these days. However, the communication about this thing has been abysmal (our fault) so we’ll get into this.
In addition, complaining about moderations in the comments section also happens to be a violation of our policy
. Please do not reply to this comment, we’re sorting this stuff out as we speak.
For about 348267 times now, I have tried to explain that that EULAcontractagreementthing you keep talking about is INVALID. Not because of the EULA itself, but because of the TIME and PLACE of presentation of this EULA, as well as (possibly) the fact that the EULA lacks any signatures, making it most likely invalid a second time.
So, you can keep on saying like a broken record player that we agreed to a contract, but if the contract is invalid BY LAW, you don’t have to live by its terms.
Now we’re getting somewhere. You agree to this contract after you buy the software. I think that is the point some are trying to argue. Also, some or all of it may not be legal. Like the “I will punch Bill Gates if I see him clause.”
Or, you do what you want and deal with the court if they press charges. Using the dollar as pressure only works under ideal capitalism. When you have broken laws, and companies and government acting like mafia it doesn’t work. If I want to stop all extra software licenses… that means I only buy ????? a few cheesy games for windows… ohhh wait, would have to buy windows… damnit! Down to lesser of evils.. BSD v GPL2 v GPL3 v EULA…. all while not castrating myself.
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.
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.
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.
I still don’t know what those terms are. Even when I look at the damn things. Do you seriously read the entire EULA every time you install every piece of software including updates? They’re desinged to be bypassed. If users actually had to read and understand them, they’d just say screw it and move on to something else. Complicated, lenghty contracts on simple daily purchases should be void.
But it could suddenly be legal. People might notice they’re being screwed by pages of details and demand something simpler.
My DVD didn’t come with an EULA, so what’s your point? I’m not trying to break copyright, just install software I purchased on 1 non-apple branded computer.
All copyright stuff, not EULA. We’re not arguing copyright, stop. When I buy a CD it didn’t grant me the right to put it in a CD player and listen to it.. So why can I? If you really want to compare this with music, then picture only playing your CD on a Sony branded player, as enforced by an EULA inside the CD you purchase. (kinda reminds me of iTunes) That is a harm to consumers, and should not be legal. If every little draconian legalese thing like that was allowed, we’d all still be using vacuum tubes for computers and have no music.. art or anything else.
It may not come with a EULA but most movies usually come with a nice disclaimer letting you know what you can and can’t do with your copy of the dvd. Its that nice blue FBI warning they give you.
Playing devils advocate, one could easily go to the website and read the EULA online in regards to the product. Before I purchased a copy of Office 2008, I read the restrictions and found that in my case I was better off purchasing a copy of Office 2008 Home and Student Edition. All that derived from having read the EULA.
The problem is that people want Mac OS X so badly, they’ll use any excuse in their book to justify what they do. I use to use the same rationale when I was a kid and pirated software; you know the excuses, “oh, well, its just me”, “well, it isn’t as though I’m copy and selling them” or the all time favourite, “well, they’re a big company, who cares, they make millions already”.
Theft is theft no matter how many bells and sparklers are attached to it – hence the reason I have a lot more respect for the likes of Stallman who is a fundamentalist when it comes to free software than when it comes to the likes of the people on here who bash Microsoft and yet run pirated copies of Windows and Office.
Edited 2008-04-16 03:55 UTC
To intimidate users? A few pages back, someone detailed a software package for the Amiga (?) that required you to actively break the seal of the EULA, taped on a bag that contained the software. If the seal was not broken, and you disagreed with the EULA, you could send it back for a refund. THAT would be the proper course of action.
That depends on what you do with it. I was unclear in a few of my earlier comments in here on this issue. Dutch copyright law allows you to make copies for personal use, and makes no mention whatsoever of how many installations you may make – this restriction is in the EULA. Since Dutch Civil Law clearly marks post-purchase EULAs as invalid, this restriction is ALSO invalid. So yes, you may install as many copies as you wish for personal use.
However, copyright law comes into play as soon as you move it outside of the personal use area. This includes installing the copy on friends’ machines, giving copies to friends, selling copies, giving away copies, and so on.
The difference is that open source licenses do NOT restrict what you are allowed to under normal copyright law. An open source license grants me rights normal copyright law would not give me, where as a proprietary license restricts what I am allowed to do under copyright law (like, installing multiple copies).
I don’t give a rat’s ass about impact. I know my rights as a Dutch consumer, and those rights are binding, non-negotiable so to speak, to protect Dutch consumers. According to Dutch consumer protection laws, post-purchase EULAs are invalid, and whether or not that has an impact on poor old Apple and Microsoft is of no damn concern to me.
Copyright law, not the EULA, is what prevents someone from redistributing.
And that’s what the open source licenses cover: redistribution. The GPL is distribution license, allowing you more freedom with the work than copyright allows, not further limiting your rights under copyright law which a EULA attempts to do.
Edit: Oops, looks like Thom beat me to it.
Edited 2008-04-15 16:51 UTC
I would hope that most people, when they say this, mean they own a copy of it. Naturally you don’t become owner of the product you’re purchasing.
You can legally reverse engineer your copy. The question is what you are allowed to do with your findings.
This is not much different than ‘buying’ music. They shouldn’t be able to use the term ‘buy’ or ‘sale’ if it’s a rental or lease. That’s deceptive, and probably why we’re having this argument.
It’s like I go to Bookmart and ‘buy’ a book in shrinkwrap, and when I get home and open it, on the inside of the cover is a piece of tape holding the pages and a ‘license’ that says ‘You agree to not to read this book under non Bookmart lamps. Break the tape if you agree.’ If that is legal, it’s time for regime change. Even if the license was on the outside, that’s BS…. Now to really make this example look like the software/music/movie industry, picture almost every book except certain “open” books having these damn licenses.
I hope a judge does favor these guys, and in the process manages for force massive changes in the IP industry.
(next up, every time you take a crap, “You agree to only use Bunghole brand toilet paper. Flush the toilet to accept this license.”
Utter nonsense. As others have already tried to explain, I can sign a contract with ten billion million signatures, but if that contract violates some basic rights I have as a human, that contract will not stand the test of any judge in the western world.
There are known cases of EULAs that stated things like “the user is not allowed to publicise negative information about this product”. Such an EULA would violate a very basic human right in the western world: the right to free speech. Consequently, such an EULA would never stand the test of common law (breach of contract is a common matter, not a criminal one).
By telling me I cannot install my copy of Leopard on a non-Apple computer, the EULA violates basic property rights; and at least in The Netherlands (but I’m sure this goes for other western countries too), property rights are way up there with the right to free speech, since they are a cornerstone of western society. Signing any contract that violates this right, whether you knew about it or not, will mean nothing; I don’t think there will be any judge in the western world that will not smash the Apple EULA to smithereens.
Contrary to popular belief, you actually DO own software. You paid for it, just like you paid for a DVD or a CD. The same copyright laws apply, and the same property rights apply. Just because Steve included a bunch of text with an “I agree” button underneath doesn’t change anything about all this. A contract that violates basic rights you have as a human will BY DEFINITION be void.
EDIT: Assuming you install it on just one computer, of course.
Edited 2008-04-15 07:04 UTC
True. At least, a contract is not legaly binding if you agree to your rights (i.e. as described in law) being violated. However, I doubt whether the OS X EULA (and Vista’s for that matter) contains much that would ‘violate some basic right’.
Irrelevant, as, as far as I know, the OS X EULA does not contain such a statement, and even if it would, that’s not what prevents you from using the software on a different machine.
It’d be a very ammusing excersize seeing you trying to defend that in a court of law. You may claim it’s a type of tie-in sale (“koppelverkoop” in Dutch law) and you may feel disgruntled about it, but Apple really doesn’t take any property from you (that’s what property rights are about) when they prevent you from using a product on a machine of your choice.
I’m pretty sure that a contract that transfers the ownership of something you have to someone else is perfectly legal binding. It is called “sale”. You must have some really strange notion of “property rights”.
Perhaps not, but that’s because there’ll be no actual court case. Remember that Microsoft’s Vista license has similar provisions like preventing you from running Vista in a virtual machine. I’m pretty sure these are reasonably sound licence agreements, and I’m also pretty sure we won’t see many court cases about them.
Now really? Good think you know this for sure, as I always thought the software is licensed to you instead of sold to you. Come to think of it, I’m pretty sure the only thing you actually own is the DVD, the case etc. Come on Thom, present hard evidence instead of blurbing about.
I paid to go see a movie in a theatre? Do I now own the theatre? Or the movie? I paid to rent a car. Do I now own the car?
You also do not own the contents of a CD or DVD. They are not licensed to you as software is, but there’s very strict regulations about their use.
1) The OS X EULA does not violate any basic right, as far as you have demonstrated.
2) If I install it on two computers, it’s OK for my basic rights to be violated???
JAL
Tie-in-sale? What are you on about? I didn’t mention that at all.
Property rights entail, for one thing, that you can do as you very well please with your property, as long as it does not break any laws. I can buy a knife, but law prohibits me from using it to kill someone. I can buy a CD, but copyright law prevents me from making copies and selling those. I can buy OS X, but copyright law prevents me from making copies and selling those.
However, I can buy a knife and use it to slice my bread; it’s my property, and slicing bread with a knife is not prohibited by law. I can buy a CD, and use it as a frisbee; it’s my property, and using a CD as a frisbee is not prohibited by law. I can buy OS X, and install it on a non-Apple computer; it’s my property, and installing it on a non-Apple computer is not prohibited by law (installing that same copy on multiple machines IS prohibited by law, by the way).
In fact, all of the above examples are things that fall within property rights (eigendomsrecht in NL). Let me quote and translate the relevant part from Dutch Common Law ( http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eigendom ):
(Some legalese removed in the translation).
Since installing OS X on non-Apple hardware does not violate law or the rights of others, the EULA violates property rights by limiting what I can do with my property (at least in The Netherlands, but I’m sure this goes for most other western countries too). Dutch Common Law (consumer sale) speaks only of “sale” and thus property rights, unless specific agreements have been made PRIOR to sale. PRIOR. An EULA is “agreed” upon POST sale, and as such, you OWN your copy.
See above.
No, because that would violate copyright law. Try to keep up.
Edited 2008-04-15 10:19 UTC
No, “may” as in “could”, not that you did. Apple selling product A (OS X) and more or less forcing you to also buy product B (an Apple branded computer) is tie-in sale of some sorts.
All true.
All true again.
Wrong and wrong again. You don’t buy OS X. You buy a DVD which contains OS X (and with which you are perfectly allowed to frisbee) and some other stuff like a box and probably some hardcopy quick install guide. But you do not buy the software contained on the DVD. That software is property of Apple. What you pay for, apart from that DVD etc., is Apple’s effort in making that software, and by paying for that, Apple grants you, if you agree to their EULA, the eternal use of that software. It’s not yours, you are not buying it, no, it’s a lease, a rent or whatever you want to call it. And therefore, property laws do not apply. If I rent a car, I cannot use it for racing the Nuernburg, because the rental license explicitly forbids driving on a race track. I you ‘buy’ OS X, i.e. license it, you cannot use it for installing on a non-Apple computer, because – well, you get it.
No, it is not. It is prohibited because Apple tells you so in the EULA, and the law just allows Apple to tell you so. If Apple wants to grant you to install it on a 1000 computers, it is allowed to do so without breaking the law.
Indeed, but again, the software is explicitly not your property. Look, it’s not that I am in anyway defending that this is even possible, I don’t like it one bit, but it is reality.
It could be argued that consumers should know that buying an OS (or other software) means they do not own it, just as they do not own music when they buy a CD, or own a film when they buy a DVD. In that case it could be understood that it is not a type of “sale” but more of a type of “rental”. Also, even if you are right about Dutch law (which is rather permissive in many ways in these cases), I’m pretty sure in the US Apple has a solid ground to stand on.
JAL
You’re grasping straws now. Dutch civil law (=common law) is CRYSTAL CLEAR: something is a sale if no prior agreement has been made. Since the EULA is agreed upon AFTER purchase, there is NO prior agreement, and as such, the EULA is INVALID. Dutch civil law leaves NO doubt WHATSOEVER on this matter.
So, when you purchase a retail box of Leopard, it constitutes as a normal, bog-standard sale, which means that you own the disc, the box it came in, and the COPY of the software that’s on it (copy emphasised since you only own THAT specific copy). Just as when you buy a painting, you OWN the painting, and as long as you do not redistribute any copies of that painting, you are free to do with that painting as you please (since you own it), UNLESS you made an agreement prior to sale with the seller, in which he states that he demands that the painting be accessible to the public (happens quite often when selling paintings).
There is NO valid agreement detailing what I cannot do with my copy of Leopard between me and Apple with regards to my retail copy of Leopard (since the EULA is invalid, as Dutch civil law clearly states), and as such, property law allows me to do whatever I want with it, including installing it on a non-Apple machine. Apple only has a case as soon as I start breaking other laws with my use, such as copying the disc AND redistributing it (making personal copies is allowed in The Netherlands).
If Apple (or any other manufacturer for that matter) wants their EULA to be valid, they will have to present me with it PRIOR to sale. Dutch civil law is CRYSTAL CLEAR. In addition, I just learned that Belgian and Swedish laws are more or less similar to Dutch civil law in this matter.
Edited 2008-04-15 13:28 UTC
Since the EULA is agreed upon AFTER purchase, there is NO prior agreement, and as such, the EULA is INVALID. Dutch civil law leaves NO doubt WHATSOEVER on this matter.
So, when you purchase a retail box of Leopard, it constitutes as a normal, bog-standard sale, which means that you own the disc, the box it came in, and the COPY of the software that’s on it (copy emphasised since you only own THAT specific copy).
The same applies to Finland also. EULAs are invalid in here and clicking on the “I Agree” button does not validate them. Too bad that so many people do believe that they are in fact valid just because they get presented with such when trying to install the app. Anyways, when you buy something you own that specific item and may do with it as you please as long as you don’t break copyright laws.
You can say that again for Brazil.
Don’t say that too loud Thom, if they hear that they might actually start “presenting it to you prior to sale.”
Says me who is Dutch too and presently building a pc that will run OS X.
Talk about a bloody hyperbole. Damn, I could use that ‘violation of human rights’ for not being able to go down the road and purchase 25grams of weed from my local dealer – yeah, as if protesting to the cops about my ‘rights to purchase weed’ is suddenly going to invalidate the controlled substances law *rolls eyes*
I answered this post by starting at the bottom, think about what you said here, and what you said at the bottom of the post – then think about what you blathered on about in this post.
Pardon? that is another example of hyperbole. The example YOU are referring to is the issue of (I’m sure there have been others) is that of the pet shop benchmark and the clause in .NET Framework which prohibited benchmarks being used without the permission of Microsoft.
Sugar buns, do you know what you do? you shun that product, you refuse to use that product – and if it is so bad, more people will do. You refuse to use the product until the company changes their policy. Its called the market mate. I know in Europe you like big nanny state coming in to protect you from the mean old companies, corporation and *froth froth* businesses, but perish the thought, how about using the power of consumer pressure instead?
Oh bullshit. You are making out that you were FORCED into signing a contract against your will. You are making out that you have no choice but to run Mac OS X. You CHOOSE to purchase MacOS X, therefore you CHOOSE accept ALL the restrictions. Don’t like the restrictions, then don’t bloody well use the product! We aren’t talking about a market where a monopoly is FORCING you to use a product. You have VOLUNTARILY chosen Mac OS X, and CHOSEN to take on those restrictions.
Again, bullcrap. You don’t own a damn thing. If you OWNED the software, then you could reverse engineer it, you could resell copies of it, you could install it on as many computers as you want, you could do what ever you damn well please, because you would OWN the software, not merely licence it under a set of restrictions.
How about taking a look at the bigger picture before saying such STUPID and IRRATIONAL statements claiming that some how you OWN the software. You might OWN the CD, the box, the book, but the intellectual property on it, you have licenced it FROM a company for a set of conditions. Again, if you don’t like those conditions, then don’t bloody use it!
Do you *REALL* think you OWN Linux when you download it? of course not! it is licenced under restrictions, just like any other product. And guess what perky buns, if you don’t like it, YOU have the right to refuse to use it! its called the freemarket, learn about it some time!
Hang on, you puked the above amount of crap then finish off saying, “install it on one computer”? Mate, wake up, you just then, in that small sentence have placed restrictions on the software AFTER declaring that to be a basic violation of your human rights! how the hell do you jump from blathering on about ‘human rights’ then place a restriction on the use of the software that can be only done via a contract (EULA)! that is a case of broken logic!
No you don’t. This is why we have consumer law. You cant put whatever the hell you like in a contract/license and then that magically become a valid clause.
You own the copy, you can do whatever the hell you want with it. Sure, you’re voiding your warranty and cant go to Apple and complain how OSX does not work on your Intel machine but how and where you install OSX is none of Apple’s business.
I know it’s trendy to remove the consumers rights but most sane countries has sensible laws against this kind of bullshit.
There seems to be a lot of screaming in capitals going on.
Take it easy fellers, it’s just a EULA that only a handful of Hackintossers (I mean that in a nice way, I’m building an off the shelves OS X machine for a friend of mine) have to worry about.
You know, Apple is a hardware vendor.
They’re dead without the hardware ~ did I mention they make some nice software too?
But when was this EULA thing ever tested in court?
Waste of time, go impeach some govt people over there.
Well for me, I don’t care what people do with their machines. I own a Mac, I like using Mac OS X, but to me, I don’t care what others do in their privacy of their own house. If they want to sit at home and jerk off to a poster of Steve Jobs, they’re quite within their rights to do so. The issue is a company who is creating a product and declaring it to be acceptable to violate EULA placed on software.
EULA have been tested in court; companies who install software onto more than one computer is a violation not of copyright law (according to people here, they own the software, they own all the hardware, so therefore, they’re in the right – if they installed it on machines they didn’t own, then it could be considered copyright violation (aka sharing software with someone else)) but of the EULA which they agreed to – that is why companies are charged per-user, per-cpu, per-something-or-other.
A EULA is no different to a terms of use agreement with an internet provider. You don’t own the cable, you don’t own the circuit, you merely licence access off the company for a said price with certain restrictions; again, too many people make stupid declarations on this website not considering the broader impact of what they declare.
Again, you declare EULA invalid, you declare a whole range of agreements invalid; and btw, you don’t need to sign anything to agree to a contract. There are numerous examples of where there are agreements without signature. Joining up to a ISP, for example, you agree to their terms and conditions. When you own a telephone, you agree to certain conditions placed on it.
There is no use creating hyperbole like many do so on here, because it completely ignores the broader issues at stake.
Edited 2008-04-15 16:39 UTC
EULA have been tested in court
Indeed, here in Finland EULA has been tested in court. And EULA lost. It was a case where EULA clearly said that you aren’t allowed to sell your copy of the software to someone else if you don’t need it anymore but the customer who had bought the software still wanted to sell it. The court ruled that EULAs are indeed invalid and the customer was allowed to resell the software
The software makers just do include EULAs in the hopes that people will believe they are legitimate and thus the company can control the customers a little. Oh, and most companies just won’t bother to make a different version of their software for countries which don’t accept EULAs as valid contracts. Why would they? It’d just mean they’d have to sell duplicate copies of their software, some with the EULA removed and some with it still intact.
A EULA is no different to a terms of use agreement with an internet provider.
It sure is. When you sign up to an internet provider, you do sign your name on a paper (or to a digital agreement) before you get to use the service. And it indeed is a service, not a copy of something physical or digital.
When you own a telephone, you agree to certain conditions placed on it.
Telephone usage is covered by the law, so that too is like comparing apples and, well, f.ex. cars. Ie. it makes no sense.
Which is condition placed on the transferring of Goods; I assume that it was related to the transferring of an OEM licenced product (normally OEM versions say that you can’t resell them). I know in New Zealand that you resell software, the only declaration you have to make is that you no longer have a copy (or copies) of it (and using it).
Even if one restriction is proven to be invalid, it doesn’t make the whole concept of an EULA invalid. It only makes that particular clause in it invalid.
When you go “I Agree”, that is an electronic signature. I have on several occasions taken back software which I have disagreed with the licence. I took it back, asked for a refund, and I received it. Most countries have atleast a period of instant refund without questions asked (a cooling down period). If you disagree with the EULA, you’re quite within your rights to take it back.
Actually no. The telephones in New Zealand are regulated by the carriers, not by the law. Violation of the agreement can result in disconnection. If you think you have been badly treated, you go to the telecommunications industry ombudsmen – in other words, completely outside of the legal system.
Except it’s not a clause that is invalid, it’s the ENTIRE LICENSE that is invalid, because it is presented AFTER purchase.
That’s the debatable point, and one of the points I presented to legal experts here in The Netherlands. The problem with this kind of signature is that it is impersonal – who installed (and thus clicked “I agree”) the software? If my mother is the one who clicked “I agree” I obviously did not, does that mean the license is none of my concern, and I may neglect it?
With a proper signed contract, this is not a concern, since it contains a name. In addition, you have proper online signatures, codes that are tied to your social security number, for instance (we Dutch have that).
Yes, we Dutch are drones, wired to the system.
Which is condition placed on the transferring of Goods; I assume that it was related to the transferring of an OEM licenced product (normally OEM versions say that you can’t resell them). I know in New Zealand that you resell software, the only declaration you have to make is that you no longer have a copy (or copies) of it (and using it).
It was not an OEM lisenced product actually, why would anyone go to court for something that costs at max 150e? I don’t remember what sort of software it was, but it was worth several thousands. And it was indeed the EULA which denied you from reselling the software. And just believe me, EULAs, in the whole, are invalid here. I just wish that would apply to the rest of the world, too.
When you go “I Agree”, that is an electronic signature.
Here electronic signatures are only accepted if the method for validating the user’s personality is accepted by the government. Usually this means going through your online bank service, inputting your accout and password information and the bank service referring your social security information and such to the registration service. And even then, you have to have before visited the bank personally, proved your identity and agreed to their terms of this service. A contract is not a valid contract unless it has both parties’ signatures in one form or another and both parties are given their copy of the contract.
This is of course only about the law here in Finland, I can’t say for certain how it is for any other countries. But, as far as I know it is similar in Sweden, too.
Many years ago, i had a piece of software for the Amiga… It came in a cardboard box and stated on the back that there were terms and conditions inside.
Inside, was a paper bag holding the floppy disks with the terms printed on it. By opening the bag to access the floppies you were accepting the terms. If you reject the terms, you were guaranteed a refund providing the bag hadn’t been opened.
It would probably have been better if the text were printed on the back of the box, but it was a large block of text that would have made the packaging quite ugly.
Er, no. Virtually every jurisdiction in the world has stipulations on validity of contracts, to the point that contracts can be invalidated even if agreed to by both parties.
Some jurisdictions prevent minors from entering into contractual agreements, for instance, which would immediately invalidate a license “contract”. Some jurisdictions refuse to recognize “click-throughs” as acceptance, particularly when there is no recourse for the customer to refuse and be properly refunded for “contractual” terms added after the sale transaction. Some jurisdictions weigh the factor of consideration, whereby a contract essentially can’t favor one party over the other without relatively equal benefit to both parties. And most jurisdictions, frankly, view software as any other copyright-protected product, and in doing so, enforce the appropriate protections for consumers and content producers, regardless of the EULA.
We had a scam going on here in Toronto, and I’m sure it’s happened in other regions, whereby private parking-enforcement companies would “ticket” people on private property with a violation notice designed to look like an official municipal parking ticket and a subsequent threat of legal action if the fine was not payed. The city has had to pass bylaws and regulations prohibiting that type of action, because it was deemed illegally coercive. So it is with EULA’s. Just because they look legal, doesn’t make them legal. But by the same token, just because an EULA isn’t really valid, doesn’t provide freedom to violate the other laws that protect software, such as copyright.
See my point above. Many jurisdictions question the license vs. ownership theory. When you purchase a book, you’re not purchasing a license to read the book. When you purchase a DVD, you’re not purchasing a license to view the movie. Software is covered by the very same copyright laws. The idea that software is somehow “above” this is simply ridiculous, and the idea that it is somehow entitled to stronger restrictions is ludicrous. Software is content, nothing more. There are sufficient laws in place within most jurisdictions that can be applied to prevent the unlawful copying and distribution of it, enforcing controls on what you can do with legally purchased content simply exceeds the boundaries of what free government should do.
Frankly, the software vendors know this, which is why so many of the dominant ones are trying to move to software-as-a-service, because it nicely by-steps all of that. It provides an annuity-based revenue stream, and allows them to bypass the sticky issue of consumer rights.
Note, that’s not to say I advocate software theft. And anyone that slaps a copy of OSX onto a non-Apple platform is stealing the software, unless they are also removing it from the original Apple system they purchased it on, or purchasing it from a store.
But EULAs have nothing to do with it. Copyright law is sufficient.
A EULA simply does not meet the requirements of a contract. There is no “consideration” (payment) as you have already bought the software and there is no offer as the “contract” only takes away rights that the user otherwise has.
Thus, a EULA is not a contract. It has no more legal standing than the “warranty void if removed” stickers on various products.
When a company licences another’s software/technology, an actual contract is drawn up and is agreed to before payment or reception of the software/technology. Besides, these contracts also (typically) grant the recipient redistribution rights that they would not otherwise have.
(Even when buying software libraries on the internet, you have to agree to the licence terms before payment and receipt of said software.)
Of course contracts are enforceable in law, but EULAs are not contracts. They are simply a pseudo-legal “agreement” that is used to scare the consumer into not exercising their legal rights. (Note that I have yet to see a EULA that even refers to itself as a contract.)
Aside from all that, even in some bizarre alternate universe where EULAs are legally binding, this particular case only depends on the phrase “Apple-labelled computer”. Does that mean I can scrawl “Apple” on a post-it and slap it on the side? What if I use one of the apple-logo stickers that came with my iPod?
Again, you DON’T purchase software, you LICENCE it, and when you agree to the EULA, you are SIGNING a contract with the software company under what conditions the software is being licensed to you for!
So what is it? A license? Or a contract? Can’t be both at the same time. Since the misnamed EULA puts restrictions on the end user outside the scope of Copyright law, it must be deemed a contract.
Since it is a contract, most serious countries have safeguards against one sided and unenforceable contracts. On of the stipulations is that a contract needs to be signed by both parties, with a valid signature.
Since clicking OK does not constitute a unique and authentic signature, most EU countries deem shrink wrap EULA’s unenforceable.
Really? I dont see my signature anywhere on any contract or other legally binding document.
All I did was click a button. Clicking a button != signing a contract.
Just because Apple (and other software companies) lawyers wants you to think it is doesn’t mean it is so.
Even if it was a contract it doesnt mean all the clauses are valid and legally binding.
Maybe this is a better analogy. You buy some pepper and it has only one legal use according to the EULA – for soup. When you try to add the pepper to steak, Apple’s legal team barges in and takes you to court. They’re controlling how you use what you are supposed to own.
Of course, this doesn’t apply only to Apple. Microsoft, the music, gaming and movie industries, etc. all do this to some extent.
Edited 2008-04-15 04:17 UTC
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.
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.
“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.
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.
“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.
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.
Obviously you haven’t bought a license to run it on a PC.
But where are the clones? There ought to be clones…
Well, maybe next year.
But where are the clones? There ought to be clones…
Well, maybe next year.
Awesome. There should be more Stephen Sondheim references on this website. Seriously. Like every day.
Edited 2008-04-14 23:35 UTC
“Don’t bother, they’re here”
Well the website was working a moment ago, just got too slow to continue.
These guys seem to be all over the place, the OpenComputer seems to be a recent business addition to what otherwise looks nothing like your typical PC builder. I don’t think I’d buy from them in a million years but I would like to know the exact spec of their machine so I could get the motherboard directly and do the rest myself.
I have a MiniMac & Leopard so I am not too happy with Apple when this very closed hardware failed after only 30 days, motherboard no less. If it had been an open platform I could have replaced the board myself and could do upgrades at will. It bugs me no end that Apple will not sell user expandable boxes with out paying several times as much. I really only want MiniMac with a little bit more capability and dual video out, this OpenComputer would be ideal for what I want.
to tell you the truth if i purchased any piece of equipment, from PC’s to Mac’s if it failed after 30 days i certainly wouldn’t be replacing the parts myself. Perhaps you can’t replace the motherboard on the mac mini, but then you can’t replace the motherboard on a dell as they are pretty much bespoke to the case, and again if i purchased a white box generic pc from my local supplier, if it failed after 30 days i would get him to replace the motherboard.
We tend to focus on MS, but real competition in the Apple arena would make for a stronger Mac platform and benefit us all, whether we use that platform or not. The Mac user base would be larger, and MS’s proportionately smaller, if Apple did not insist upon owning it all. Apple’s corporate selfishness has consequenses for everyone. I applaud any effort aimed at opening Mac as a platform. (Even if they can’t actually call it a Mac.)
They will do the Leopard installation for free, but only if you buy the software from them for $155 extra. So the $399 “Mac” is now actually $550, or else you supply Leopard yourself. Kind of odd that it’s actually cheaper to buy the OS from Apple, though I’m not sure how these guys will manage to purchase copies anyway, now that they’ve gone public. If they even supply a Leopard DVD, who wants to bet that it’s a burned copy?
I like to root for the underdog, but I have a feeling this one will be over way too soon.
However, this was worth a chuckle:
Can I run updates on my OpenMac?
“The answer is yes and no. No because there are some updates that are decidedly non-safe. Yes because most updates are not non-safe. It’s best to check on InsanelyMac for this information but when in doubt don’t update it. You may have to reinstall your OS X if it is a non-safe update.”
Edited 2008-04-15 00:00 UTC
I’m sure they have some just passed the bar exam lawyer chomping at the bit, wanting to challenge the legality of the EULA. That probably doesn’t bode well, but maybe he’s up to it and gets a sympathetic judge.
If they aren’t prepared, they really jumped the gun and they don’t have a chance. Or maybe they’re just trying to show Apple the market for an xMac.
Hopefully they’ll stick it out long enough to fill orders after a few reviews.
Installing OSX on a non-apple computer would be a breach of contract according to the EULA, which is essentially the contract you are agreeing to when you purchase the operating system. So Macintosh is allowed to sue you for breaching.
Except, of course, that you’re only allowed to read the contract after you’ve bought the item. Thus, the contract is not part of the sale and is unenforceable.
There’s a reason this has not been challenged before.
Actually no. You don’t agree to anything when you buy the software, you just hand over some cash. You do however “agree” to it during the install, but there are the following issues:
1. You don’t actually sign your name, you just click a button. It might not be a valid contract.
2. You can’t use the product unless you agree. That might be a breach of fair-use.
3. You aren’t notified of these restrictions at the point of sale.
Until someone challenges in court and raises these issues, it’s not clear at all whether EULA are worth the paper they’re (not) written on.
Edited 2008-04-15 04:24 UTC
For arguments sake lets say the above is true (which many dispute), this is not an issue for the company selling the computer. Note we are talking about an End User License Agreement, the seller of the computer is not the End User.
Looks bad for Apple … this tells Apple’s customers or potential customers that they are selling them 400$ worth of hardware for 2000$.
I always thought that Apple hardware was overpriced, but not like that.
No. This shows a box that works as a big version of the Mac Mini.
Not really, if you look at the spec you are getting less than a Mac Mini with the hardware config. By the time you add the iMac equivalent video car, firewire ports, and additional HDD you are up above the $700, add the OS and you get to $850 odd, and you still don’t have a built in webcam, monitor, keyboard, mouse etc.
It is however a product that Apple does not offer, a stripped down machine that can be Upgraded… that is where the value is.
You’re comparing a single product (the Open) to multiple product lines within Apples brand, and complaining that it doesn’t match any of them.
You cannot fairly compare a BYOKMV system to an iMac. They are targeted at completely different market segments.
The Open is best compared to the Mini — which is targeted to the same general audience as the Open. People who have a keyboard, mouse, and video display.
When compared to the mini, you have to max-out the most expensive mini model to even get close to the specs of the Open. Even then, you’re looking at limitations such as: No upgradeable CPU. The mini maxes out at 2GB RAM, the Open at 4GB. The HD’s aren’t even close to the same in capacity or performance (the Open has higher capacity, faster drives)….
Even with the $50 for the firewire card, and $155 for the OS X install, and an extra $80 for iLife ’08 the $685 Open is significantly cheaper than a $950 mini.
To compare the Open to anything other than the Mini is completely confusing the situation, the target markets, and obvious premium that Apple charges for slow hardware that comes in a small, white box.
Assuming that updating the system takes an hour each time I need to do what software update would normally handle…
At $265 in savings over a mini, and that the opportunity cost for an hour of my time is $26.50, (I’m low-balling, but you get the point) I can do ten installs and still break-even.
The mini maxes out at 2GB RAM, the Open at 4GB.
No. While Apple only sells a 2GB option, it doesn’t mean you can’t open the box and put in 4GB.
Even with the $50 for the firewire card, and $155 for the OS X install, and an extra $80 for iLife ’08 the $685 Open is significantly cheaper than a $950 mini.
Except that the Mac mini models are $599 and $799. Not $940.
That’s still way cheaper than buying everything to make this generic box equal to everything that comes with a Mac mini.
Edited 2008-04-16 16:54 UTC
Yet again, a mac mini has onboard video, with no options to upgrade. This opencomputer has options to upgrade it’s video card. For me, that sets it up there with the powermac.
It might look a bit shady (actually it does not to me but I can see why people would think that), but they make really good points on their website. Even if Psystar are going nowhere with this, hopefully it will at least make Apple think (think well, not only different :p) .
Edit: I’ve changed my mind… at least legally, it looks pretty shady/uncertain… x)
Also, it looks like hell finally froze over…
Edited 2008-04-15 06:22 UTC
They make really good points?
Can I run updates on my Open Computer?
The answer is yes and no. No because there are some updates that are decidedly non-safe. Yes because most updates are not non-safe. It’s best to check on InsanelyMac for this information but when in doubt don’t update it. You may have to reinstall your OS X if it is a non-safe update.
At least they have a sense of humor! 🙂
Edited 2008-04-15 06:14 UTC
Yeah, like making the point that certain models of Apple computers have a substandard graphics card (at the very least, compared to the rest of the hardware).
Or I suppose no Mac people have ever complained about that? :o)
Edited 2008-04-15 06:25 UTC
Just a question, is it allowed to run MacOS on a Virtual Machine? Because that wouldn’t (and couldn’t) be an “Apple-labelled computer” as well…
I believe it’s not permitted… unless the computer you are running it on is an Apple product.
Noone. It’s a PC. Its mainboard is capable of booting OSX. How does this make for a clone..? There are plenty mainboards now that can boot OSX, that does not make them ‘clones’, especially not unauthorised ones. It is the other way round: Apple runs now on PC hardware, given the right BIOS.
I may ask a honest question: The qualification to be able to run Mac OS X comes just from a special BIOS configuration? So, for example, you buy a normal PC mainboard, do something to the BIOS (i. e. you use a flashing tool to overwrite it with something else) and now your PC will boot and run Mac OS X? Is it really that easy?
I agree with your idea that a simple exchange of the BIOS would not turn a generic x86 board into an Apple clone. But I can’t imagine that this is the only significant difference between generic x86 and Apple-made systems…
If I understood it correctly, Intel Macs do not use a BIOS strictly speaking, but EFI. And it is kinda picky about the hardware, so those running hackintoshes had to choose their hardware carefully (Intel graphics chipsets seem to be universally accepted, though so it seems to be just a matter of picking up an Intel mobo with EFI instead of a BIOS). Then they have to hack a kernel module (or whatever Apple calls it) to disable the DRM module or something close to that effect and that’s it!
There are some glitches here and there but apart from that you can barely tell that it is not working on Apple hardware. Or that’s what they say on some Mac websites, I have yet to try that myself…
Edited 2008-04-15 15:37 UTC
No its not quite that simple. Go to osx86 and read the forums.
But, its getting closer and closer to that. And yes, essentially the only difference now between an Intel PC shipped by Apple and one shipped by Dell is EFI.
It is about post sales restrictions on use. They are unlawful in all of the OECD. You cannot tell people what to do with what they have bought, not in a Eula, not in a signed contract. Contrary to anti trust law.
Eulas can be valid. But not where their provisions conflict with consumer protection or anti trust law.
Apple cannot stop you from installing OSX on whatever you want. MS cannot stop you using Office under Wine. You cannot sign away your consumer protection rights by sending in a guarantee form.
Anyone who thinks its not a sale needs to produce a case showing it. Not an Indian or Chinese case, a case from the US, Canada or EU. In the present case, they need to produce a US Court decision. Where is it?
Its a sale. Consequently, you can do what you want with it.
Notice, this may not apply to arrangements whereby in exchange for an annual fee, a company obtains a “license” to software on a certain number of stations. That really may well be a license or a lease or rental or whatever. But going up to the cash register and walking out with a retail copy, that one is a sale. Whatever the Eula says.
Uhm, perhaps in certain European countries, but you clearly don’t have an understanding of contract law, at least in the context of common law countries. When you buy, say, Leopard – you’re not buying the *software* itself, rather, a license to use it. That’s why the source code of Leopard does not come with the box you buy at a Apple Store: you didn’t buy the software, merely the right to use it in a limited manner.
As for post-sales restrictions of use, that’s a bit complicated, but in most countries, especially common-law ones (where “business efficacy” and “officious bystander” is widely practice in deciding these cases), I don’t think there’s much of a problem because 1) the contract can be read (online or elsewhere) prior to buying it, and 2) the software can be refunded and returned if you don’t agree with the EULA.
As for anti-trust, it is possible (competition law, for efficacy’s sake, needs to be vague) – but extremely unlikely. It’s hard to rule Apple’s position a monopolistic one (it’s like saying Ford has a monopoly of producing Ford cards). For one, there is no remote chance where users *have* to use Mac OS, thus no reason for Psystar doesn’t have a case to say they needed to sell the computers with OS X.
It would be significantly easier on Psystar if they didn’t offer to install Leopard for users: they won’t be the one breaking the EULA, it would be the users. And they wouldn’t be offering to break contract law.
Cite one EU case in which post-sales restrictions on use have been enforced. Just one.
Eulas may have enforceable clauses, but post sales restrictions on use are not enforceable in the EU because they are anti-competitive.
Antitrust law doesn’t work that way. Psystar not only have to prove monopoly (gee, Apple having a monopoly on products it produces? Shock), it has to prove how this monopoly is harmful for competition. Considering that users have more choices than Macs, I don’t see how there is unfair co-mingling of products.
The analogy of a car that can only drive on certain roads doesn’t exactly stand: nobody is forcing car companies from not doing that. The reason why car companies don’t add contractual obligations for their customers restricting where they can drive is purely because it makes no business sense whatsoever.
Judges would be EXTREMELY vary of making such a judgment in favour of Pystar – the precedence would force the entire industry to change business practices. In any case, it is unlikely Pystar would survive, financially, a legal tussle with Apple – especially when they aren’t in a significant legal edge here (if they have any).
Their lawyer, had they bothered to hire one, ought to be disbarred for gross negligence.
EULAs are invalid because they conflict with no less than three different laws (depending on your juristiction).
1. When buying the product you acquire the right to use it. E.g. Placing a “opening the laptop voids warrenty” sticker on the lid is not valid because it violates the sale, the same applies to EULAs.
2. Contracts are an exchange of rights between to parties. To be valid both parties have to get something from the contract. Since you already have the right to use your software, the EULA does not provide you with anything extra.
3. You can not sign a contract by clicking an okay-button, and even if you could, you are legally allowed to click okay while disagreeing with the contract because of point 1 and 2.
Edited 2008-04-15 09:56 UTC
You probably should take an introductory course in contract law: of course you can agree to a contract with an “Okay” button. You can agree to a contract by raising your hand (like they do in auctions), nodding your head, or simply exchanging money. Remember the sales part of buying software? When you hand over money to the cashier – there is no signing of contracts, no? Yet, why is it valid?
As long as there is evidence of offer and acceptance, it is a completely valid contract.
This is what is called “consideration” – there is consideration. When you buy a Leopard box from a store, it’s a sales contract. You expect a product that works, and a license you have purchase being something you can agree to and valid. You do not buy the right to use the software. Now, you want to use the software – you have to agree to the terms of the license – the EULA.
There is consideration – in exchanged for agreeing to the terms, you get the right to use the software. If you don’t agree with the contract, you can get an entire refund on the software you have bought.
It is extremely difficult to prove that this consideration is “past consideration” (in other words, no new consideration for the end-user) in common law jurisdictions. For one, the enormous precedence this would set is that most, if not all, “subject-to” contracts would be made invalid – with enormous repercussions to business efficacy.
It is possible that parts of the EULA is illegal, especially when there is specific law against such terms (clauses). But as a whole, EULA is a valid contract, even if there are invalid terms – good luck trying to convince a judge otherwise.
I don’t have to prove that EULAs are invalid. They have been tested in most courtrooms in the world, and have been thrown out of every single one, except for some states in the US.
If you live in California like Apple does – they are invalid, if you live outside the US – they are invalid.-
It is possible that parts of the EULA is illegal, especially when there is specific law against such terms (clauses). But as a whole, EULA is a valid contract, even if there are invalid terms
EULAs are valid. BUT only in some parts of the world! I do suggest you to remember that when claiming they are valid.
good luck trying to convince a judge otherwise.
Atleast here the judge clearly said the EULA is invalid, both the EULA in the case and EULAs as a concept. But that applies only to Finland, I can’t say about any other countries for sure.
it will be harder to buy software if everyone has to sign a contract and mail it
Edited 2008-04-15 10:04 UTC
Harder, but more fair.
Because now, no one reads the things anyway!
I truly want to see Psystar gives Apple a serious legal battle. The part of EULA that restricts users from installing legally-purchased OSX on non-Apple hardware has, in my opinion, no legal or moral basis. Users can’t do it simply because Apple says so. There is no other good reasons beside the fact that it makes Apple tons of money. If I’m willing to forego the warranty and tech support, Apple should allow me install on whatever hardware I choose.
These things have decent enough specs, but are crippled by the Intel integrated video, just like the MacBook and Mac Mini. Why bother?
Does Apple usually communicate their position if something like this happens? And how long does that take (the time needed to consult a lawyer perhaps)?
Oh, to be a fly on the wall in Cupertino…
Edited 2008-04-15 12:12 UTC
the hardware isnt even that good! nor cheap! If you consider it includes no OS nor any software, by the time you add it up to the same as a mac mini its more costly!
Always be wary of the upsell…
How exactly do you figure that it’s more expensive?
Mac Mini 1: 1.83Ghz, 1GB RAM, 80GB 5400RPM HD, combo (CD burner, DVD reader) drive, USB2.0, FireWire, OS X: $579 with education discount.
Mac Mini 2: 2.0Ghz, 2GB RAM, 160GB 5400RPM HD, super (dvd/cd burner) drive, USB2.0, FireWire, OS X: $914 with education discount.
Open: 2.2ghz, 2GB RAM, 250GB 7500RPM HD, DVD/CD burner, USB2.0 FireWire, OS X: $605
More than $300 less than the price of a mini that has slower components.
Now, you tell me which model of the Mini compares better against the Open?
I custom-configured the second mini option to more closely reflect the specs being touted by the Open. The sad fact is that the Mini cannot (in it’s current generation) go as fast, the HD’s are inferior (in both capacity and speed), and the RAM is more limited.
Note I included the cost of the firewire card & OS X in the Open, which reflects a custom configuration that adds nearly $200 to the base price of the system.
Clearly, if this actually works as advertised, and isn’t too much of a pain to handle system updates, then I’d say this is the way to go.
Especially for people like me, who have an existing OS X 10.5 license being unused, laying around, and already have the software they need. I have an iBook G4, and already have licenses for everything I use regularly, and have versions in Universal Binary format (except for MS Office, which I’m trying to wean my wife off of). In theory, I wouldn’t need to drop the $155 on the OS X install, and could instead invest $50 in a good Apple keyboard with an ‘eject’ button on it.
I have three Apple keyboard collecting dust here. Feel free to drop by and pick one up for free
.
I haven’t read the whole thread but I think we’re forgetting something. Isn’t it illegal in USA to circumvent protection mechanisms like DRM in OSX?
For example, libdvdcss2 seems to be illegal to use there so why would cracking OSX kernel and modules wouldn’t be? And no “I’ve bought this DVD” or “I own my machine” arguments seem to work.
You’re mentioning a valid point. Let me add an idea:
What exactly is circumvention? First of all, a vendor claims a product, let’s say a DVD media, to be “copy protected”, but if I put it into my drive and type “cdrdao copy” and then get a copy without no problems, have I circumvented something?
Or more simple: I make a drawing on a piece of paper and sign it with “This paper is copy protected!” Then, you put it on your copier and press “Start”, you’ll get a copy without any problems. Have you circumvented my copy protection?
That’s just for the principle, or for the semantics of “circumvention”. Circumventing seems to mean something like to bypass a working means to prevent a certain action.
In order to circumvent the restrictions of Mac OS X (“does not run on generic x86 hardware”), which means would have to been taken to make it running? As I questioned in a posting above, excahnging a computer’s BIOS would eventually work, but according to your idea, this would have nothing to do with Mac OS X itself – it wouldn’t be touched.
I hate this “illegal” stuff. The same stupidity usually causes problems when trying to implement something to work “out of the box”; just because some company uses proprietary codecs instead using free ones… I’m sure you get the idea.
The same is true for DRM. If you change something within the system’s kernel in order to avoid the DRM mechanisms to work, are you doing something illegal? This is according to my example above: When the mechanism does not work at all, has it been circumvented effectively?
Edited 2008-04-15 12:56 UTC
Well. Now that we’ve been arguing about EULAs a bit, here’s the $64,000 question: Would you guys advise buying an OpenComputer or OpenPro with Mac OS X Leopard installed from this company? (I own a Mac Mini and am strongly tempted to throw some money at Psystar for an upgrade, and they seem to be on the up-and-up, claiming to have been around for thirty years [see: http://www.psystar.com/about_psystar.html])
This is working very hard to change my mind on purchasing an Apple-branded system.
For less than the cost of a mini, I can have a better performing system, that will be far easier to upgrade.
There is a large part of me thinking, “What have I got to Loose?”
If Apple manages to block installs or brick boxes in the future, at least I can hock the box off as a windows PC on ebay or craigslist. By then I’ll have been able to save up more money dedicated to buying Apple branded hardware.
As a stop-gap solution to end my current state of having computers that are 7 years old without being able to afford (in cash) the system I -really- want, this makes DAMN good sense.
I can get what I need now, continue to save for what I want, and sell what I get now in the future when I’ve saved enough for what I want.
This is an idea I think I can sell the wife on.
“that will be far easier to upgrade.”
Except it’s not. You can’t get any security updates without the fear of hosing your system. If you fit a new piece of equipment and it doesn’t have drivers, it’s no use, nobody is going to write them for you, and you’re certainly not going to get any support.
It’d be less upgradable than a regular Mac, and require re-installing the OS regularly, as well as trawling forums whenever something doesn’t work because the whole system is hacked onto hardware it isn’t meant to be on.
I meant upgradeable in hardware terms.
I could replace the processor.
I could add ram without a freakin’ razor blade or putty knife.
I could plop an extra internal (high RPM, no less) drive in the case.
I could put a new graphics card in the box.
Beyond that, I can’t think of anything hardware wise I’d want to add without replacing the system wholesale.
As for installing the OS with every point-release, I don’t see that as much of a pain compared to letting software-update do it’s thing.
As for security, it’ll be safely fire-walled away on my home network, so I can’t imagine any huge threat other than zero-day exploits in the browser such as URL injection and we all know that’s a gamble anyhow.
The idea for me would be that this box would be a short-term hold-over until I can save the $ for a real Mac, configured the way I want it.
I can afford one of these boxes today. A MacPro will take me another year or more to save up the money. Futher, if I bought this box today, I can sell off all my old kit, (and I mean -all- of it!) and probably get a couple hundred bucks for it. The idea is to take that money, sell off the Open, and that’ll go a long-way to being able to afford the real Mac in a shorter time span.
The base Open computer is less than -HALF- the price of the low-end mini (with education discount), has a faster processor, twice the ram, and a desktop HD instead of a friggen slow-ass laptop drive.
If plugging a mac keyboard into the thing makes the keyboard eject button work, this is so worth it that it’s just not funny.
If only Leopard had some kind of mechanism for making restore point backups…
I would love to get one of these, the price is right but there is no proof that OS X works on it, if there is then I will be one of the first ones ordering this.
If Psystar stops selling their equipment with OS X pre-installed then Apple has no legal ground. If a customer wants to place Linux or OS X onto it it, yes, screw Wind, then it is not any of Apple’s business.
I think it’s great. In my opinion apple hardware is a bit expensive. I’ve never liked osx but atm I can’t even try it out as I don’t have the money for a Mac.
Apple has sued over less, hasn’t it? I wonder if psystar delivers to europe and with what cost..
MS has monopoly on windows software
Mac has monopoly on software+hardware
Linux has monopoly on nothing.because Mr .Linus can never think beyond his Kernel and thus have no idea what modern hardware is out there besides his compiler and keyboard..
It needs powerful compelling vision like of Bill Gates to make some working and affordable operating system for masses
Edited 2008-04-15 18:51 UTC
– Linux works and is affordable (as in free). It still presents quite a few challenges for non-technical users (who would never care to install an OS themselves)
– Mac works but is not affordable. At best, it is at least becoming more popular and this will eventually force the prices to go down.
– Last, Vista is neither affordable, nor working… not as promised any way. At least SP1 improved things somehow, but it is still a lemon.
These are some stupid arguments that I am tired of hearing. I think that people who talk about this stuff have never actually used the operating systems that they reference…
– Linux works and is affordable (as in free). It still presents quite a few challenges for non-technical users (who would never care to install an OS themselves)
Linux: Yeah it’s free. Yes it works, but still with different levels of refinement and may not work perfectly with your hardware. Patching the kernel to get a device working blows. And the applications that are available are pretty much limited to the standard open source or freeware fare which can pretty much be run on any OS…Mozilla, Open Office, Gimp, Google Earth. I mean you could run these applications under any OS…OS/2, FreeBSD, MacOS and Linux…it’s all of the same boring application base when it comes to software on Linux. At least Linux has a good choice of file systems and has some kick-ass media players that blow away quicktime and iTunes.
– Mac works but is not affordable. At best, it is at least becoming more popular and this will eventually force the prices to go down.
Mac Works? I own a MAC and I think it sucks. Many open source applications on a MAC has to run in X11 (even OpenOffice unless you try out the beta Aqua version) which provides a choppy application interface at best on the MAC. Free Quicktime blows chunks…you can’t queue movies in it and playback is choppy with any format outside of Quicktime movies. iTunes seems smoother to me on Windows than Leapard. There are not a lot of good Mac apps available that you don’t have to purchase. If you going to run Microsoft Office (Apple advertises that it’s now available for Mac) you mind as well run it on Windows. It’s funny that Apple slams Microsoft for Vista and then acts like it was their good graces that forced Microsoft to bring Office to the Mac. Microsoft has already abandoned the Mac in almost every other way including dropping IE and Media Player for the Mac. Even Media Player 9 for the Mac is better than quicktime. You will be running VMWARE or Parallels with Windows if you want to use your Mac in a business environment. Why do people think the Mac is better for graphics? Adobe is only doing 64 bit apps on Windows due to Apple not extending the Carbon programming API to 64 bits. You can’t even customize the window colors in Leapard. Coverflow is about all I can think of that you can get that is not available on Windows, and the feature is pretty much useless as it obscures the documents to the right and left of the one you are looking at. And what happened to those nice transparent windows? Mac is so over rated…people believe all of that S**T they talk about on the Mac commercials.
– Last, Vista is neither affordable, nor working… not as promised any way. At least SP1 improved things somehow, but it is still a lemon.
Vista comes with many new PCs…which means it will be affordable. Apple charges way to much for older hardware. Vista had many bugs in the beginning, but it still worked fine on a new Shuttle PC I put together. Service Pack 1 has caused Vista to be a pretty damn sweet desktop to work on. Any $600 PC should run it fine as you can get a Core Duo and 2 Gigs of ram for this amount of cash. People dump on Vista for the annoying securing features (which can be turned off). They also complain about application compatibility…but hasn’t Apple broken this in the past more than once? For sure. I mean I still run Procomm for DOS on Vista x64 with VirtualPC (which is also free from MS).
If you sit down with a Mac next to a well configured Vista machine for a week, honestly you will find out that you can run WAY more applications on Vista even with broken compatibility from security improvements than Mac. I run Vista x64 at work and I have more apps available for even x64 than my Mac at home. Vista x32 on another computer I own runs practically any modern Windows app.
What is with the archaic Apple one button mouse support…even on laptops…one button! I hate holding down my mouse to do things that should be done on the right button. Even with a two button mouse, the right button menu never has the correct options in them! What is the point of hacking BIOS to get Mac OS X running on a PC when it’s so lame? The attraction is similar to what Amiga people feel about Workbench.
I guess my point is here, it’s all about applications and application development. Windows has the most apps, and Visual Studio is the king of application development hands down. XCode on Mac is a jumbled mess. I am going to give my Mac away to a relative soon as they have drunk the coolaid also. For the money that Apple charges, I will be sticking with PCs for a long while…XP is still available and Vista has some neat features.
Dano
Edited 2008-04-16 02:08 UTC
Your rant, made short :
Linux sucks. It’s free, and it works, but it runs the same boring application base as any other system.
Mac sucks. Nothing free on the Mac, plus it has less apps than Windows. Apple doesn’t mind with X11 not working correctly, which is a pain to run the boring application base. Plus they want developpers to ditch Carbon and use Cocoa, broking application compatibility. Microsoft has abandoned the Mac. And there is this one button mouse thing (frankly, I didn’t expect that one, it’s so “passé”).
Vista, at least, doesn’t suck. Everything is better on my Vista box. Yeah, there is some application compatibility broken, but look at the Mac, it’s worse.
Your rant, made even shorter :
Everything sucks, save Vista.
It’s not a rant, it’s a conversation. People keep talking out of their ass about what is good and what isn’t…they have never even used these systems. That’s the real point.
Save for the MAC (which I only toyed with but know quite a few people who love OSX), I’ve been using Vista since RTM and Linux since the Slackware 2.0 days. Constantly.
to make real progress I would have no objection to pay 100$ to Apple to buy the machine with GNUDarwin. But to install Hackint0sh why? First it is closed source and second Apple does not allow it.
Usually include abusive clauses that wouldn’t even hold in court, depending on the country you trial them.
Hey, just curious if anyone knows which motherboards Pystar is using to allow a non-altered Intel Mac OS X Leopard disk image to be installed onto?
Thanks!