Slashdot Mirror
Second Mac Clone Maker Set To Sell, With a Twist
CWmike writes "Another company is preparing to sell Intel-based computers that can run Apple's Mac OS X. But unlike Psystar, a Florida clone maker that's been sued by Apple, Open Tech won't pre-install the operating system on its machines. Open Tech's Home (equipped with an Intel dual-core Pentium processor, 3GB of memory, an nVidia GeForce 8600 CT video card and a 500GB hard drive) and XT (which includes an Intel Core 2 quad-core CPU, 4GB of RAM, an nVidia GeForce 8800 video card and a 640GB drive) machines will sell for $620 and $1,200, respectively. Open Tech is prepared to do battle with Apple if it comes after Open Tech. 'We definitely would defend this,' said [Open Tech spokesman] Tom. 'The only possible case that Apple can make, the only one that has any chance, would be based on the end-user licensing agreement.'"
I might just buy one. I guess Steve & Co will have to sue me for installing their operating system (which I've paid for) on a computer I privately own. Have fun with that.
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
The only tenuous EULA claim Apple may make in this case is that this company is encouraging people to violate the EULA by installing OS X on their unauthorized hardware. I doubt such a claim would find much favor in a court, but that doesn't mean Apple won't attempt it (and try to bully this upstart into submission).
Part of the hardcore faithful who believed in Apple long before it was cool again to do so
Instead of fancy press releases why doesn't open tech say this instead: Bring it Apple! I mean seriously this is all they are doing. I hope they can get enough capital to stop Apple's legal department.
That might work. Although, why you would purchase a computer from a company that guarantees that it will work with OSX is beyond me. You're paying them the price markup, when you could just visit the osx86project websites (insanelymac.org, etc) and find out that way...
Well, that is the custom firmware debate for the iPhone, PSP and the upcoming Wii... can hardware manufacturers control their product? What about software creators?
I mean, do we really BUY anything, anymore - or are we just licensing?
If apple goes to court and loses, they start on a slippery slope downward, through legal decisions and software/hardware freedom.
If they go, and then settle out of court, then Open Tech makes a lot of money... and more companies will do the exact same thing, looking for more money.
If they go and win, the apocalypse is around the corner.
If they do nothing, then they're no longer really apple after all...
So, no matter what happens, Apple loses.
So long Apple.
One company gets mad when another company [somewhat] effectively eliminates demand for a product that has a 30-40% markup?
Seriously, I am all for a company providing services for a fee (warranty, support, whatever) - but Apple has been on the excessive hardware markup train for far too long....
I guess Steve & Co will have to sue me for violating the license agreement (which I agreed to) on a computer I privately own.
I have bought my first Mini Mac, I must say it's a very nice box, and I am even able to run Kubuntu/debian base distro on it. However, I would really love to buy Mac friendly hardware, and build a box which can run OSX/Linux/Windows XP PRO. I hope some brave motherboard manufacture would comeup with Mac/OSX compatible borad.
Even veals have more autonomy!
Fine, Apple can't stop people from selling computer that have the ability to run MacOS. But there isn't much market for machines where you have to install the OS yourself.
"Huh? I'd buy a computer like that. So would my friends. We install OSs all the time." True. But you and your friends are not typical consumers. Most people will not buy a computer that doesn't already have an OS on it.
Of course, there's the corporate customers, who have the resources for to install their own OSs, and who buy most computers anyway. But they have a disadvantage individual consumers don't: they're big enough for Apple to sue.
The only possible case that Apple can make, the only one that has any chance, would be based on the end-user licensing agreement.
Yeah, no kidding. Obviously, that's the case that his lawyer warned him about.
Of course, his customers can sue him too. Just think: he sells you a machine that is Mac OS compatible. If Mac OS doesn't actually work on the machine, then he basically sold his customers machines that don't work as advertised.
This will only lead to Apple putting in stronger hardware checks, breaking the OS on non-Apple hardware. Can Apple do this? Yes. Can the clone vendor work around this? Yes. Can the vendor work fast enough to prevent the machine from crapping out after a software update? No.
Which HW platform is cheaper?
Is Apple's combination HW/SW package a better deal than buying the HW and SW separately? Is the markup on Apple's product so much that the opposite is true?
We always hear about how underpriced the product is compared to Windows products, but how underpriced is it compared to a clone of itself?
And if the Apple clone HW is cheaper than comparable Windows HW, then why is the Windows HW so expensive? Have whiny Mac fanboys been lying to me all these years?
Bold (considering its strategy) and black.
And not the shiny black either. Have a special bundle that comes with Das Keyboard. It's like having Mac, your way.
or is their a feeling that this new company (with no known abode) may have a link to Psystar... It popped up just after the Papers were served, it's using a known spammers hangout (that gives free domains to anyone!!). I would not be surprised if Psystar suddenly stops selling their "open" pcs (and gives full refunds to those they have charged but not fulfilled.) and "OPEN Tech" suddenly offers to pick up Psystars customers....
Laters Sol "Have you found the secrets of the universe? Asked Zebade "I'm sure I left them here somewhere"
I don't think you get it. Here's how it goes:
(1) Apple sells me an operating system in the form of installable media.
(2) I receive said media, and having completed the sale, the right of first sale doctrine kicks in. I can do any damned thing I please with that media, aside from distributing the copyrighted material to others while I'm still using the product.
(3) Legally speaking, Steve can take a printed copy of his EULA and smoke it.
There, fixed that for you.
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
The main reason to get a Mac is because the hardware and software have designed for each other. Things "just work".
Now, if you start trying to run Apple software on non-Apple boxes, you're back to things might or might not work. But unlike Microsoft, Apple isn't going to even try to accommodate widespread generic hardware. It will be up to the hardware vendors to make the gear work with the Mac OS as-is, or start patching the OS, at which point things will likely spin out of control fairly rapidly.
It won't be Apple's fault, though. They can just claim they only support their hardware. If you try to run the OS on something else, you're on your own.
Apple is simply getting too sassy. I just want to see them taken down a notch with this. Just because Apple has a hot girlfriend and is popular doesn't mean Apple has be mean to Apple and Apple Apple Apple Apple Apple Apple Apple Apple
and XT (which includes an Intel Core 2
One day PPC Macs started to use commodity chipset (started with G3 Macs, I think).
Then Macs switched to x86 (Intel processors btw, makes me remember that advertisement Apple did showing a Pentium II carried by a snail).
Soon after Boot Camp arrived, so people started to run Windows in Macs.
Now a clone appears, called "XT"?
What next, Macs shipping with a DB15 joystick connector?
Contrary the the statement there, I don't the even pretty wild interpretations of an EULA would apply at all. If they wished to pursue that angle Apple would need to go after individual users. From Apple's POV, I believe the only true point of contention would be if Open Tech uses any of their trademarks in its advertising or general web. They can't just plaster Apple OS X images all over the place for example.
No, the real potential source of suits isn't even necessarily from Apple. Rather, Open Tech will have to be very careful in their wording when it comes to promotion. From what I've seen an early draft of their PR used phrases like "Mac Compatible." What exactly does that mean, legally? What happens when a software update breaks the OS? If a customer sees "Mac Compatible" and nothing else, and then buys based on that, I could see grounds for a false advertising suit.
Of course, that can be avoided quite neatly I think with some very careful wording, and by making the limitations and lack of support from Apple very explicit. "Capable of running OS X", with a big fat bold "Not supported by Apple, future updates may not be compatible" warning might work just fine. This just seems like the area where, if these guys are amateur or don't think about it much, they could get tripped up.
IANAL, but if Apple can show that permitting people to install their OS on unapproved hardware causes them harm (which seems easy to do if you can show that it is less reliable because Apple has done more rigorous testing and compatibility checks on their own builds), and you can show that the PC manufacturer is in any way encouraging the users to violate the terms of the EULA, then it seems like you have a case of tortious interference.
Any of the actual lawyers on /. know if anyone has ever tried to claim tortious interference over an explicit or implied encouragement to break a shrink-wrap EULA?
If they win the case, it opens up a precedent that I don't think is in anyone's interest, other than Apple's. What if MS sued HP saying they're not allowed to sell machines that run Windows? It would either be suicide or some weird form of extortion.
This could be THE case that forces MacClones into reality. It won't work for Mister John Q Public from Anytown USA who expect their food to be injected into their stomachs predigested. But for those who are willing to sit with a machine for an hour or so, I don't see how this is much of a problem.
This would be a benefit to people who already have one Apple machine, but want another but don't want to pay premium price. They already have the OS disks.
This is much more interesting than PSystar. I could see they were screwed from the gitgo, but these guys have it sussed.
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
1) Apple sells you a CD with a license bound software.
Fixed that for you.
Unless your point of view are proven correct, which I find unlikely since sort of any software are sold under a license as the market works now and I doubt any court would like to render it all useless.
Also I guess your point also makes it ok to steal the code of any open source project and release it in your own closed product, I mean, the code was there to grab, I took it, now it's mine, how does the license matter now when I have the code? Thanks ..
So, if you could get Z/OS to install on a PC, do you think IBM would sue you over it? Yeah, me to, but hey, you never know!
"My immediate reaction is "WTF? What kind of moron doesn't make things 64-bit safe to begin with?" Linus
Congratulations on purchasing OSX. I'm surprised Slashdot didn't have that story on the front page. Will you be selling any licenses? I would like one if the price is reasonable.
Before someone flames me, I'm not disagreeing with him, I'm only pointing out there is a difference between 'buying' a piece of software, and 'licensing' one.
"Open Tech's site is hosted on a domain belonging to Tokelau, a South Pacific island territory of New Zealand that has in the past been widely used by cybercriminals and scammers."
But that's in the past. Now Open Tech's here, and they're legitimate!
"'We definitely would defend this,' said [Open Tech spokesman] Tom. 'The only possible case that Apple can make, the only one that has any chance, would be based on the end-user licensing agreement.'""
No, the case that Apple would make is that you are using their trademark of "Mac OS X" in an un-authorized fashion, which is a case you will most definitely lose.
Thank you! Someone gets WHY this might be legal and there's not damned thing Jobs can likely do about it.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Also I guess your point also makes it ok to steal the code of any open source project and release it in your own closed product, I mean, the code was there to grab, I took it, now it's mine, how does the license matter now when I have the code?
You could not possibly be more wrong. I'm a programmer myself, and make a habit of releasing my software under the GPL (among other OSI-compatible licenses). If I were to incorporate someone else's code into a product I distribute, in violation of their licensed terms of distribution, I would be legally and ethically in the wrong (of course, I'd never do that). However, if someone takes my software (say it's GPL licensed), makes modifications to it, and uses it in his business, he has no legal burden to release those changes back to me unless he distributes the software to others.
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
That is not even slightly true. There is a fundamental difference between any EULA and a copyright license like the GPL. In fact, the difference is indicated by the name itself: an EULA, or End User License Agreement, is designed to apply to the end user. There is no copying or distribution involved; copyright law does not apply. In contrast, a license like the GPL is a distribution license. It only kicks in when a person tries to perform an act, such as copying or distribution, that would otherwise violate copyright law. You can legally use GPL software without agreeing to the GPL at all; if you perform an act that would require agreeing to the GPL, then that act wasn't mere "use."
Incidentally, this exact issue is explained in the GPL FAQ. To wit:
Incidentally, this means that some software's (e.g. OpenOffice's) practice of presenting the GPL in the installer as if it were an EULA (requiring you to agree to it before continuing the installation) is at best useless, and at worst, dangerously misleading.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
This article is going to show the true hypocrisy of slashdot.
Normally, the slashdot community will agree with telling software companies to shove that EULA up their ass. But oh no, not with Apple. You bought the software, you agreed to Apple's terms, end of story.
Everyone should be gung ho behind this company, because it seems to have a really good chance to finally throw away EULAs.
There is no copying, no theft, no distribution, no anything. You buy software. You install it on one computer. You shouldn't be dragged into court for that.
If Apple fought this very strongly, they would be hurting themselves.
Obviously Apple wants more control, for profit motives. But you can't have everything. Especially if what you want is unethical.
Do less evil, Steve.
Even though Apple prohibit installation of their software on non-apple hardware, I think this is a good think as it might just make Jobs realise that it's time to open-up and prove that their OS is really up to the battle with the competition. If only there were a specific hardware component such as a usb key that could be purchased to turn any computer into an apple-compatible one I would most certainly buy one to try out OS X once and for all.
Oh, by the way, here's the relevant portion explaining this concept from the license itself:
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
The only site I could find for Open Tech is here: http://www.freewebs.com/iopentech/. It seems pretty sketchy - a legitimate business hosting on FreeWebs? Also, the photos of the machines (XT) seem to be empty cases, with no drives or anything installed. It puts me off that I don't see any with the side panels off or anything which would reveal an actual computer inside. FWIW I tried their .tk domain (http://www.iopentech.tk/) and I got a 502 Proxy Error.
---someone has to do it, rank analogies!---
I got a Belchfire Behemoth sitting out in the driveway only gets 10 MPG with the gas engine, I want to slap an aftermarket diesel ACME engine in it that will give me 20 MPG, and Belchfire claims that is illegal. Uh huh
I'll start taking software seriously as a tangible product when they provide tangible product end user warranties along with their other BS in the "license". They want patents and maximum profit, then I want a cast iron warranty as in suitable for purpose and free from glaring defects, same as you get with tangible products. They want a "license to use" and call it a product, I want normal product rules to apply, ie, doctrine of first sale, for any purpose, for any reason. I can take my belchfire apart down to the last nut and bolt and blog about it with pictures, then you should be able to do that with software "products" as well. No other industry out there gets away with such obviously bogus restrictions on the end user *crap* as the software industry. A new paperback book comes out, not only some copyright, but you have a "reading license" you must adhere to that says you agree to wear a cardigan sweater and only turn the pages with your left hand when you read it? Get outta town! But people just accept junk like that with software "products".
Anyway, that is why I don't run any new apple stuff nor microsoft any more, it just got old, just don't need their stupid restrictions. Those people are just crazy. 20 years ago, OK, maybe this "industry" needed some slack to really get going, but now? Drag them kicking and screaming into the modern age where they get treated exactly the same way as other industries, and start with the warranties (unless they give up patents) and get rid of the "no, you can't look at how we do things, and only do things the way we sayso" alleged rules they claim are righteous. They suck, just say no to teh suck, I don't care how shiny it is, it is still teh suck.
If you really want the OS, then it just makes sense to acquire it in a fashion Apple wouldn't mind.
Do I believe in draconian EULA limitations? No. Is it perfectly legitimate to install OSX on a system not blessed by apple? I think it should be.
However, practically speaking, it's a bad path. Just as you have the right to use the software as you see fit, Apple has the right (even if a bad idea) to withhold updates/support from such people. If an OSX update fixes important security issues *and* kills the loophole you use to run the OS, Apple is not required to split it out. Best case, you always wait for a community that is potentially untrustworthy to bless patches and rerelease. However, Apple can sue those people for illegal redistribution.
If you don't want to play by their rules, why give them money to explicitly fight with them over how to use the software?
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
How hard is it for Apple to install some hardware DRM chip on their hardware and also make you go online to unblock the OS?
You already have to unblock some software by going online (e.g., some IDEs, MATLAB, Maple, etc.)
Enjoy while you can.
Main difference between the BSD license and the GPL license: one is from California and the other is from Massachusetts
It's discounted if you buy their hardware.
And then someone can counter-sue Apple for bundling Mac OS X into those Mac machines. Apple store should have offered Windows Vista as an option. I smell an huge anti-trust lawsuit coming.
"The New Age. The New Beginning."
The only problem is that you can't read the EULA until after you've opened the software package, at which point any retailer I've ever seen will say it is no longer returnable. I guess you could test that by calling up apple and see how they respond...
This is not the second Mac clone maker, it's the third. How soon everyone forgets Power Computing, and what Apple did to them.
Apple isn't going to lose any hardware sales off of this -- people buy Macs for the whole package experience, not to install operating systems, and don't really mind the lock-in, probably aren't even aware of it.
Apple is going to gain software sales off of this from people who otherwise wouldn't buy Macs because of the lock-in.
"Orthodoxy means not thinking--not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness." --Eric Blair
But does it run Linux?
Bring back Sirius Punk!
The entire pay-for-OS paradigm is complete and utter bullshit. Infer what you will.
No company address, phone number, and web site /.ed.
Anyway, here's some snapshots grabbed by endgadget.
You're missing the point. Nobody is saying distributing copyrighted material or "license bound software" against the license is legal.
The claim is that once you possess such material, you're legally allowed to do whatever you want with it, except redistribute it.
Short of ultra-draconian, 1984-esque survelience, there's simply no way to know what people are doing with the products they buy once they get it home and close their door. As long as they don't redistribute the results, it's completely legal. How can an external entity possibly know if I installed my new copy of OSX on a PC or a Mac? They can't. It has to be legal because there's no enforceable way to make it illegal.
As long as you don't distribute the end result, it's completely legal to "steal" GPL'd code and use it in your own software. Again, it's legal because even if it weren't there's absolutely no way for anybody to know you're doing it. Once you start giving out copies, then it's a problem.
Maybe not
Yeah, there's no real need for a clone- I'm typing this on my Hackintosh- an old computer with a Gigabyte motherboard that I tried on a lark. It works great, but it needs a little more RAM.
On the outside of a Mac OS X box, it says a Mac is required. The EULA packed inside the box doesn't say Mac OS X can be installed on anything but a Mac. The purchaser can not assume they have the right to do otherwise. In fact, the purchaser must assume they do not have the right until it is explicitly granted by Apple. If Open Tech helps users out with copyright infringement, then Open Tech is also liable.
Understand that when you get the software you're not actually purchasing a copy of the software. You're purchasing a license to use the software.
The doctrine of first sale protects you with regard to the media (or the license in the box, technically). You can buy the software, leave it unopened, and sell it to anyone else you please. Opened software is another matter. Once you've cracked the shrink wrap and agreed to the EULA, you're bound by its terms. This has been upheld by many courts, particularly because it's been made clear that you're not purchasing a "copy" of the software, but rather a license to use the software. You can still be held liable for violating the terms of the license. It's a sad fact, but this kind of licensing scheme is how software companies circumvented the DoFS in the first place.
If you want to talk about whether or not you should have the right to sell your license then you've got a good point, one that I definitely agree with. But I think it's important that folks recognize the distinction between the doctrine of first sale and current EULA law.
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
.... Apple sells me an operating system in the form of installable media.....
If more and more predators like Pystar jump into the business of trying to make a fast buck from the hard work of Apple, they have a number of simple options to thwart them. They only have to stop selling OSX on the open market to any and all comers. Instead they can require proof of Mac ownership. Nobody gets a legitimate copy of OSX unless they can prove that they actually own a genuine Apple manufactured Mac computer.
After that, anyone who wants to install OSX on some other hardware is forced to break the law by "pirating" some copy of OSX. Since each Mac has a serial number and most of these are registered with Apple, they can also easily do an evil Microsoft Activation scheme. They may be forced to do this if they cannot enforce their restrictions in a court of law.
As always, it is the scumbags of this world who care about nothing else than themselves, that force companies to institute activation and DRM systems which in the end don't work very well other than making life miserable for the honest people who pay for the merchandise they want or go without.
Apple is NOT Microsoft or Adobe, software makers. Apple builds hardware and is the only company that writes their own software for their own hardware and is therefore the ONLY Company that makes a WHOLE, not just half a computer. They are entitled to alone determine who gets to use the software half of their total computer system. If they do not wish to allow their software half to run on other hardware, the only real way they can ultimately prevent that, is not with lawyers, but to simply not to make the software half of the computers available independently of their hardware.
All theory is gray
All they're doing is shifting the illegality to the consumer. The OS X EULA will still be violated, but that duty will fall to the buyer, so Open Tech is covered legally...maybe.
If you're curious how this is going to come out in court, my bet is that Open Tech will still probably have to close shop for a couple of reasons. Fist, Apple has really deep pockets. They can afford to mire Open Tech in years of costly legal battles if they so choose. And they will choose to. Why? Because if Apple loses their hardware monopoly, they lose the majority of their revenue stream.
Secondly, and probably the legal argument that might sink Open Tech: if they truly try to brand these boxes as Mac clones, then the company exists solely to help circumvent copyright law (again, this will be Apple's legal argument). Courts have ruled in other cases that this type of activity is illegal. Case in point: head shops can sell "water pipes" for tobacco, but "bongs" are illegal. So if Open Tech claims to sell "barebones computers" they're probably in the clear. If they claim to sell "Mac clones" then methinks they're going to find themselves in deep legal water. If you're curious how Apple is going to frame it...see point #1 above.
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
.....there's not damned thing Jobs can likely do about it......
Yes he can. He can stop selling Mac OSX to all comers, but require proof of Mac ownership before licensing anyone a copy.
All theory is gray
Exactly, a lot of people here don't seem to realize Apple had their OS on other peoples machines and it really hurt them. They didn't sell product because the other machines kicked ass. Power Computing made awesome machines and had awesome marketing that made them look like Apple reincarnate. Radius had a 8100 clone that looked way cooler than any beige box Apple sold, perfect for Radius' graphic/video market, plus they were the former Mac team. Motorola had a cheap PPC box, Daystar had a dual and quad processor clone, and Umax had some nice cheap albeit ugly machines.
I would buy a clone in a second if the company wouldn't be obliterated before my warranty ended. But it won't happen because the aesthetic merits of a Macintosh,iPod,iPhone,iWhatever, would be cheapened by low end consumer bullshit... Which is how Apple would see it and rightly so. It is trite, but a Lexus LX is cooler than a Land Cruiser. Pretty much the same car, but the price and packaging is different. One you take offroad and have fun in, the other you can too but most want to be seen in it (i.e no dust). Shit, maybe Apple should do as Toyota. Make cheap computers under another name for a separate demographic.
- - - - -
Disclaimer: I drive a real Land Cruiser not the mallrat FJ80/UZJ100/200 in my analogy. And found despite the FAQs you can run OS X on a Toshiba 1135.
I thought the GPL does not prevent you from modifying GPL'ed software and using those modifications in-house. It is only when you distribute the software or modifications of the software, that the GPL applies. Point 9 of the license presented above seems to imply that simply modifying GPL'ed software imposes some restrictions even in the absence of distribution. I guess simple modification without distribution imposes no additional restrictions, as the other parts of the GPL only apply to distribution? It could be made clearer, and probably is by other parts of the license.
amen
"Jazz isn't dead, it just smells funny" ~Frank Zappa
EdelFactor
Because all goods and services should be free?
Airplane Photos, Airline News, Planespotting Guides
So your position is that if you can't be caught doing something then it must be legal? I don't think you understand the concept.
I've always wanted to test this, but I don't have $129 (for OSX) or more-ish for Vista. It's an expensive test if it fails, unless you'd use the software anyway.
You're missing part of the problem - you have to crack the shrink-wrap to get to the EULA. If I open the box, I can still return it to the store or sell it - if the shrink-wrap is still there. But once I tear the shrink-wrap to get at the EULA, I'm hosed, because whether or not I agree, I can't return the software for a full refund, and most likely noone will buy it at retail price.
After looking at the product and seeing some of OpenTech's relationships to less-than-credible businesses, I wonder if they're really trying to compete with Apple. I suspect they're looking for a buy-out or favorable settlement in court. I recall another clone, Power Computing, getting a big payday when they were acquired by Apple. OpenTech is probably banking on something similar.
In New Zealand it was recently made legal to break the end user license agreement and edit software for personal use. So if anyone is interested in legally doing this...
Yes. The chicken/egg problem of shrink wrap licensing has been discussed ad nauseum in these parts. But I was speaking specifically to palegray.net's claim that the doctrine of first sale somehow allows him to violate the terms of the EULA. It does not.
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
Apple already requires third party accessory vendors to buy special authentication chips for things like iPod docks to work with iPods/iPhones. It's only a matter of time until they add similar chips to laptop and desktop hardware and some code in their OS's that must authenticate the chip for the machine to operate, thereby ending the Hackintosh business.
Airplane Photos, Airline News, Planespotting Guides
>and don't really mind the lock-in,
>probably aren't even aware of it.
Blue pill you say?
Ah. Fair enough.
Decline the license if you want, but then regular copyright law prohibits you from giving away any copies at all.
"The use-mention distinction" is not "enforced here."
1. No he had it much closer than you did. Which is ironic because what you say demonstrates that you didn't even bother to read or understand that license. They sold you both a medium containing the Operating System and more importantly the right or license for to install and use a single instance (lets stick to COTS product for now) of their Operating System. And if you read the last line of ANY EULA ever they almost always say something to the effect of "these terms may be superceded by the laws of your state" or in this cae when they in item 'F' "except as... or by applicable law"
But more importantly since you don't like to read there is a fundamental difference.
A. Apple's stuff is something you PURCHASE to acquire. The BS invalid eula you are ignoring is a license pretaining to USAGE something they can't restrict.
B. Open source code by definition doesn't ever restrict you from the mere USAGE. It does however much like apple restrict how you distribute it and how you can possibly distribute something that contains it.
Notice how the parent isn't saying he's free to burn duplicates of OS X and give them away to others and sell them.
What's really sad is that the more you read the license the more they try to make it sound like they haven't sold or given you anything. They don't want to be responsible for anything other than collecting money and maintaining control of ho gets to use their crap. I would absolutely love to see some good EULA cases hit the supreme court to end the absurdity that is becoming the shrink wrap license for anything and everything you ever do.
"Jazz isn't dead, it just smells funny" ~Frank Zappa
EdelFactor
I've always thought that projects such as OpenOffice.org and aMSN put a "click-through" with the GPL not for legal reasons, but simply because most users are used to seeing such things when they install large programs. It keeps the click-through crowd happy, the few who actually read the thing see how harmless it is for end-users, the GPL gets some free advertisement, everybody wins.
No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
Not at all; no where does anyhere talk about suing apple to force them to do anything. Don't you understand negative righs?
All this does is say that apple CANT TELL ME not to do what I will to run my copy of halo3 on my wii.
There is a significantly different point of view from a lawyers prospective.
One is about positive rights, one is about negative rights. No one is talking about suing apple. Only talk is apple not being able to win a suit against 'you'. (they are of course free to sue you because anyone can sue anyone for anything... winning and going to trial are a different story)
Grand parent is spot on. Nothing gives them the right to tell you what hardware you are required to run the software on; but nothing obligates them to provide a version or otherwise assist you in making a version that does so either. They don't have to support you in anyway they just can't take a legal action to prevent you from trying to do so personally.
The two things couldnt be more independent of one another. Classic example? RedHat and CentOS. Red Hat has to make source code available, but aren't under any obligation to compile it for you, give you makefiles, etc, provide modified versions for some arcane architecture that they dont support etc. What you do with the source is your business.
"Jazz isn't dead, it just smells funny" ~Frank Zappa
EdelFactor
with Open Tech for an undisclosed sum, since they got nothing to sue on.
These anti GPL people must have a small attention span. They always forget that phrase you put at the end of your post. (Hint people! palegray.net put it in italics to be noticed, not ignored!)
Apple is a hell of a lot smaller outfit than Microsoft, and even MS had a pretty strict HCL in the old pre win2k days.
For slashdotters, simply playing around and kicking the tyres, sure - most of us *know* the risks we'd be taking. For Joe Sixpack, well - he or she (!) doesn't.
Incidentally, the Apple sticker thing is an old trick - back in the early 80's Whitesmiths had a Unix V6 clone called "Idris" (which ran on old machines like the Sage/Stride 68k boxen). The joke was that the Floppies for Idris were free and the sticker was $1000.
At the end of the day I guess Apple will pull the old IBM trick of printing some stuff (for IBM it was the BIOS source) in the manual and relying on copyright to at least temporarily hose cloners...
Andy
It appears the entire business plan of this company rests on the fact that the user knows what they are doing. These are the same users that buy from dell and have trouble figuring out where the color coded cables should be connected. But at the same time the users that could do this would not pay for an overpriced Pentium D (do they even make Pentium Ds anymore?) not the overpriced quad. I spent a week combing through all the suggestions for supported hardware on the site. I could have gone with the first suggestion and had my shopping cart full in 15 minutes. The fact is you buy this and then you are completely out of luck if a problem happens. Apple won't support you at all. I don't know if they do this anymore, but I remember them taking credit card information and serial numbers before you could even ask them a question. How many people are going to get dinged on their credit cards before they realize they could have bought the real deal for the amount of money the are paying to keep this thing running. -- Typed from Quad Core Hackintosh
Show me a precedent that makes it clear that a consumer who buys a software package in a retail setting is bound by a contract.
All of the supposedly EULA supporting cases have gaping flaws if looked at as support for the claim above.
You don't understand, man, someone is asking for something in trade for what they did! That's amoral, man!
If you like the Apple approach to computers, then you should support and defend it, otherwise it will fail
If you like the linux and open source approach to computing, then you must support and defend it, or it will never fulfill the demand.
If you like the Windows approach to computers, then you must support Apple, linux, and open source developers because otherwise Microsoft will have nothing to copy.
War as we knew it was obsolete
Nothing could beat complete denial
- Emily Haines
There's also the Grokster case, where the Supreme Court of the United States said that Grokster was liable because its business model, basically, was to encourage people to break the law.
Are you adequate?
It seems absolutely absurd that a regular PC without OS released as "Apple Mac compatible" or something and become news.
It seems someone is trying so hard to get sued by Apple or take Apple to court. For what reason someone is trying to get sued by Apple who is known for their evil lawyers? That is the question.
PS: They will run Vista SP1 better. No sarcasm or troll intended, that is my opinion.
It seems rather dubious that they are using a freewebs.com hosted site. Unprofessional at the least.
I suppose it doesn't take too much to put together a mac-clone to sell, but it seems if they are going go through all the trouble to do such a thing, you could set up your own URL as well.
How can you be bound by a contract AFTER the sale is already done?
I've already BOUGHT the software, money has been exchanged for goods.
Not exactly what fist sale says, if that's your point. But the supreme court has already shot down the concept of contracts after the fact, just a few idiot judges who think software is somehow different that music cd or book is all (or idiot attorneys who failed to argue the case properly, judges do have some restrictions).
Mycroft
https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
An important point: a hardware make is specifically making hardware to fit Apple. When has that ever been the case?
Apple could embrace hardware makers who do this and make a packet.
Given how many ipods have been sold and the craptastic nature of vista, now is a prime time to start selling the OS to all and sundry.
They can still sell their premium (industrially designed hardware) and sell the OS separately.
what does the most expensive version of Windows OS sell for these days?
I saw Windows Vista Ultimate retail for $320 in a Best Buy store. BestBuy.com has it for the same price. Or were you talking about Windows Server?
people buy Macs for the whole package experience, not to install operating systems
Speak for yourself, Kemosabe.
People buy Macs for all kinds of reasons, but given how anemic the hardware is for the price ($600 for a $600 laptop without the most costly component in a laptop... the sceren? That's what you get with a Mac mini) it's not reasonable to blithely assert that the hardware is a significant part of the draw.
Apple won't lose hardware sales from these people because anyone who was going to make a hackintosh from these boxes is capable of buying the same parts for less money piecemeal. Not because they wouldn't lose hardware sales to someone who had a legitimate Mac clone.
That doesn't mean they couldn't make money off legitimate clones. Selling an "unlocked" version of OS X retail for $400-$500 would cover their profits nicely. They screwed up on the original clones by selling the OS for too little to pay for the lost sales.
My girlfriend just bought a new budget windows laptop. It shipped with Vista but was underpowered to run it to the point of it being unusable for anything other than web browsing or word processing. So she installed Ubuntu and has been fighting tooth and nail to get the thing to work right, from having to deal with wireless networking issues to problems with gnome. She's wasting so much time trying to get her computer to work that she isn't actually using it for anything.
Meanwhile, I've got a macbook and, while I admit to its problems (the video card is a PoS (friggin' integrated graphics), it desperately needs a RAM upgrade, the glossy screen is impossible to keep clean and clear, the keyboard has some quirks, etc) for 99% of what I need to use a computer for, it does it without a hitch. I get stuff done. I've been getting stuff done since I pulled it out of the box.
I might pick up one of these clones to play around with, but here's the thing: It would just be play, and it would be money I wouldn't be spending if there wasn't an alternative. Kinda like the music piracy question of lost POTENTIAL sales - I would never go out and buy an Apple desktop, so buying one from a clone manufacturer isn't a lost sale on apple's part.
Just sayin'. I don't see this as much of a threat, at least not at the moment.
... though one could argue they'd sell many more copies if they sold it to everyone.
On the other hand costumers may demand that it actually RUN and works on their machines, which would be more work for Apple. Now they don't have to care, it happen to run on your PC? Good for you, but if they sold it and it didn't run they'd have a problem.
Aha, you're not a lawyer, your previous posts made me wonder.
how is babby formed?
Reading it over, what is discussed is acceptance of the License. So, it would seem that the restriction in the absence of distribution is that you must accept the License in order to have permission to modify.
As I recall, it is not acceptance of the License that creates the obligation to share source. It is distribution of the modified software that triggers that obligation.
Can we mod this +10, so many people fail to understand this. You don't have to share any of your changes to GPL code, until you start sharing the binary. This seems to be lost on the majority of otherwise intelligent people.
When you make a copy of a copy, it's sometimes not as sharp as the original. I can just see some of these Mac clones crashing with the error message "She touched my peppy, Steve!"
Sent from my iPhone
Good point. I didn't think of that one.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
You have the opportunity to read and accept the EULA terms before you install the software. You demonstrate your agreement and acceptance by the act of installation (or by breaking the seal). You can still return the software package for a full refund if you have not broken the seal.
There are Free and Open alternatives [to Mac OS X] after all.
Only if developers of Mac applications decide to port their apps to GNUstep, the LGPL clone of what is now called Cocoa.
Yeah, but there are some subtleties that make it incorrect. The OO.o one, at least, says something like "you must agree to these terms to use the software" and disables the "forward" button until you scroll to the bottom and/or check the "I agree" checkbox. Instead, it ought to say something like "you may use the software without agreeing to these terms, but they convey additional rights and responsibilities if you choose to modify or distribute it" and not require scrolling or checking the box.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
The only possible case that Apple can make, the only one that has any chance, would be based on the end-user licensing agreement.
I'm not a lawyer, but how would that work? Company "B" sells equipment that is compatible with Company "A"'s software. Company "B" never has anything to do with sales or support of said software. What standing would "A" have to sue "B"?
Oh, this has all the earmarks of the early Apple/Franklin wars, with Apple doing it's level best to keep Franklin as incompatible as possible. I'm sure Apple will (if it hasn't already) put in place some technological measures to prevent OSX operation on clones, but still. This is just going to be a mess (not that Apple doesn't deserve it.)
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
"On the contrary, "labeled with an Apple logo" is just as valid an interpretation of that phrase."
You're a fucking moron. It is not, in any way "just as valid an interpretation of that phrase".
The law is about semantics, and the difference is vast. If the phrase is "Apple labeled", then the question is "did Apple do the labeling". As your phrase is "labeled with an Apple logo", which you're pretending is equivalent to "labeled by Apple" (which IS a valid interpretation of the phrase) you need to answer, is putting a sticker on something equivalent to being labeled by Apple and no one with a whit of intelligence would say yes.
The funny part is that you and a host of other idiots who modded you up think that your shitty reading comprehension somehow translates into a valid argument, while those of us who aren't morons know you'd be laughed out of court.
"Apple labeled" doesn't, in any way mean "has an Apple logo on it" and no amount of ignorant blathering on your part will change that.
Even more accurately- there are no requirements or restrictions on who you share the code with. All it requires is that access to the binary is accompanied by access to the code. You can still decide to give neither to anyone you want.
I suspect Apple will sue if Open Tech uses an Mac trademarks or alludes to Apple's trade dress in any way. There's no way that Open Tech will be able to defend themselves - things will get very expensive, very quickly. I doubt Apple would risk playing the EULA card in case the judge finds against them and finds it reasonable for Open Tech to use Apple software on whatever bloody hardware they wish. If that was to occur, Apple would find themselves starring in their very own version of "Attack of the Clones."
Apple will wait quietly to see what ammunition Open Tech provides them. I can't imagine the new company will be able to successfully advertise without alluding to Mac, Apple, or OS X. Apple is the patient shark, and sooner or later the surfer will dangle a limb over the edge of the board.
I would not raise the price of the OS to $10K, but maybe $450. That way there would be - at best - a very marginal cost difference. Apple would then refuse to support any non-apple hw.
As it is, very few mac users are interested in non-apple hw, take away any real price advantage, and apple competitors would not stand a chance.
uh, problem solved. unless you consider piracy.
and it opens things up for fraud. Very hard unless you want to put out the money to check everyone's computer. They could easily install the software, say they didn't agree with the EULA and return it, and get the software for free
I'm not sure you've tried an osx86 project lately. Retail disk + compatible computer = apple install, almost as easy as if it were a genuine product from apple.
True, but theoretically you should be able to return the product if you don't agree to the EULA, so prohibiting that would be bad. Instead they should put the EULA inside the box but outside the shrink-wrap - or even better, in a sleeve on the outside of the box.
No, first-sale doctrine only means you can transfer a legal copy of a copyrighted work to another. It does not say what you can do with it.
It's still copyrighted, so "I can do any damned thing I please" might apply to the media (physical DVD) but certainly not to the bits on it. You can't, for example, legally make 1000 copies of it and sell them for $5 a pop, or post the bits on your website.
You can transfer the copyright to a new owner, but the legal status of the content does not change. That's the whole point of first-sale doctrine.
I'm sure this company... which appears to be a guy named Tom... will thoroughly corner the market on people who want Mac clones that they have to install the OS on themselves, but who are unwilling to use the free software resources to do it.
Now all they need to do is move onto existent markets.
Philip Sandifer's academic website
Binding me to copyright requires NO CONSIDERATION, NO RENUMERATION, NO INTERACTION with me at all. It's a law, not a contract. I don't have to receive or agree to ANYTHING in order to be bound by that legal framework (referring to copyright). What's worse is that YOU ALREADY KNOW THIS and a beating a long-dead skeleton of a horse.
It might be fun and convenient to apply one law when arguing the 'pro' side of an argument and apply a completely different (and utterly unrelated) law when taking the 'con' side of an argument, but it's pointless and makes you look like a fanboi troll. Pick ONE legal framework (copyright or contract law) and stick to that, stop equating the two.
They publish the EULA on the web somewhere. I think someone pretending not to know the terms, buying a copy, returning it in a non saleable state and demanding a refund is not going to be looked at too kindly by the courts. It's one thing to dislike Apple's business model, quite another to try to harass them by playing disingenuous games like this.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
shrink wrap contracts have been proven to be invalid, however EULAs do allow you to disagree and return the product for a full refund, however most reatil shops will not accept this and you have to pay for shipping to return it to the producer
Does it run Linux?
I have done a number of installs for recording studios. They tend to go with Macs because of TCO, the easy to administer OS, and in two cases, a love of Digital Performer. DP runs wonderfully on a ProTools HD setup, and is ideal for scoring TV shows. Anyway, the point is:
The clients trust the big aluminum box with the handles, and the dual Apple screens. The clients like seeing that a studio dropped cash for top of the line robust hardware. When I installed a PC to run Gigastudio, we went with a rackmount solution, partially for convenience, and partially because the clients like seeing what they don't see at home or at work.
It is an odd thing, but the clients like to see, and are willing to pay more for studios with higher end hardware.
A $7,000 mouse, otherwise known as a Digidesign Control|24, can be worth an additional $50/hr in billed time. That comes partially from efficiency and partially from clients who are willing to pay more for studios with the bigger, efficient tools. BTW: that Control|24 would pay for itself in a mere two months at some of the facilities I have done work for.
Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
However, if someone takes my software (say it's GPL licensed), makes modifications to it, and uses it in his business, he has no legal burden to release those changes back to me unless he distributes the software to others.
Nope. If you're going to tell Jobs to take his license and smoke it, I'm going to do the same to your GPL'd product. Fair is fair.
Once you've conveyed the copy, it's mine under your ridiculous and overbroad interpretation of DFS. And don't try to say it's not a "sale" because it'll just make you look like an idiot, since DFS doesn't actually require the exchange of money.
It's a bog standard PC. I guess I can say that new Amigas are available if I put a sticky "Amiga" label on it. It's even backwards compatible with the old software.
All this talk of such things being "no win" for Apple is ridiculous.
From Apple's point of view, they can't really go wrong.
1. All these clone-makers trying to find loopholes to sell OS X compatible systems just generate more publicity for Apple and their OS. Brand-awareness is something companies spend millions a year on, and this amounts to getting some of it free.
2. If Apple opts to completely ignore this guy selling "Mac clones", they stand to sell a few more retail copies of OS X out of the deal -- so whatever. More money in their pockets, and pretty much all from folks who weren't going to be much of a Mac hardware customer in the first place. (Come on... do you REALLY believe there are many people out there who were all ready to buy a Mac, but saw one of these generic clones on the Inet and said "Hey, never knew I had THAT option! I'm buying that instead!" ?? A real Mac includes such things as an elegant case design that runs quietly, and walk-in support after the sale at any Apple retail store. Things like free product training sessions are even provided for people, and even their phone support is consistently ranked above the rest.)
3. Say Apple *does* decide to sue? Worst case for them is they lose -- so out some legal fees and potentially the ability to claim their current EULA stands as legally enforceable. Ok - so where does that really put them? They're STILL selling all those copies of OS X with each clone sold, because nobody ever said they suddenly have to give the OS out FREE to clone-users. They can simply change things for the next OS X version, so it checks your machine serial number against some kind of online database of registered Mac hardware owners before installing, or quit selling a retail stand-alone boxed version, or ??? Lots of ways to accomplish their goals....
You must have misread my comment. As I've already mentioned, "You can buy the software, leave it unopened, and sell it to anyone else you please." It's when you agree to the EULA that you become bound by its terms. In the case of OS X, you must agree to the EULA before you install it.
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
How can you be bound by a contract AFTER the sale is already done?
Try to look at it this way. When you buy software down at your local big box shop, you get two things: a copy of the software, and a license/contract to use the software. The courts have ruled that the DoFS means you can sell your copy to anyone you want, or burn it, or have sex with the hole in the CD...whatever you please. That said, when you install the software (or in some cases open the packaging on the individual CD's) you must agree to a EULA. More and more this comes in the form of a scroll-down box where you select "I agree" (IIRC, this is what Apple does). Usually the terms of this contract prohibit you from selling your copy of the software again. They also prohibit you from transferring your license to anyone else. Obviously terms vary by license, but those two are almost universally the case. The important point is that by installing the software, you've agreed to a contract with the software company. If you break the terms of the contract, you're breaking the law.
But the supreme court has already shot down the concept of contracts after the fact
That's a given. Almost all EULAs aren't contracts after the fact. They require explicit agreement (scroll down, click "I agree", etc.). The courts have struck down strict shrink wrap licensing whereby you agree to a license you haven't yet read, buy this isn't what the OP or anyone else was talking about. He was asserting that the DoFS somehow excludes him from being bound by the terms of the EULA even though he has to agree to it to install the software. It doesn't.
just a few idiot judges who think software is somehow different that music cd or book is all
Software is different from a music CD or book. People who install software are bound by license agreements (contracts); readers and music listeners are not.
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
So a company decides to sell Clone PCs with hardware that all happens to be supported by OSX. They're hardly the first to do so, they just happen to be the first to send out some press releases saying so. Why would i buy their PC and pirate OSX? I could just buy the components myself and do the same, or do the right thing and just go buy an apple PC from them. Even if it isn't illegal for this company (whose website makes them look like a fly-by-night) to sell the machines, it is still illegal for their customer to pirate OSX. No thanks, I'll just buy what i want in the first place and be done with it.
But something you already own has no power to force you to sign a contract to use it. Copyright law specifically says no license is required for the owner of a copy to use it, EULAs are a failed concept.
But something you already own has no power to force you to sign a contract to use it.
No one's forcing you to accept the license agreement. If you don't like it, you can take the software back. Whether or not you'll get your money back is a completely different discussion (as I've told someone else, I fully support the idea that you should be able to return software if you don't agree to the EULA).
Copyright law specifically says no license is required for the owner of a copy to use it, EULAs are a failed concept.
This is a non-sequitur. IP law is completely different for software vis a vis books, movies, and CDs. I know of no law that states you are not bound by the terms of a license agreement on software you purchase and install.
Anyway, I think you're confusing the way the world should work with the way it does work.
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
Blah blah blah F-tards!
"Apple made the sticker, Apple provided the sticker, the sticker is of Apple's trademarked logo."
DId they apply it? No.
"Obviously, the sticker is intended..."
Please prove this with something other than your useless opinion, as that is all you have and it is wrong. YOU don't get to decide what Apple's intent was, so you're wrong.
"No, I'm fucking NOT pretending those two phrases are equivalent!"
Yes you were, you just don't read well enough to realize it.
"I am, however, claiming that the phrase "Apple-labeled" -- you know, the ACTUAL FUCKING TEXT IN THE EULA -- is ambiguous enough to be interpreted either way."
And you're wrong.
No one's forcing you to accept the license agreement.
Not forcing me to sign, no. But forcing me to give up the use of a product I already legally purchased, yes.
They advertise games for sale and yet purport to deliver only a license to play a game. These two are not interchangeable. Imagine if you bought at a restaurant food and instead received a contract (an hour later, when really hungry) that you had to sign before receiving the food.
Even if you haven't paid, you've indicated you acceptance of deal 1, unencumbered food. For them to switch to deal 2 without warning is as unsupportable as giving you a different meal.
Of course, if you quietly eat it without a fuss, no skin off their noses.
I know of no law that states you are not bound by the terms of a license agreement on software you purchase and install.
Do you know of any law that says software purchases, even when they appear as outright sales, aren't?
IP law is completely different for software vis a vis books, movies, and CDs.
Completely? Even though copyright statute has a specific allowance for the copying of software to avoid any question of needing to license it. 17-117a1
Anyway, I think you're confusing the way it works with the way the self-interested companies claim it works. They might not be totally honest...
I don't claim to be any business expert. I've heard this argument before though (wait - hasn't everybody?). The argument seems to go like this. . . if Apple starts licensing Mac OS to run on non-Apple hardware, they run a risk of having the hardware makers release shoddy, sub-standard, non-quite-compatible hardware. This will cause problems for the end users, who will blame Apple. The value of the Apple name and their margins go down, while simultaneously their support costs go up. Or something like that.
But, that said, at, say $250 or so per license, and with minimal per-unit costs on software, as Microsoft has found, if you sell a few hundred million licenses, you can spend a lot on support and still make massive profit, so I'm not really so sure what Apple is worried about, except for direct competition with Microsoft.
Even if you haven't paid, you've indicated you acceptance of deal 1, unencumbered food. For them to switch to deal 2 without warning is as unsupportable as giving you a different meal.
You'd have to show relevant damages to sue for promissory estoppel. "But I was reaaaallly hungry" doesn't make for a compelling tort.
Do you know of any law that says software purchases, even when they appear as outright sales, aren't?
Yes, ProCD v Zeidenberg as one example. FTA:
Completely? Even though copyright statute has a specific allowance for the copying of software to avoid any question of needing to license it. 17-117a1
Notwithstanding 17-106. I'm not clear what your point is here.
Anyway, I understand where you're coming from. You feel like people are getting screwed because they believe they're buying a copy of some software when in fact they're not. The case law is tough for people to get their heads around, but it doesn't make it any less valid. There are clearly areas that the courts (and congress) haven't fleshed out yet: do you have the absolute right to return the software if you don't agree to the EULA? How will companies ultimately be obliged to package the EULA? etc. But the general acceptance of EULAs as enforceable contracts is a question that's long been answered.
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
You feel like people are getting screwed because they believe they're buying a copy of some software when in fact they're not.
Should read: they're buying a copy of the software, but their rights become limited once they agree to the EULA. This is first year contract law stuff.
The general process works like this:
Step 1: Customer buys software.
Step 2: Customer installs software.
Step 3: Customer agree to contract as part of installing software.
Step 4: Contract trumps copy-rights.
Step 5: Customer becomes subject to the terms of the contract.
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
And after that someone can sue Honda for not allowing the installation of their engines into a Ford.
Of course they can't, because Honda does not disallow the installation of their parts into non-Honda vehicles. Honda can't disallow such a thing in the first place because those engines are *sold*, not licensed. Don't conflate the outrageous terms companies get away with under copyright law with entirely separate (and much clearer and fairer) property law.
It is perfectly reasonable to point out that Apple would be bundling their software product with their hardware product. (Bundling is an issue distinct and separate from copyright law anyway.) The fact that a seller can't (and doesn't try to) dictate the use of property post-sale has no bearing on the issue of bundling.
Apple doesn't even make an operating system.
You can't possibly be serious. That operating system didn't write itself. Apple didn't license it from Microsoft or IBM or Linus Torvalds or Richard Stallman or anybody else; Apple wrote that piece of software! They claim this explicitly and vigorously defend as much in the court system.
They build complete computer SYSTEMS that happen to include their own OS.
The operating systems don't just spring onto the hard discs in installed form, nor does installation media containing the software just spring into the boxes in which Apple ships its computers. You make it sound as if the inclusion of Apple's operating system is both incidental and inconsequential, like air getting into the shipping box; it is neither. Apple produces and sells this software.
If Apple itself saw it as you paint it, they wouldn't care if someone downloaded their software once they sold the hardware; after all, they wouldn't see it as worth actual compensation, because hey, Apple's a hardware company.
This is pure unadulterated BS.
You're the one with the incorrect position, which is either not thought-out or ill-thought-out.
Why should what Apple does be illegal when car makers and other manufacturers do exactly the same thing, and have done so for years?
The part in bold is the false; they do not do "exactly the same thing":
If Ford refuses to sell you a Ford engine if you don't buy the rest of the vehicle with it, you can go buy an equivalent or even identical engine from someone else. Engines are property and aren't copyrightable, so Ford can't prevent anyone from using their engines in go-karts, boats, or Chevrolets. But Apple does sell their operating system without selling a piece of hardware with it (a Macintosh computer). Apple goes out of its way to prevent what it sold (the software) from working with the products of its competitors (other computer manufacturers). They hide behind copyright law to get away with it. By no stretch of the imagination at all, this is "crippling their operating system".
I don't disagree that the post to which you responded was a little sycophantic and borderline delusional, but your response is a bunch of reactionary falsehoods. In closing:
Why should integrated software be treated differently than integrated hardware?
Of course it is as you imply: they should *not* be treated differently at all. But you are mistaken in thinking they are presently treated the same. Copyright law allows software distributors (Apple, Microsoft, FSF, anyone), if they so choose, to get away with, bundling and post-sale restrictions that are unenforceable in both practical and legal senses in the world of "hardware".
That would be true if Apple were a software company like MS. They are not.
They certainly are a software company. Whether this endeavor makes up more or less than half of their revenue (or market cap. or marketing expenditure or R&D expenditure or whatever), they write software and sell it on their web site and in their retail stores. Perhaps you should check out iPhoto, iDVD, iMovie, Shake, DVD Studio Pro, Final Cut Pro (and Final Cut Express), Aperture, Logic Pro, Garage Band, and iWork, not to mention the Macintosh Operating System. They're all developed in-house by Apple, Inc., and available in the usual retail channels.
What an absurd statement! Who does make the Mac OS? Who's been making it since the early 1980s? It didn't write itself; Apple made it then, they make it now, and they've made it through all the time intervening.
[They] build complete computers, of which OSX is a key part.
But they sell Mac OS separately to all comers, at retail even. Hard drives, keyboards, and mice are also key parts of their computers. But different law governs the conditions under which these parts are sold.
They are perfectly within their rights to require some sort of agreement that you will only install their engine and transmission in their vehicle.
No, they aren't, and that analogy is wrong in kind and not just in degree. Car companies are not at all "within their rights" to dictate what someone does with the engine and transmission once sold. Once an engine or transmission is sold, it becomes someone else's property. Once Apple sells me a computer, they have no right to tell me what I can do with the disk drives or the RAM or any other *hardware*. Post-sale restrictions are not lawful and not enforced. This is settled case law, and claiming it is otherwise is either wishful thinking or willful disinformation.
The same is true with software, but companies that make software leverage copyright law to get around this limitation to the greatest extent possible. The fact that Apple's complaints against Mac OS-portability community at large are all based on copyright law and the technicalities of their DRM schemes shows that you are wrong in thinking (absurdly!) that Apple "doesn't even MAKE an operating system". Apple sure thinks it makes the Macintosh Operating System; they sell it and they enforce their copyright on it.
Besides all that, you already (in another post) advocated that hardware and software should not be treated differently:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=627137&cid=24355469/
Of course they shouldn't be! Apple uses copyright law to work around the illegality of imposing post-sale restrictions on as many of their products as they can. It is only fortunate for the computer-consuming public that copyright law doesn't apply to hardware as it applies to software.
What they could do is require each customer to prove they are indeed a Mac owner or sign a statement that they are, BEFORE they sell you a key part of their system.
Perhaps, and that might be a solution for them if they are willing to implement Draconian licensing mechanisms and make life difficult for their customers, as long as they were careful to disclose this fact and not mislead the buyers of their hardware into thinking their transaction alone fulfilled the license requirements for the Mac OS. It's their software after all, and they can specify onerous licensing terms at their own peril if they so choose. What they can't do is impose post-sale restrictions.
NOW they would have you under a signed binding contract which, unlike a EULA they would easily be able to enforce in a court of law.
No, it would *not* be easily able to enforce such contract terms. Contract law is not a trump; there are rights and responsibilities that
Apple bought PA Semi not long ago, and there have been rumors that they might go with a non-Intel chipset (not the CPU, but the bridge chips) designed in-house.
If they pull that off, and make future versions of OS X require those proprietary chips, it'd be like the old days of needing an "Apple ROM" for your emulator. :)
I'm not sure how feasible it would be for them to do that while maintaining compatibility with non-Apple OSes, though.
Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.