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.'"
So long Apple.
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.
.... 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
"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.
>But when have you AGREED to the GPL? When did I signed a contract for it? It doesn't matter if it's distributing or using, the point of saying EULAs doesn't matter is because you've already bought the product and have it and it's yours? Same with the GPL software.
You're an idiot. The GPL is about granting rights to a consumer/user to redistributing a copyrighted work that he wouldn't have in the first place. It is, in essence, a statement by the creators that they won't sue for copyright infringement if you meet these conditions.
The Apple EULA is about restricting rights, unfairly, that you, the consumer, are granted by the First Sale doctrine. If you can't tell the difference, then you have much bigger problems other than EULAs in your future.
Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a day. Light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
You type "google.com" into a browser adress bar, type in what you want to know in the handily provided text-entry field, and clicky on the links that are returned until you find out the info you want.
BTW, that tip is more universal than the specific question you asked, try it out on all of your "how-to" needs.