Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Second Mac Clone Maker Set To Sell, With a Twist

Posted by timothy on from the so-they-say dept.

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.'"

6 of 621 comments (clear)

  1. Might work ... by PC+and+Sony+Fanboy · · Score: 4, Informative

    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...

    1. Re:Might work ... by mrchaotica · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's amazing to me how people want everyone to respect the FOSS license agreements, but refuse to respect Apple's.

      Okay, for the fifty-millionth time, there's a difference -- a legal difference, not just a wishful one -- between an end user license like Apple's EULA and a distribution license like the GPL. The former attempts to take away the property rights that you already inherently have, by virtue of the fact that you bought the copy of the software. The latter gives you additional rights that you did not not already have under copyright law.

      In other words, FOSS licenses deserve to be respected because they actually provide a benefit to both the licensor and the licensee. EULAs don't. Do you see the difference?

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  2. Re:Tortious interference by Hal_Porter · · Score: 3, Informative

    They don't have to prove damage to the users, only to Apple

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference#Elements

    1. The existence of a contractual relationship or beneficial business relationship between two parties.
    2. Knowledge of that relationship by a third party.
    3. Intent of the third party to induce a party to the relationship to breach the relationship.
    4. Lack of any privilege on the part of the third party to induce such a breach.
    5. Damage to the party against whom the breach occurs.

    Tortious interference always reminds me of this quote from The Insider
    http://www.dailyscript.com/scripts/the-insider_shooting.html

    HELEN CAPERELLI
    (cuts in)
    And, I'm told there are questions as to
    our "star witness'" veracity.
    LOWELL
    (trying to control his anger)
    His "veracity" was good enough for the
    State of Mississippi.

    HELEN CAPERELLI
    (historic)
    Our standards have to be higher than
    anyone else's, because we are the
    standard...for everyone else...
    Whatever that means...

    LOWELL
    (wry)
    Well, as a "standard"...I'll hang with
    "is the guy telling the truth?"

    HELEN CAPERELLI
    Well, with tortious interference, I'm
    afraid...the greater the truth, the
    greater the damage.

    LOWELL
    Come again?

    HELEN CAPERELLI
    They own the information he's disclosing.
    The truer it is, the greater the damage
    to them. If he lied, he didn't disclose
    their information. And the damages are
    smaller.

    LOWELL
    Is this "Alice in Wonderland"?

    Note in this case the damage was to the tobacco company, not to the guy who broke the confidentiality agreement.

    --
    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;
  3. info about Open Tech by e+r+i+k+0 · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  4. Re:Which is cheaper? by coren2000 · · Score: 3, Informative

    http://www.toshibadirect.com/td/b2c/pdet.to?seg=HHO&poid=412522

    vs

    http://store.apple.com/us/configure/MB134LL/A?mco=NzUyMzc4

  5. Re:_second_? by ribit · · Score: 4, Informative

    In that case, its not the third but the eighth. (Other licensees in the 90s were Motorola, Radius, APS Technologies, DayStar Digital, UMAX)