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.'"
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
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.
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.
On the contrary, "labeled with an Apple logo" is just as valid an interpretation of that phrase.
Besides, if you're using a sticker from the box, then Apple did make the label.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
There's a reason why MS has done infinitely better business wise over the last two decades than Apple. Yeah, Apple has gained a little bit of ground in the past few years, thanks to the iPod, not any of their computers, but MS has a much smarter business model. Provide just the software, and don't lock down (as much as is sensible anyways) what type of hardware that the end user can use that software on. Granted, MS does a lot of stuff that can make us cringe, but no one can doubt that they at least do a few things much smarter than the way Apple operates. I'm telling you, 10-15 years ago, people will for the most part be over looking at MS as the evil empire, and Apple will have a sour taste in the mouths of anyone who is not immune to the effects of the reality distortion field. Does anyone believe that Apple has any desire whatsoever to have an open platform? There's a reason they sell their computers for a premium price, and it has little to do with the quality of their hardware.
if it's only a little code, why do you need it? Just download and compile all the code.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.