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.
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.
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?
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".
For Joe Sixpack yes, but if you looked at /.'s slogan, it is "news for nerds" not "news for the mainstream public", most of us want a A) fast OS B) Secure OS C) Good looking OS and D) compatible OS. Out of all of the OSes, Windows only has good software compatibility but nothing else, BSD and Linux are fast, secure and can be good looking, but a lot of niche software isn't written for them. With OS X you get a fast OS, secure because it is UNIX, looks nice, and is compatible with a lot of apps (Note: I am not a Mac fanboy, I don't even own a Mac).
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
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
The idea here is that this manufacturer is offering hardware that they've purpose-built to work with MacOS. If it doesn't function properly, their customers will demand refunds and the company will be out of business quickly. If it does function properly, the market wins with more competition on the hardware front.
I like it.
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
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
"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!
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
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
You sure about that? Slashdot is always full of people wanting to see license agreements enforced. Surely you've heard of the GPL.
The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...
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.
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
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...
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.
"No copying, no theft, no distribution" -- okay, I'll grant you that. But "no anything"? Hardly. Read your own next sentence: "You install it on one computer". Here you yourself have instinctively given the nod to the legitimacy of license agreements that limit the use of the purchased copy of the software. Installing it on multiple computers of yours in your own home would no more constitute "copying", "theft" or "distribution" than installing it on one. So what is it that requires that it be installed on only one computer? The license agreement. If Apple has the right to insist that you agree to install your purchased copy on only one computer in consideration for allowing you to purchase it at a price that is lower than it otherwise would have been, why don't they also have the right to insist that you install it only on a Mac?
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
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
The entire pay-for-OS paradigm is complete and utter bullshit. Infer what you will.
You sure about that? Slashdot is always full of people wanting to see license agreements enforced. Surely you've heard of the GPL.
That's not a liscense agreement. It's about copying/distribution, it's not an end-user liscense agreement.
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
It's an Intel based PC. Why wouldn't it run Linux?
Scott
©20014 angrykeyboarder & Elmer Fudd. All Wights Wesewved
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
It is an end-user license agreement. It's designed to give the user the right to install, modify, and redistribute. Like any license, it comes with some restrictions and protections for the authors of the original work. In the case of the GPL, the restrictions center largely around redistribution.
In fact, the whole intent of the GPL is written largely with the end-user in mind.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html
The GPL exploits a loophole in copyright law that allows software to be licensed to begin with. I call it a loophole because the whole licensing nonsense circumvents much of copyright law, allowing copyright owners control over their works far exceeding that of all other forms of media.
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.
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
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.
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
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
30-40%? I'm not sure what kind of business experience you have but 30-40% is hardly excessive. When I worked in a plain old drugstore we marked up, on average, 30%. Batteries, however, were about 300%. You'd be better off spending your time complaining about overpriced Duracell products. This is all aside from the fact that you don't even know what Apple's markup is.
I find it amazing that most people on Slashdot still do not understand the Apple business model. They are a hardware company that makes great software to support their product and to promote sales. What is wrong with that? As a Mac user I hope the clone company goes down in flames because it means nothing but bad news for a product that I like quite a bit. If third parties are allowed to make Mac clones then either Apple software will start to get really expensive or Apple will go down the tubes.
The are more whiners about whiny Mac fanboys than there are whiny Mac fanboys. The rest of you have your Windows machines and Linux boxes so why do you even care about Apple?
http://www.rootstrikers.org/
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.
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.
It is an end-user license agreement.
No. The GPL and other open source licenses don't try to impose any restrictions on users that don't already exist in copyright law.
In the case of the GPL, the restrictions center largely around redistribution.
Redistribution is already forbidden (excepting fair use) under copyright law. The GPL grants rights to do so provided you fulfill certain conditions. You don't incur any additional restrictions by "agreeing" to the GPL.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
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.
"So what is it that requires that it be installed on only one computer? The license agreement."
No, copyright law.
A EULA shouldn't be allowed to implement more restrictions than copyright law, except for restricting the responsibility of the manufacturer (Apple) that may limit proper functioning to Apple hardware, clauses that you shouldn't use the software to run nuclear plants etc.
But what the buyer of the software does with (or to) the software, should be entirely up to the buyer. Nail it to the wall, use it for initial numbers for a random number generator, whatever. That and everything under the sun, except for distributing copies of the software.
Bert
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
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?
An important point: a hardware make is specifically making hardware to fit Apple. When has that ever been the case?
1995 - 1997
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.
Yes, it is. Just because the license is crafted to give certain rights to the end-user rather than restrict rights, doesn't mean it's not an end-user license agreement.
As far as the restrictions I was referring to, it involves the restrictions for *NOT* redistributing code when you are supposed to, according to the license.
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."
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.
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.
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.
Actually, I think your interpretation is not quite correct. Let's say Dell thinks that these Mac Pro's are excellent machines and would work very nicely with Vista, so they ask Apple to build 100,000 Mac Pros for them, call them Dell Pro and put a Dell label on them. It would have been Apple who puts the label on the computer, but they would be "Dell-labeled". An Apple-labeled computer is one that is legitimately and correctly labeled as being an "Apple computer".
No, it's a distribution license, not an end user license. There's no need to show the GPL during installation, the GPL imposes no restrictions on the end USER, it imposes restrictions on those who might want to distribute/modify the program. They don't actually have to USE the software http://jyte.com/cl/the-gpl-is-not-an-end-user-license-agreement-2
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.
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.
The problem is that Apple's contractual language is vague. Courts have routinely ruled that the party which does not write the agreement has leeway in interpreting the agreement. It's sort of a "one child cuts the cake, the second child chooses the piece" condition. If you write a poor contract, it is your failure. Apple could have made the sentence clear by rewriting to indicate that a "Computer labeled by Apple, Inc. or it's legally designated manufacturing agent" was the wording, rather than the ambiguous language they chose.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
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
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)
Perhaps the GP was joking? I thought they were anyway.
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.
Try reading the link you put in your comment, and skip down to the section headed "Acceptance Not Required for Having Copies."
Yes, it's a licence. You don't have to agree to the licence to use the software. Just like with so-called EUL"A"s.
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.
They'll fix the vagueness of the license in the next OS release, I'm sure. And I bet at least one lawyer has already lost his job writing Apple licenses for being a fucktard and writing that wording.
They will change it so that dumb-asses like these idiots selling these machines will understand the itty bitty simple words.
"Dear assholes, we make an integrated product line. We're coming after people who can't fucking figure that out."
In the meantime they'll wrap these guys up in very expensive litigation. They want a fight, they'll have it. They'll be bankrupt before Apple is.
Good show Apple. Keep working towards a computing experience that works for people, and fighting off these "I want a free OS" retards who can't even get down to ONE desktop that WORKS after ten years.
Those of us that want our shit to work when we turn it on in the morning, will keep paying for it. And they know it.
+++OK ATH
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
"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.
"Actually, I think your interpretation is not quite correct."
Actually, it is, and what you think doesn't matter. Also, your analogy is retarded.
"The problem is that Apple's contractual language is vague."
I completely agree, but it isn't THAT vague, and the idea that a court will find "Apple labeled" means "has a customer applied Apple sticker on it" is beyond ridiculous.
Yes, courts do stupid things all the time, bit something that stupid is rare even for the courts of today.
In other words, it doesn't matter how vague you think it is, it isn't so vague that op's line of reasoning isn't plainly dumb.
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
I never argue against those with more experience. You clearly know all about being plainly dumb.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
why is this moded down? I ROFLOLPPYouOweMeANewKeyboard-ed my ass off.
I know full well that tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack
"I never argue against those with more experience. You clearly know all about being plainly dumb."
Of course I do, I've had dialog with you.
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.