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.'"

41 of 621 comments (clear)

  1. Good luck with this, Apple. by palegray.net · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  2. The Tenuous EULA Claim Apple May Make by Apple+Acolyte · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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
    1. Re:The Tenuous EULA Claim Apple May Make by Lank · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm not sure I understand why you think such a claim would be "tenuous." Apple makes it fairly clear in their EULA that it's not allowed to install Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware, as you know. Just to be sure though, here it is :)

      2. Permitted License Uses and Restrictions.
      A. Single Use. This License allows you to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time. You agree not to install, use or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-labeled computer, or to enable others to do so. This License does not allow the Apple Software to exist on more than one computer at a time, and you may not make the Apple Software available over a network where it could be used by multiple computers at the same time.

      From http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/macosx105.pdf

      I would think the case they would make is that they, Open Tech, are not installing it, but their customers are. And that sounds like a great business plan: sell a combination of products that when used together, encourages a large company with a hefty legal department to sue you into oblivion.

      --
      Gotta get me one of these!
    2. Re:The Tenuous EULA Claim Apple May Make by chromatic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think I'd rather pay a little more to Apple than to have Apple lawyers knocking on my door with a subpoena.

      That thinking is part of the problem. Why do business with a company so actively hostile toward its customers?

      --
      how to invest, a novice's guide
    3. Re:The Tenuous EULA Claim Apple May Make by furball · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why do business with a company so actively hostile toward its customers?

      Since Apple is a hardware company, if you don't buy an Apple computer, how are you their customer?

    4. Re:The Tenuous EULA Claim Apple May Make by furball · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, it has nothing to do with contract laws. It has to do with who a company perceives as a customer. That means from the company's perspective you are not a customer.

      A business relationship should be one where both parties benefits (symbiotic). If only one side benefits then it's not going to last since it's typically at the cost of the other side (parasitic).

      If a company is not benefiting you when you buy their goods and services, you should consider no longer buying their goods and services. Likewise, if you operate a company and taking care of a customer's needs ends up costing you, it's smart to encourage that customer to go somewhere else.

      Since companies are fond of making money and less fond of losing money, you can tell where you stand as to whether or not you are a customer based on the company's attitudes towards you. Look at who they treat well and whose business they desire to determine who their real customers are.

  3. 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 palegray.net · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The purchase would be less about saving money, and more about making a statement. Copyright law was always intended to prevent unauthorized distribution of protected materials, and not to dictate use of legitimately purchased materials. In my opinion, and other reading of the law is excessively restrictive.

      --
      512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
    2. Re:Might work ... by Darkness404 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem with OSX86 is that most of the time it relies on pirated software or software of questionable legality. I mean, sure you could argue that it is fair use, but when the download directs you to a torrent on The Pirate Bay, it makes you have second thoughts. Then there is the issue of updating, etc.

      Would I like to install Tiger on my EEE just for the fun of it? Yes. And if I could just buy a Tiger install disk off of e-Bay and hack it easily that way I probably would, but pirating an entire OS... I just don't really agree with it.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    3. Re:Might work ... by aliquis · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But both you and me know that the price for OS X is the same for everyone because it's supposed to be bought by mac users only, and all macs ships with OS X so what you are buying are actually an upgrade more than a complete OS. It just doesn't say it's an update and don't do any checks for a previous version (it do however require you to install the OS on a mac which kind of is proof enough...)

      If you compare the price of OS X with the price of Vista and then compare the volume of each one and what you get for the money you'll quite easily find out that those $129 or whatever isn't enough for the OS.

      Both you and me know that macs sell at a premium and part of the reason to pay for that premium is to be able to use their software.

      So, would you be happier if the box said "upgrade"? Because then you kind of have lost your argument since you don't own the full version and it's impossible to buy it, just as it was impossible to buy OS X 10.4 Tiger for Intel.

      The software are sold under an end user agreement, so if you choose to belive those are valid which we do because if not there's no point in discussing this then what you pay for is the right to USE THE SOFTWARE ON YOUR MAC, NOT TO GET A FULL VERSION OF THE OS TO USE ON ANY COMPUTER.

      Hard to comprehend?

      If you can make a case rendering all EULAs invalid then you got a point. And in that case Apple have to change something, and that something would be to for example not sell full versions but require a valid/old version to begin with. Would you be happy then? Or would you just copy and install it anyway which is probably the whole point of your argument.

      If you don't like it and don't think it's worth it then just don't buy it. Simple as that, no one is forcing you to run OS X on the mac you think is to expensive, you don't have to buy one and use OS X at all.

    4. Re:Might work ... by mrchaotica · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But both you and me know that the price for OS X is the same for everyone because it's supposed to be bought by mac users only, and all macs ships with OS X so what you are buying are actually an upgrade more than a complete OS. It just doesn't say it's an update and don't do any checks for a previous version (it do however require you to install the OS on a mac which kind of is proof enough...)

      Apple's choice of business model is its problem, not ours!

      ...it do[sic] however require you to install the OS on a mac...

      No it doesn't; it requires you only to install on an "Apple-labeled" computer. Conveniently, Apple includes stickers in the Mac OS retail package, so you can stick an Apple label on whatever computer you want! : )

      --

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

    5. Re:Might work ... by mrsteveman1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yea, i mean its just plastic, in fact any old CD will do just fine. What's on it doesn't matter at all.

    6. Re:Might work ... by mrchaotica · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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

    7. Re:Might work ... by pcolaman · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    8. Re:Might work ... by wellingj · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Maybe the point is that $129 is the right price for a lovely operating system, if one has the choice of operating systems.

      --
      Money is the root of all evil?
    9. Re:Might work ... by larry+bagina · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    10. Re:Might work ... by WNight · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ahh yes, intent is an issue. Consumer intent to sign a contract. I don't see much.

      Whatever Apple intends, as long as it sells its OS at retail it doesn't have a very good case for including crazy restrictions.

      Especially since brand-tying is generally not enforceable.

    11. Re:Might work ... by wellingj · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So was mine.
      But that's probably because we are willing to spend the $129 in sweat equity to make our operating systems what we want. Most people don't have that option and are happy to pay $129. In other words: A carpenter wouldn't pay another carpenter to remodel his home...

      --
      Money is the root of all evil?
    12. Re:Might work ... by Provocateur · · Score: 4, Insightful

      but MS has a much smarter business model. Provide just the software, and don't lock down

      You lost me there. Back then you COULDN'T get a PC without MS Windows on it. I'd say MS pretty much locked down every other piece of hardware (that wasn't Apple) on the planet. And that was enough to get them a headstart, and a trip to the courthouse.

      --
      WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
    13. Re:Might work ... by Mattsson · · Score: 4, Funny

      And, if you use an apple to apply the Apple made Apple label, you can honestly argue that the label was put there by "apple". ^_^

      --
      /.Mattsson - My native language is not English, so please don't whine over linguistic errors. (That's lame anyway...)
    14. Re:Might work ... by mr_matticus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No it's not. Label is a term with a legal definition.

      "An informative display of written or graphic matter, such as a logo, title, or similar marking, affixed to goods or services to identify their source. A label may be put on the packaging or container of a manufactured product, or on the packaging or surface of a natural substance." Black's, 8th.

      The sticker does not magically transform it into an Apple-labeled machine, despite your best efforts, no matter how badly Slashdotters wish it were so.

      If they lose the challenge, then Apple will change its business model, since the retail sale of OS X does not even account for 1% of their revenue, and it is the sale of Macs, with their full license, that pays for development. OS X packages are released for Macintosh computers at $129 as an upgrade. That will end if it is ever forced to permit reselling of upgrade packages for white box systems.

      Of course, that will never happen, because the discounted upgrade price is a consumer benefit, and no court in its right mind would eliminate that source of low-cost purchasing.

    15. 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

  4. Custom Firmware Debate... by PC+and+Sony+Fanboy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:Custom Firmware Debate... by palegray.net · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It would seem that legally speaking, hardware manufacturers cannot dictate what I do with their product as it functions immediately after I've purchased it. I could use it as intended, or as an expensive doorstop. The issue arises when the product is designed to connect to external services for things like software updates, which the hardware manufacturer may have direct control over, along with the legal right to restrict use of said services to specifically configured devices.

      A lot might depend on how licensing agreements are worded. When we buy a product that is designed to receive periodic patches and other updates, are we allowed to tell the manufacturer how to run their service? If we're paying for it, it would seem we might have more rights in this area. I'm certainly not a lawyer, so it gets murky here.

      --
      512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
  5. Which is cheaper? by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    1. 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

  6. Re: Fixed that for you by palegray.net · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  7. Re:This is dumb by Darkness404 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
  8. Sassy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    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

  9. XT ? by keeboo · · Score: 3, Funny

    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?

    1. Re:XT ? by MentlFlos · · Score: 4, Funny

      What next, Macs shipping with a DB15 joystick connector?

      Of course not... that is on the ISA sound card silly

  10. Trademark and ads actually the real issues by Zergwyn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  11. Tortious interference by MattW · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

    1. 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;
  12. Seems like a great way to fcuk Apple... by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Some noted above the options, and I have to agree - this is a no-win situation for Apple. They haven't any real options in this, and I was curious how long it would take for someone to pull this off.

    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.
  13. Re: Fixed that for you by palegray.net · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
  14. Re: Fixed that for you by mrchaotica · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

    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:

    Can software installers ask people to click to agree to the GPL? If I get some software under the GPL, do I have to agree to anything?

    Some software packaging systems have a place which requires you to click through or otherwise indicate assent to the terms of the GPL. This is neither required nor forbidden. With or without a click through, the GPL's rules remain the same.

    Merely agreeing to the GPL doesn't place any obligations on you. You are not required to agree to anything to merely use software which is licensed under the GPL. You only have obligations if you modify or distribute the software. If it really bothers you to click through the GPL, nothing stops you from hacking the GPLed software to bypass this.

    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

  15. 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.

  16. Win-win for Apple by jay-be-em · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  17. "People buy Macs for..." by argent · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  18. 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)