Don't be silly, it was quite obvious she was guilty as charged, the only grossly unfair thing was the punishment.
She was charged of having committed copyright infringement in two different ways. The first charge was incorrect and only happened because the RIAA's lawyers lied to the court, and the evidence for the second charge is most likely incorrect as well.
That is not the case for drugs. You (generally) cannot create a situation for authorized distribution of drugs.
A similar situation with alcohol: In most countries it is illegal to sell alcohol to someone under a certain age. If you send out an undercover cop who is say 25 but looks like he is 15, and a shop sells him alcohol, then the sales person didn't actually break the law (even though there is evidence they were willing to break it).
I don't think that's going to stand up. Undercover cops buy drugs and the state doesn't have to prosecute them for buying them. Why couldn't investigators "illegally" download copyrighted material and still have it considered infringing on the part of the defendant, but not be prosecuted?
There is a difference. When two people meet, one having drugs and the other having cash, and they exchange drugs for cash, then usually both have committed a crime. In the exceptional case that the second person is a cop trying to find a criminal, only one person has committed a crime. Selling drugs is illegal, even if the buyer is a cop. However, copyright infringement involves making an _unauthorised_ copy. In this case, no unauthorised copy has been made. The copy that was made is not authorised, so no copyright infringement has happened.
I think it depends on how much Larrabee will cost, however with what we know so far Apple seems to be heading into multi-CPU architectures, so using Larrabee would make sense.
Larrabee costs somewhere between 150 and 300 Watt, so MacBooks and Mac Minis are not likely to use them. Mac Pro, on the other hand, possibly.
wouldn't implementing what the author suggest, defeat the very purpose of having a CA ? SSL is not just for encryption you know. There is a little thing called 'trust' which pays a big part in it too.
Absolutely. As a rule, leaving security to amateurs (and even more rank amateurs like the author of the article) leads to insecurity. This is like everyone else discussing how to protect your house from burglars who might try to sneak in by the most obscure routes, and here we have a guy who doesn't even complain that locks on doors are impractical, he complains that we should do away with doors in the first place.
I think it is. Half of SSL is about encrypting a connection, the other half is about knowing whether you can trust the other side. What the article suggests (that SSL connections when the other side uses a self-signed certificate should give no warning) would completely destroy security of the Internet.
Odds are he had the money to pay his liabilities to an amount greatly exceeding the minimum required coverage. So why force him to bleed money on premiums?
From Wikipedia: "Today UK law is defined by The Road Traffic Act 1988, which was last modified in 1991. The act requires that some motorists either be insured, have a security, or have made a specified deposit (£500,000 as of 1991) with the Accountant General of the Supreme Court, against their liability for injuries to others (including passengers) and for damage to other persons' property resulting from use of a vehicle on a public road or in other public places." So you don't need to have motor insurance if you deposit half a million pound! I wonder how many people use that provision.
Having mandatory insurance has several benefits for society. The first and obvious one is that if you are a victim of an accident, there will be money to pay for it (apparently not in the USA; only $25,000 required. Germany has 1 million Euros, Austria has 3 million euros mandatory third party injury insurance). The second is that whoever caused the accident has much less reason to avoid paying. What if I crash into your brand new Ferrari with no insurance? I'll drive off and hope nobody saw me. With insurance, I make sure my insurance pays for it. Third reason: If you are injured in an accident, and nobody there except you and the person causing the accident, chances are that the person responsible won't get help if they don't have insurance.
Police Cruizer A notices you at 5th and A Street at 7:30. Curuzer B reports you at 10th and C Street at 7:37 - But the points are so far apart that you would have had to have speeded to get from one to the other in 7 minutes.
Come to Britain. There are a few thousand cars driving around with forged license plates. And people doing this don't take a random number, they look for a car that looks identical to theirs and copy the number plate. Now if that Cruizer B reported you at 7.32 - far enough away that you would have to travel at > 200 mph, then it would be an excellent idea to stop both cars. (Note: This doesn't actually happen. And having your license plate cloned is a lot, lot of trouble. )
If you have blind spots in a modern car, your mirrors are not positioned properly
If you put yourself into a dangerous position then you've only got yourself to blame if you get injured. The place where your vehicle (car or motorbike) should be is behind me, at a distance of about two seconds. Less than a second is dangerous. Less than five meters behind me on a motorbike? I don't care if there is a blind spot or not, I won't take the blame if you get yourself killed. I consider it attempted suicide.I _try_ not to assist anyone who attempts to kill themselves, but I won't take the blame if they succeed.
Just because they don't have insurance doesn't mean they can't compensate you. How many times a day does correlation v causation have to be covered on slashdot?
A person driving without insurance is breaking the law for starters. That person is acting irresponsible. What are the chances that this irresponsible person has put a few hundred thousand dollars into a fund that they can use for payment if they cause some serious injury to you? What are the chances that this irresponsible person will try anything to avoid payment? For example, if that person injures you on a lonely road without witnesses, what are the chances that they will call an ambulance to help you, which would mean they will be in serious trouble with the police plus face major cost for paying for your damages? In an accident with an insured driver, your chances of survival are much higher.
I've always wondered why the phone companies try to make this distinction. Their network doesn't care if I'm browsing the Internet using my phone or my laptop connected via my phone. The only thing their network cares about is the amount of bandwidth I use. So just let everyone tether to their heart's content, and distinguish between the different tiers of data plans by amount of bandwidth they let you use. e.g. a 10 GB/month plan, a 50 GB/mo plan, and a 200 GB/mo plan. Then make a simple app/site which lets you see how much bandwidth you've consumed so far this month.
I think you don't have quite the right impression about the cost of providing internet access through a phone. I can actually get 3 GB/month data for £20 in the UK; that is considered a high amount of bandwidth and I can't easily get a higher rate. So I would assume that the actual cost to the ISP is at least £4 per GB, leaving room to make some profit. That would mean 10 GB/month would cost £40, 50 GB/month would cost £200, and 200 GB/month would cost £800.
Internet access through the mobile phone network is just considerably more expensive than internet access through DSL.
The CPUID instruction provides feature bits that software should use to determine which instructions are available. Using the vendor string is not a reasonable way of detecting the presence/absence of instruction set extensions like SSE.
There are differences between feature bits for lets say Intel and AMD. Many bits will have the same meaning, but once you get into more esoteric things you have to read the processor manuals for each processor family first. So for example if you want to check for SSE2, the safe way would be to read the CPU Id, and if it is a processor that you have the documentation for then check for SSE2 in the way the documentation tells you.
What if you checked for SSE2 at a time when SSE2 was not implemented by some company, and the bit that Intel and AMD use for SSE2 is "for future extension" or something like that in their documentation? Do you test that bit and hope that it will work correctly in the future, or do you ignore it until they have documentation that says "this bit means SSE2"?
If anyone can come up with a better explanation I'd be interested to hear it.
Ok, here is what _might_ have happened perfectly legitimately and with no bad intent: When the benchmark was originally written, someone took his time to carefully write optimized code for the Intel, AMD and Via processors at that time. When running on a Via processor, the benchmark executes the code that ran fastest on a Via processor in 2005. When running on an AMD processor, it executes the code that ran fastest on an AMD processor in 2005, and so on. It looks like their new chip executes the code that was best for Intel in 2005 faster than the code that was best for Via in 2005.
For example, this could happen if VIA processors in 2005 had a very slow SSE2 implementation, and the new processor has very fast SSE2. You'd have to do the same test with hardware that was current when the benchmark was developed.
How do you prove that John Doe made those comments and not John Doe's roommate, drunken frat brother, or someone who spoofed his MAC/IP?
You take it to a court, a jury looks at the evidence and decides whether there is reasonable doubt or not. Admittedly "reasonable" is hard to explain to slashdotters. But a vague possibility of spoofing does not create "reasonable doubt".
German courts _have_ rejected subpoenas for the names and addresses of more than 10,000 IP addresses with the simple reasoning that the plaintiffs had no intention at all to file a criminal case. They basically told them to bugger off and if they want to find out the names they have to do that themselves and not use tax payers money to help in their civil litigation. (The record companies basically claimed that these 10,000 people had done something criminal, in which case the criminal justice system would have to go to work to help solving the crime. However, it was just too obvious that this was just a pretence to get the names and sue in civil court). The police is not supposed to find music downloaders when they could use their time to find thieves, murderers etc. ).
You missed the point completely. In points (1)-(3) it was irrelevant whether something was legal or illegal, the question was whether it is "distribution". When a record store sells CDs, that is _distribution_. Most record stores have the right to sell the records, so it is legal distribution, some might not, then it is illegal distribution, but whether legal or illegal, it is distribution. When you give a CD to a friend, that is _not_ distribution. Again, whether it is legal to give him the CD (it was your property, you kept no copies) or illegal (you just burned it from an illegal P2P download), it is _not_ distribution.
Points (4) and (5) then showed one case of "making available", but _not_ for distribution, and another case that was actually "making available for distribution" in the sense of the law. The RIAA's claim that "making available for distribution" is illegal isn't bullshit at all. What is bullshit is the little detail that "for distribution" doesn't mean what they claim it means.
1. A record store is distributing records (by selling them).
2. Blockbuster is distributing videos (by renting them out).
3. Joe who gives copies of his CDs to friends is committing copyright infringement, but is _not_ distributing.
4. Jane who makes her CDs available to Joe for copying (who doesn't accept them) is not "making available for distribution" and therefore completely innocent.
5. Jim who makes copies of his CDs available to a record store for copying _is_ "making available for distribution" even if the record store doesn't accept them.
A codec is about as simple an interface as you can get -- encoded data in, decoded data out. What would make the Ogg tests different than the AAC tests?
A while ago I downloaded an MP3 file that was about 380 Megabyte. It worked on iTune, and it worked on an iPod without problems. It showed up a problem that I should have reported to Apple which apparently nobody had thought about. Would you bet that Ogg has been tested with files that run for over six hours and that it will work without problems?
But you haven't addressed the main issue. There is no appreciable value to Apple in adding support for these formats.
There may be strong negative value. Quite a few people "know" that an iPod supports MP3 (well everybody does). It supports AAC instead of WMF because "A" stands for Apple and "W" stands for Windows, so it makes sense to the average Joe that Apple would support AAC and Windows supports WMF. Makes totally sense, even though it is wrong:-) But what is Ogg? Never heard of Ogg. Ogg is probably hard to understand. I don't want an MP3 player that is hard to understand. I think I will buy something else.
There will be more people _not_ buying an iPod because it supports Ogg than people buying it because of Ogg.
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.
The difference being that Power Computing did have a license from Apple to build and sell Mac-compatible hardware, and to install certain versions of MacOS 7 on it. They had a legal contract with Apple, signed by Power Computing and Apple, and they had a real successful business based on their contract with Apple. There was nothing Apple could do to stop them other than offering money or buying the company. In the case of OpenTech, Apple will use the courts to achieve the same thing cheaper.
Yes, the EULA is clear, but the one violating it in this situation isn't the third party hardware company but rather the end user - thus Apple would have to base a lawsuit against this company on the concept that it is abetting the violation of the EULA. I don't think the EULA currently forbids a company from advertising and selling hardware capable of running OS X. That's a more difficult case to make than the one against Pystar, which was selling boxes with OS X installed.
The original complaint from Apple against Psystar can be found on the internet. About 30 pages. About 10 pages of that are complaints against Psystar installing Apple software on their computers which Apple says is not legal. There are about twenty more pages with other stuff that would apply straight to anyone who only mentions "MaxOS X compatible".
Says who? The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, that's who. If a case examining the law from a different angle, but with largely the same result for consumers, it was established [wikipedia.org] that first-sale doctrine will override any EULA-based argument. Credit goes to base3 [slashdot.org] for reminding me of this. There are other examples available on Groklaw, if you're interested.
You are adding 2 + 2 together and getting 5.
This case was about something completely different: It was about the right to sell software. In this case, a person X bought software and sold it on. That person was then harassed by the producer of the software Y who didn't like him to do it. The result: The first sale doctrine allows anyone to buy software and sell it on. Nothing the manufacturer can do about it. However, details of the court case showed that some people who sold software to X might have done so illegally and might be in trouble if Y sues them (they bought original software, then bought an upgrade which required them to destroy the original, then sold the original software to X), and the case also made clear that EULAs are not affected by this, so anyone buying software from X is bound by the EULA as if they had bought it from the manufacturer.
Translated into this case, if you buy Leopard and figure out that you are not allowed to install it on your Dell, Apple can not prevent you from selling the package on to someone who has use of it.
Further, you need to realize that EULA's are on extraordinarily sketchy legal terms. You can slap into an EULA that by hitting "I agree" you agree to transfer all of your assets to me, but that sure as hell won't fly in court. No, what they are doing is perfectly legal and reminiscent of IBM clones that poured onto the market back in ye oldin' days despite attempts to prevent it.
You see, there is a difference here. There are consumer protection laws that protect consumers from unfair terms in that kind of contracts. What you suggested would obviously be considered extremely and therefore not enforceable. Apple's license terms say: You can't install this software on anything but a Macintosh computer, Return the software if that is what you wanted to do. Not unfair and therefore enforceable.
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".
Fine, but harassing retail workers with questions like "Why does iTunes still contain so much DRM-laden music?" isn't going to accomplish anything...
What kind of word is "laden" anyway? Doesn't the use of a word like "laden" alone make that person look like an idiot? I wouldn't be surprised if Rowling's next book is "Harry Potter and the laden iPod"...
Slashdot Mirror
Don't be silly, it was quite obvious she was guilty as charged, the only grossly unfair thing was the punishment.
She was charged of having committed copyright infringement in two different ways. The first charge was incorrect and only happened because the RIAA's lawyers lied to the court, and the evidence for the second charge is most likely incorrect as well.
That is not the case for drugs. You (generally) cannot create a situation for authorized distribution of drugs.
A similar situation with alcohol: In most countries it is illegal to sell alcohol to someone under a certain age. If you send out an undercover cop who is say 25 but looks like he is 15, and a shop sells him alcohol, then the sales person didn't actually break the law (even though there is evidence they were willing to break it).
I don't think that's going to stand up. Undercover cops buy drugs and the state doesn't have to prosecute them for buying them. Why couldn't investigators "illegally" download copyrighted material and still have it considered infringing on the part of the defendant, but not be prosecuted?
There is a difference. When two people meet, one having drugs and the other having cash, and they exchange drugs for cash, then usually both have committed a crime. In the exceptional case that the second person is a cop trying to find a criminal, only one person has committed a crime. Selling drugs is illegal, even if the buyer is a cop. However, copyright infringement involves making an _unauthorised_ copy. In this case, no unauthorised copy has been made. The copy that was made is not authorised, so no copyright infringement has happened.
I think it depends on how much Larrabee will cost, however with what we know so far Apple seems to be heading into multi-CPU architectures, so using Larrabee would make sense.
Larrabee costs somewhere between 150 and 300 Watt, so MacBooks and Mac Minis are not likely to use them. Mac Pro, on the other hand, possibly.
wouldn't implementing what the author suggest, defeat the very purpose of having a CA ? SSL is not just for encryption you know. There is a little thing called 'trust' which pays a big part in it too.
Absolutely. As a rule, leaving security to amateurs (and even more rank amateurs like the author of the article) leads to insecurity. This is like everyone else discussing how to protect your house from burglars who might try to sneak in by the most obscure routes, and here we have a guy who doesn't even complain that locks on doors are impractical, he complains that we should do away with doors in the first place.
I think it is. Half of SSL is about encrypting a connection, the other half is about knowing whether you can trust the other side. What the article suggests (that SSL connections when the other side uses a self-signed certificate should give no warning) would completely destroy security of the Internet.
Odds are he had the money to pay his liabilities to an amount greatly exceeding the minimum required coverage. So why force him to bleed money on premiums?
From Wikipedia: "Today UK law is defined by The Road Traffic Act 1988, which was last modified in 1991. The act requires that some motorists either be insured, have a security, or have made a specified deposit (£500,000 as of 1991) with the Accountant General of the Supreme Court, against their liability for injuries to others (including passengers) and for damage to other persons' property resulting from use of a vehicle on a public road or in other public places." So you don't need to have motor insurance if you deposit half a million pound! I wonder how many people use that provision.
Having mandatory insurance has several benefits for society. The first and obvious one is that if you are a victim of an accident, there will be money to pay for it (apparently not in the USA; only $25,000 required. Germany has 1 million Euros, Austria has 3 million euros mandatory third party injury insurance). The second is that whoever caused the accident has much less reason to avoid paying. What if I crash into your brand new Ferrari with no insurance? I'll drive off and hope nobody saw me. With insurance, I make sure my insurance pays for it. Third reason: If you are injured in an accident, and nobody there except you and the person causing the accident, chances are that the person responsible won't get help if they don't have insurance.
Police Cruizer A notices you at 5th and A Street at 7:30. Curuzer B reports you at 10th and C Street at 7:37 - But the points are so far apart that you would have had to have speeded to get from one to the other in 7 minutes.
Come to Britain. There are a few thousand cars driving around with forged license plates. And people doing this don't take a random number, they look for a car that looks identical to theirs and copy the number plate. Now if that Cruizer B reported you at 7.32 - far enough away that you would have to travel at > 200 mph, then it would be an excellent idea to stop both cars. (Note: This doesn't actually happen. And having your license plate cloned is a lot, lot of trouble. )
If you have blind spots in a modern car, your mirrors are not positioned properly
If you put yourself into a dangerous position then you've only got yourself to blame if you get injured. The place where your vehicle (car or motorbike) should be is behind me, at a distance of about two seconds. Less than a second is dangerous. Less than five meters behind me on a motorbike? I don't care if there is a blind spot or not, I won't take the blame if you get yourself killed. I consider it attempted suicide.I _try_ not to assist anyone who attempts to kill themselves, but I won't take the blame if they succeed.
Just because they don't have insurance doesn't mean they can't compensate you. How many times a day does correlation v causation have to be covered on slashdot?
A person driving without insurance is breaking the law for starters. That person is acting irresponsible. What are the chances that this irresponsible person has put a few hundred thousand dollars into a fund that they can use for payment if they cause some serious injury to you? What are the chances that this irresponsible person will try anything to avoid payment? For example, if that person injures you on a lonely road without witnesses, what are the chances that they will call an ambulance to help you, which would mean they will be in serious trouble with the police plus face major cost for paying for your damages? In an accident with an insured driver, your chances of survival are much higher.
I've always wondered why the phone companies try to make this distinction. Their network doesn't care if I'm browsing the Internet using my phone or my laptop connected via my phone. The only thing their network cares about is the amount of bandwidth I use. So just let everyone tether to their heart's content, and distinguish between the different tiers of data plans by amount of bandwidth they let you use. e.g. a 10 GB/month plan, a 50 GB/mo plan, and a 200 GB/mo plan. Then make a simple app/site which lets you see how much bandwidth you've consumed so far this month.
I think you don't have quite the right impression about the cost of providing internet access through a phone. I can actually get 3 GB/month data for £20 in the UK; that is considered a high amount of bandwidth and I can't easily get a higher rate. So I would assume that the actual cost to the ISP is at least £4 per GB, leaving room to make some profit. That would mean 10 GB/month would cost £40, 50 GB/month would cost £200, and 200 GB/month would cost £800.
Internet access through the mobile phone network is just considerably more expensive than internet access through DSL.
The CPUID instruction provides feature bits that software should use to determine which instructions are available. Using the vendor string is not a reasonable way of detecting the presence/absence of instruction set extensions like SSE.
There are differences between feature bits for lets say Intel and AMD. Many bits will have the same meaning, but once you get into more esoteric things you have to read the processor manuals for each processor family first. So for example if you want to check for SSE2, the safe way would be to read the CPU Id, and if it is a processor that you have the documentation for then check for SSE2 in the way the documentation tells you.
What if you checked for SSE2 at a time when SSE2 was not implemented by some company, and the bit that Intel and AMD use for SSE2 is "for future extension" or something like that in their documentation? Do you test that bit and hope that it will work correctly in the future, or do you ignore it until they have documentation that says "this bit means SSE2"?
If anyone can come up with a better explanation I'd be interested to hear it.
Ok, here is what _might_ have happened perfectly legitimately and with no bad intent: When the benchmark was originally written, someone took his time to carefully write optimized code for the Intel, AMD and Via processors at that time. When running on a Via processor, the benchmark executes the code that ran fastest on a Via processor in 2005. When running on an AMD processor, it executes the code that ran fastest on an AMD processor in 2005, and so on. It looks like their new chip executes the code that was best for Intel in 2005 faster than the code that was best for Via in 2005.
For example, this could happen if VIA processors in 2005 had a very slow SSE2 implementation, and the new processor has very fast SSE2. You'd have to do the same test with hardware that was current when the benchmark was developed.
How do you prove that John Doe made those comments and not John Doe's roommate, drunken frat brother, or someone who spoofed his MAC/IP?
You take it to a court, a jury looks at the evidence and decides whether there is reasonable doubt or not. Admittedly "reasonable" is hard to explain to slashdotters. But a vague possibility of spoofing does not create "reasonable doubt".
German courts _have_ rejected subpoenas for the names and addresses of more than 10,000 IP addresses with the simple reasoning that the plaintiffs had no intention at all to file a criminal case. They basically told them to bugger off and if they want to find out the names they have to do that themselves and not use tax payers money to help in their civil litigation. (The record companies basically claimed that these 10,000 people had done something criminal, in which case the criminal justice system would have to go to work to help solving the crime. However, it was just too obvious that this was just a pretence to get the names and sue in civil court). The police is not supposed to find music downloaders when they could use their time to find thieves, murderers etc. ).
You missed the point completely. In points (1)-(3) it was irrelevant whether something was legal or illegal, the question was whether it is "distribution". When a record store sells CDs, that is _distribution_. Most record stores have the right to sell the records, so it is legal distribution, some might not, then it is illegal distribution, but whether legal or illegal, it is distribution. When you give a CD to a friend, that is _not_ distribution. Again, whether it is legal to give him the CD (it was your property, you kept no copies) or illegal (you just burned it from an illegal P2P download), it is _not_ distribution.
Points (4) and (5) then showed one case of "making available", but _not_ for distribution, and another case that was actually "making available for distribution" in the sense of the law. The RIAA's claim that "making available for distribution" is illegal isn't bullshit at all. What is bullshit is the little detail that "for distribution" doesn't mean what they claim it means.
So does that mean:
1. A record store is distributing records (by selling them).
2. Blockbuster is distributing videos (by renting them out).
3. Joe who gives copies of his CDs to friends is committing copyright infringement, but is _not_ distributing.
4. Jane who makes her CDs available to Joe for copying (who doesn't accept them) is not "making available for distribution" and therefore completely innocent.
5. Jim who makes copies of his CDs available to a record store for copying _is_ "making available for distribution" even if the record store doesn't accept them.
A codec is about as simple an interface as you can get -- encoded data in, decoded data out. What would make the Ogg tests different than the AAC tests?
A while ago I downloaded an MP3 file that was about 380 Megabyte. It worked on iTune, and it worked on an iPod without problems. It showed up a problem that I should have reported to Apple which apparently nobody had thought about. Would you bet that Ogg has been tested with files that run for over six hours and that it will work without problems?
But you haven't addressed the main issue. There is no appreciable value to Apple in adding support for these formats.
There may be strong negative value. Quite a few people "know" that an iPod supports MP3 (well everybody does). It supports AAC instead of WMF because "A" stands for Apple and "W" stands for Windows, so it makes sense to the average Joe that Apple would support AAC and Windows supports WMF. Makes totally sense, even though it is wrong :-) But what is Ogg? Never heard of Ogg. Ogg is probably hard to understand. I don't want an MP3 player that is hard to understand. I think I will buy something else.
There will be more people _not_ buying an iPod because it supports Ogg than people buying it because of Ogg.
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.
The difference being that Power Computing did have a license from Apple to build and sell Mac-compatible hardware, and to install certain versions of MacOS 7 on it. They had a legal contract with Apple, signed by Power Computing and Apple, and they had a real successful business based on their contract with Apple. There was nothing Apple could do to stop them other than offering money or buying the company. In the case of OpenTech, Apple will use the courts to achieve the same thing cheaper.
Yes, the EULA is clear, but the one violating it in this situation isn't the third party hardware company but rather the end user - thus Apple would have to base a lawsuit against this company on the concept that it is abetting the violation of the EULA. I don't think the EULA currently forbids a company from advertising and selling hardware capable of running OS X. That's a more difficult case to make than the one against Pystar, which was selling boxes with OS X installed.
The original complaint from Apple against Psystar can be found on the internet. About 30 pages. About 10 pages of that are complaints against Psystar installing Apple software on their computers which Apple says is not legal. There are about twenty more pages with other stuff that would apply straight to anyone who only mentions "MaxOS X compatible".
Says who? The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, that's who. If a case examining the law from a different angle, but with largely the same result for consumers, it was established [wikipedia.org] that first-sale doctrine will override any EULA-based argument. Credit goes to base3 [slashdot.org] for reminding me of this. There are other examples available on Groklaw, if you're interested.
You are adding 2 + 2 together and getting 5.
This case was about something completely different: It was about the right to sell software. In this case, a person X bought software and sold it on. That person was then harassed by the producer of the software Y who didn't like him to do it. The result: The first sale doctrine allows anyone to buy software and sell it on. Nothing the manufacturer can do about it. However, details of the court case showed that some people who sold software to X might have done so illegally and might be in trouble if Y sues them (they bought original software, then bought an upgrade which required them to destroy the original, then sold the original software to X), and the case also made clear that EULAs are not affected by this, so anyone buying software from X is bound by the EULA as if they had bought it from the manufacturer.
Translated into this case, if you buy Leopard and figure out that you are not allowed to install it on your Dell, Apple can not prevent you from selling the package on to someone who has use of it.
Further, you need to realize that EULA's are on extraordinarily sketchy legal terms. You can slap into an EULA that by hitting "I agree" you agree to transfer all of your assets to me, but that sure as hell won't fly in court. No, what they are doing is perfectly legal and reminiscent of IBM clones that poured onto the market back in ye oldin' days despite attempts to prevent it.
You see, there is a difference here. There are consumer protection laws that protect consumers from unfair terms in that kind of contracts. What you suggested would obviously be considered extremely and therefore not enforceable. Apple's license terms say: You can't install this software on anything but a Macintosh computer, Return the software if that is what you wanted to do. Not unfair and therefore enforceable.
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".
Fine, but harassing retail workers with questions like "Why does iTunes still contain so much DRM-laden music?" isn't going to accomplish anything...
What kind of word is "laden" anyway? Doesn't the use of a word like "laden" alone make that person look like an idiot? I wouldn't be surprised if Rowling's next book is "Harry Potter and the laden iPod"...