Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Second Mac Clone Maker Set To Sell, With a Twist

timothy posted about 6 years ago | from the so-they-say dept.

Desktops (Apple) 621

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.'"

cancel ×

621 comments

Good luck with this, Apple. (5, Insightful)

palegray.net (1195047) | about 6 years ago | (#24353923)

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.

Might work ... (4, Informative)

PC and Sony Fanboy (1248258) | about 6 years ago | (#24353957)

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...

Re:Might work ... (5, Insightful)

palegray.net (1195047) | about 6 years ago | (#24354029)

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.

Re:Might work ... (5, Insightful)

aliquis (678370) | about 6 years ago | (#24354217)

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.

Re:Might work ... (4, Insightful)

mrchaotica (681592) | about 6 years ago | (#24354283)

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! : )

Re:Might work ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24354303)

Macs sell at a premium because apple does a hell of a job marketing its brand to get people willing to pay that price.

You are fooling yourself if you think that premium is somehow lowers the OS cost on the shelves.

Re:Might work ... (2, Insightful)

Yahweh Doesn't Exist (906833) | about 6 years ago | (#24354307)

indeed, if it's about 'making a statement' rather than a money issue, I'm sure the OP would be delighted to donate the appropriate extra money to Apple.

what does the most expensive version of Windows OS sell for these days? you can just make a donation of about that much, fair?

Re:Might work ... (1, Insightful)

Hal_Porter (817932) | about 6 years ago | (#24354411)

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.

Surely $129 is more than enough for the cost of making a CD and the flimsy manuals they provide these days.

Re:Might work ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24354347)

Because that's exactly what I want to do with my twelve hundred bucks when I need a new computer... make a statement.

Re:Might work ... (4, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | about 6 years ago | (#24354085)

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.

Re:Might work ... (1)

PC and Sony Fanboy (1248258) | about 6 years ago | (#24354111)

And if I could just buy a Tiger install disk off of e-Bay and hack it easily that way I probably would

How much software on ebay, do you think, is legitimate?

Re:Might work ... (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | about 6 years ago | (#24354201)

How much software on ebay, do you think, is legitimate?

I don't really care if it is pirated onto blank CD-Rs. But no one is going to track me down for buying pirated software, most of the time they will treat you as some victim of some evil crime. On the other hand, if Apple catches you uploading a hacked version of OS X onto BitTorrent, they would most likely sue you.

Re:Might work ... (1)

Telvin_3d (855514) | about 6 years ago | (#24354467)

I think your risk assessment is somewhat off there. You say you would rather buy off e-bay than download from the piratebay because you are afraid of Apple tracking you down for software piracy? eBay will give all the sale information to anyone with a subpoena, even if it is drawn in crayon. Where as getting TPB's server logs would take a minor international incident.

Now, someone might eventually take down TPB. The list of interested parties is so long that I doubt it will be Apple.

Re:Might work ... (1)

Macrat (638047) | about 6 years ago | (#24354395)

Very little of what is on eBay is legitimate...

Re:Might work ... (1, Insightful)

aliquis (678370) | about 6 years ago | (#24354271)

What moron moderated you flamebait? Rather insightful.

Re:Might work ... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24354383)

Apple apologists dump whole clips of mod points against people who point things like that out, or who dare suggest that Apple's products are overpriced for fairly low-powered commodity PCs. And heaven help you if you point out Apple's support for DRM (the apologists will blame the record companies) and harassment of hobbyists such as skin developers or the folks that helped patch their DVD authoring software to run on DVD drives other than the grossly overpriced Apple one.

Custom Firmware Debate... (3, Insightful)

PC and Sony Fanboy (1248258) | about 6 years ago | (#24353965)

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?

Re:Custom Firmware Debate... (5, Insightful)

palegray.net (1195047) | about 6 years ago | (#24354063)

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.

Re:Custom Firmware Debate... (0)

aliquis (678370) | about 6 years ago | (#24354233)

Until someone get a case thru court which render EULAs non-effective we should consider them as valid? Right? It's so lame to say "hey, but, like, this contract is so lame, I mean, bwah, it can't mean anything, I choose not to trust it and do whatever."

Re:Custom Firmware Debate... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24354407)

You are an asshole.

Re:Custom Firmware Debate... (-1, Troll)

KGIII (973947) | about 6 years ago | (#24354439)

I'll be short, I hope. You buy a car. You license it to drive it on the public highway. You buy a computer and, unless you write your own OS, you license it to use it. That short enough?

Re:Custom Firmware Debate... (2, Insightful)

palegray.net (1195047) | about 6 years ago | (#24354545)

So you're saying I can't drive my car off-road?

Re:Good luck with this, Apple. (2, Insightful)

aliquis (678370) | about 6 years ago | (#24354071)

Or you know you could buy like any system and get the OS yourself and not support them trying to make a profit on Apples brand?

Re:Good luck with this, Apple. (1, Troll)

palegray.net (1195047) | about 6 years ago | (#24354155)

On the contrary, I fully support them "making a profit on Apple's brand." I also support other companies making a profit on Ubuntu's brand, as they market computer systems specifically designed to be Linux-compatible. Apple makes a decent operating system, and I fully support the right of the consumer to choose what hardware that OS runs on.

Re:Good luck with this, Apple. (1)

aliquis (678370) | about 6 years ago | (#24354323)

So then get away from Slashdot and into a place where it counts and make them change the license, because as of now the consumer DON'T have the right to choose what hardware to run the OS on.

Things was so much easier for them when they used PPC ..

Re:Good luck with this, Apple. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24354449)

because as of now the consumer DON'T have the right to choose what hardware to run the OS on.

Well now that's not true is it? Companies like Apple will tell you you don't have that right and will provide EULAs trying to get you to waive such a right, but there's no legal standing that really supports the notion that you don't have that right or that you can waive it by accepting a EULA. You've drunk too much Kool-Aid and confused corporate propaganda with fact.

Re: Fixed that for you (0)

Nymz (905908) | about 6 years ago | (#24354075)

I guess Steve & Co will have to sue me for violating the license agreement (which I agreed to) on a computer I privately own.

Re: Fixed that for you (5, Insightful)

palegray.net (1195047) | about 6 years ago | (#24354183)

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.

Re: Fixed that for you (2, Insightful)

aliquis (678370) | about 6 years ago | (#24354375)

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 ..

Re: Fixed that for you (5, Interesting)

palegray.net (1195047) | about 6 years ago | (#24354473)

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.

Re: Fixed that for you (5, Insightful)

mrchaotica (681592) | about 6 years ago | (#24354547)

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 [gnu.org] . 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.

Re: Steve Jobs successor (0, Troll)

Nymz (905908) | about 6 years ago | (#24354403)

Congratulations on purchasing OSX. I'm surprised Slashdot didn't have that story on the front page. Will you be selling any licenses? I would like one if the price is reasonable.

Before someone flames me, I'm not disagreeing with him, I'm only pointing out there is a difference between 'buying' a piece of software, and 'licensing' one.

Re: Fixed that for you (1)

KGIII (973947) | about 6 years ago | (#24354465)

Thank you! Someone gets WHY this might be legal and there's not damned thing Jobs can likely do about it.

The Tenuous EULA Claim Apple May Make (5, Interesting)

Apple Acolyte (517892) | about 6 years ago | (#24353951)

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).

What a slippery slope! (1)

PC and Sony Fanboy (1248258) | about 6 years ago | (#24353991)

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.

Re:What a slippery slope! (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24354033)

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.

And if they win?

Re:What a slippery slope! (1)

PC and Sony Fanboy (1248258) | about 6 years ago | (#24354053)

If they go and win, the apocalypse is around the corner.

.. you know, t1000's running around, enslaving humanity. That sort of apocalypse.

Re:What a slippery slope! (1)

IvyKing (732111) | about 6 years ago | (#24354253)

.. you know, t1000's running around, enslaving humanity. That sort of apocalypse.

This I gotta see, a bunch of 1U UltraSparc T1 servers moving by themselves and ordering people around. Sun's been tooting their horn alot about these systems, but I didn't realize they went that far...

Re:What a slippery slope! (1)

jessedorland (1320611) | about 6 years ago | (#24354151)

What apple is doing is illegal. They have crippled their operating system so it will not work on a competitors' products. If some motherbard manufacture sue them with million petition from consumers (which I'll sign galdely) Mac hardware business will fall like a stone.

Re:What a slippery slope! (1)

aliquis (678370) | about 6 years ago | (#24354453)

Yeah, because everyone are forced to make their Software run on all hardware! That's the law!! Give me final fantasy 13 for my NES please!!!

Re:What a slippery slope! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24354315)

There is another option.

Apple could drop the bottom out of the price of a Macintosh. We don't tend to think of Apple as a "big" manufacturer because they "only" have about 8% of the CPU market, but they are when compared to Open Tech or any other start up.

It is unlikely that any upstart could get into a price war with Apple and win. Apple can bleed money for a very long time.

Plus, they don't have to actually undercut the competition. They just have to get "reasonably close". After all, would you by a knock-off when for a mere few dollars more you can have the real thing?

Price isn't the only thing, especially to Macintosh users. Apple caters to a service and image aware market.

Re:The Tenuous EULA Claim Apple May Make (1)

bjpowers39 (768740) | about 6 years ago | (#24354039)

The biggest problem that I could see would come from the recent decision based on the WOW Glider case. In that case, the court determined that encouraging a user to violate a EULA by selling products (in that case software, this case hardware) was a copyright issue. Given that, it seems that Apple might be able to reach Psystar through a contributory infringement or vicarious infringement approach.

Re:The Tenuous EULA Claim Apple May Make (3, Insightful)

Lank (19922) | about 6 years ago | (#24354057)

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 [apple.com]

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.

Re:The Tenuous EULA Claim Apple May Make (1)

palegray.net (1195047) | about 6 years ago | (#24354135)

Many software manufacturers have included provisions in their EULAs that resemble Apple's, and all are practically unenforceable against consumers. If I've legally purchased a product, Apple doesn't have any legal standing to tell me how to use that product, aside from unauthorized distribution of copyrighted materials.

I can melt the CD down into a little voodoo doll of Steve Jobs, use it as a coaster, or install it on another computer I own. So long as I'm not providing the software to another person for their use, I've broken no law. Remember, EULAs fall under contract law, which is widely regarded as the weakest of all agreements.

Re:The Tenuous EULA Claim Apple May Make (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24354393)

You didn't purchase it, you licensed it, and the difference is not trivial.

Re:The Tenuous EULA Claim Apple May Make (1)

base3 (539820) | about 6 years ago | (#24354447)

At least one piece of U.S. case law disagrees with that contention. Adobe tried that argument (Softman v. Adobe [wikipedia.org] ) and lost. First Sale applies in the absence of a real contract--a software vendor's Diktat shrinkwrap "agreement" doesn't cut it.

Re:The Tenuous EULA Claim Apple May Make (2, Insightful)

aliquis (678370) | about 6 years ago | (#24354485)

and all are practically unenforceable against consumers

Says WHO? You? And now everyone have to obey? #1195047 is the new law interpreter, court and separator of right and wrong?

How does it matter if it's "weak" aslong as it's "valid"?

Re:The Tenuous EULA Claim Apple May Make (1)

Apple Acolyte (517892) | about 6 years ago | (#24354179)

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.

Re:The Tenuous EULA Claim Apple May Make (0, Troll)

Lank (19922) | about 6 years ago | (#24354213)

Yeah, that's what I'm saying - if Apple lets this one go, but turns around and decides to sue all of Open Tech's clients... Well, I think I'd rather pay a little more to Apple than to have Apple lawyers knocking on my door with a subpoena.

Re:The Tenuous EULA Claim Apple May Make (3, Insightful)

chromatic (9471) | about 6 years ago | (#24354277)

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?

Re:The Tenuous EULA Claim Apple May Make (1)

KGIII (973947) | about 6 years ago | (#24354503)

I am not going to argue your point, I'm going to answer your question. I will even put it in quotes. "Because it is easier and potentially cheaper than fighting the court case."

Re:The Tenuous EULA Claim Apple May Make (1)

Lank (19922) | about 6 years ago | (#24354507)

You do realize that Apple, as far as I know, has not actually sued any of Open Tech's clients, right? Open Tech really doesn't even have any clients yet. So Apple has not been actively hostile towards these non-existent entities, you're just using a hypothetical situation to justify your argument. Why don't we wait for an official Apple response?

Re:The Tenuous EULA Claim Apple May Make (5, Insightful)

furball (2853) | about 6 years ago | (#24354541)

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?

Re:The Tenuous EULA Claim Apple May Make (1)

nawcom (941663) | about 6 years ago | (#24354209)

The only difference between the hardware OpenTech uses and the hardware Apple uses is.. well... just the Apple logo on it. I don't wan't to go through hardware comparisons as I've done in a previous osx86 article, but all of the hardware - wireless card (broadcom/atheros, aka "Airport Extreme"), intel motherboard (aka apple "logic board"), realtek audio chip, marvell ethernet card, toshiba bluetooth card, synaptics touchpad, ageres firewire card, all inside a quanta laptop casing. All of them have the Apple logo on them, of course. I guess you can point at the fact that they use EFI compared to BIOS, though as of now you can buy PC motherboard with EFI.

http://www.mactel-linux.org/wiki/Lspci [mactel-linux.org]

Do you see my point yet? it's okay if you haven't. I don't know about you, but I personally think that using the term "Mac Clone" isn't correct anymore, especially with open source devs porting drivers to OS X as of now. Perhaps some hardware vendors may be using the term "Mac OS X-compatible" 5 years from now. I guess it all comes down to Jobs changing his ways.

Re:The Tenuous EULA Claim Apple May Make (1)

aliquis (678370) | about 6 years ago | (#24354495)

Doesn't real macs also contain the TPM-part with the correct key for the encrypted binaries in the OS?

Re:The Tenuous EULA Claim Apple May Make (1)

X.25 (255792) | about 6 years ago | (#24354397)

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 :)

If Apple EULA required users to jump off a bridge, would you do it?

Re:The Tenuous EULA Claim Apple May Make (1)

timmarhy (659436) | about 6 years ago | (#24354423)

that's just a nonense argument though. you purchased OSX fair and square and installed it on hardware that run's it - just because you didn't purchase the hardware from apple why should it even matter? you could easily argue that by NOT including the hardware apple isn't making it's intentions clear, and the only possible recourse apple should have is to deny tech support.

of course this won't stop these sue happy bastards, nor will it stop the legion of apple fanboys attempting to apologise for them.

Re:The Tenuous EULA Claim Apple May Make (1)

aliquis (678370) | about 6 years ago | (#24354243)

Wouldn't it be easier to go to even further extent to prevent it from happening? Like for instance closing the kernel for 10.6?

Re:The Tenuous EULA Claim Apple May Make (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | about 6 years ago | (#24354273)

I honestly don't think Apple really cares about this. It is a niche project made by the same guys who would probably try to get Aqua out of an OS X DVD and port it to Linux, sure it may be illegal technically, but Apple doesn't really try to appeal to the geeks (at least in marketing) but rather the average user, and the average user won't be buying this. Basically, Apple has little to no marketshare they stand to lose by allowing this.

Re:The Tenuous EULA Claim Apple May Make (1)

aliquis (678370) | about 6 years ago | (#24354443)

Since they are only selling FUCKING PCS I don't see the problem for them either. But I also don't see why anyone would buy one from them. And if they sell them as "mac compatible" or something that's bullshit. So as long as they keep on selling random PCs which some people may or may not be able to hack OS X to run on they are clearly nothing different than other machines.

But why care about them ..

That OS X runs on PC hardware is fucking old news, can I post a Slashdot story there I say "omg I bought this CRAP-PC from a friend and now I can run OS X, omg plz p0st on Slashdot diz iz zimportantz newz for geekz!one!!11eleven"

"Company sells PC, can run x86 code", holly cow, big news!

Re:The Tenuous EULA Claim Apple May Make (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24354493)

Hey, bullying me into submission by buying me out of business... works for me!!! Don't even have to show an actual working model to make it happen, just have enough info.

Seems like a quick way to make a couple $100k.

Re:The Tenuous EULA Claim Apple May Make (1)

Afecks (899057) | about 6 years ago | (#24354525)

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).

Too late. [slashdot.org] You can thank Blizzard for that.

A good summary (1)

areusche (1297613) | about 6 years ago | (#24353953)

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.

Re:A good summary (1)

couchslug (175151) | about 6 years ago | (#24354027)

"I hope they can get enough capital to stop Apple's legal department."

You can de-fund Apple by not buying their software, and avoid supporting Apple by not using warez copies.
There are Free and Open alternatives after all.

Re:A good summary (1)

aliquis (678370) | about 6 years ago | (#24354265)

And the purpose of that would be? Considering the only people who cares in the first place are the people who WANT to use their software.

If they don't do it they kind of have no point of not doing it since it doesn't matter if Apple can defend their property or not.

Re:A good summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24354181)

I hope they can get enough capital to stop Apple's legal department.

You mean enough cash to buy off a judge or something?

Napster was shut down even though they didn't steal any music. They had a ton of cash, yet they ran out of appeals. It isn't easy to buy a judgement.

Re:A good summary (1)

base3 (539820) | about 6 years ago | (#24354333)

Napster was shut down even though they didn't steal any music. They had a ton of cash, yet they ran out of appeals. It isn't easy to buy a judgement.

In that ruling, I'm pretty certain the MAFIAA had more money with which to buy any necessary rulings than did Napster.

Good riddance. (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24354025)

So long Apple.

Shocker! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24354065)

One company gets mad when another company [somewhat] effectively eliminates demand for a product that has a 30-40% markup?

Seriously, I am all for a company providing services for a fee (warranty, support, whatever) - but Apple has been on the excessive hardware markup train for far too long....

Would be nice to build one ourselves (1)

jessedorland (1320611) | about 6 years ago | (#24354093)

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.

Re:Would be nice to build one ourselves (1)

aliquis (678370) | about 6 years ago | (#24354515)

No one can because the board would be illegal, but if you accept to run a hacked version of the OS you can buy more or less any motherboard.

OK, but where's the profit? (2, Interesting)

fm6 (162816) | about 6 years ago | (#24354099)

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.

Re:OK, but where's the profit? (1)

jessedorland (1320611) | about 6 years ago | (#24354195)

You are wrong at least when it comes to Canada, as well Asia. Over 50% -- yes over 50% consumer in these area build computer themselves. I just happen to be one of them. The only expection to this rule are my Laptop & Minimac. I have no attention of buying prebuild computer and bloatware, spyware, demo software.

Re:OK, but where's the profit? (1)

Shados (741919) | about 6 years ago | (#24354269)

I can't tell about Asia, but I want to see your source numbers about Canada. Even in techy circles I don't know all that many people who build computers. If you add businesses in there, the percentage must be seriously insignificant.

Re:OK, but where's the profit? (1)

fm6 (162816) | about 6 years ago | (#24354351)

Where do you get your figures? My guess: you have 3 friends and 1 of them builds his own computers, as do you.

Re:OK, but where's the profit? (0, Troll)

Macrat (638047) | about 6 years ago | (#24354539)

Over 50% -- yes over 50% consumer in these area build computer themselves. I just happen to be one of them.

Only in your wet dreams. Only those with self esteem problems have any wish to assemble a computer they can get off the shelf.

Re:OK, but where's the profit? (1)

c1t1z3nk41n3 (1112059) | about 6 years ago | (#24354381)

So what? Not every computer company needs to be Dell. If they sell enough to people like us to be profitable do they really need to care about the rest? Especially if the alternative is building xp boxes for the local market. I'd rather have access to .1% of a global market than 90% of my city.

Good luck with that. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24354113)

The only possible case that Apple can make, the only one that has any chance, would be based on the end-user licensing agreement.

Yeah, no kidding. Obviously, that's the case that his lawyer warned him about.

Of course, his customers can sue him too. Just think: he sells you a machine that is Mac OS compatible. If Mac OS doesn't actually work on the machine, then he basically sold his customers machines that don't work as advertised.

This will only lead to Apple putting in stronger hardware checks, breaking the OS on non-Apple hardware. Can Apple do this? Yes. Can the clone vendor work around this? Yes. Can the vendor work fast enough to prevent the machine from crapping out after a software update? No.

Which is cheaper? (5, Insightful)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | about 6 years ago | (#24354115)

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?

Re:Which is cheaper? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24354215)

Come on, you don't really believe that mac machines are cheaper do you? Consider the macbook pro. Who would spend $2000 on a 15" laptop with 2gb ram and 200gb hard drive with a dvd burner? Seriously. Anyone? Anyone? I'm not saying they aren't good computers and people buy them but you can get a 17" toshiba with 500gb, 4gb ram and a burner for $800.

Re:Which is cheaper? (1)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | about 6 years ago | (#24354419)

Bbbut but but... The quality of parts! Right? right? The premium parts make it more expensive, but cheaper in the grand scheme of things for what you get vs. what you pay.

Or so the argument goes.

Re:Which is cheaper? (1)

base3 (539820) | about 6 years ago | (#24354469)

You forgot to make a car analogy in which the Mac is a Maserati or Bentley and the PC is a Hyundai or a Yugo. Of course, I'd lash out with anger and sarcasm at anyone who pointed out how stupid I was if I spent double on commodity hardware, too :).

Re:Which is cheaper? (0)

aliquis (678370) | about 6 years ago | (#24354549)

But:
1) You should only buy macs just when they are updated.
2) But the Toshiba can't run OS X (legally/reliably/supposedly/whatever), on the MBP you pay for the software and that ability.
3) A 17" laptop is fucking huge.

Re:Which is cheaper? (1)

aliquis (678370) | about 6 years ago | (#24354543)

The IBM-PC.

No, Apples isn't better since the software seem to be subventionised by the hardware sales, probably partly because the people who buy the software already own a mac and already have paid a premium for it.

I don't get your third point. Or you mean macs are underpriced to Windows PC? No one have claimed that. Just trolling?

Of course the Apple clone HW isn't cheaper than Windows HW. It's the same fucking HW.

Make one in black (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24354117)

Bold (considering its strategy) and black.

And not the shiny black either. Have a special bundle that comes with Das Keyboard. It's like having Mac, your way.

Is it just me... (1)

s0litaire (1205168) | about 6 years ago | (#24354129)

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....

This is dumb (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24354189)

The main reason to get a Mac is because the hardware and software have designed for each other. Things "just work".

Now, if you start trying to run Apple software on non-Apple boxes, you're back to things might or might not work. But unlike Microsoft, Apple isn't going to even try to accommodate widespread generic hardware. It will be up to the hardware vendors to make the gear work with the Mac OS as-is, or start patching the OS, at which point things will likely spin out of control fairly rapidly.

It won't be Apple's fault, though. They can just claim they only support their hardware. If you try to run the OS on something else, you're on your own.

Re:This is dumb (3, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | about 6 years ago | (#24354221)

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).

Re:This is dumb (1)

palegray.net (1195047) | about 6 years ago | (#24354249)

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.

Sassy. (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24354241)

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

XT ? (3, Funny)

keeboo (724305) | about 6 years ago | (#24354259)

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?

Trademark and ads actually the real issues (5, Insightful)

Zergwyn (514693) | about 6 years ago | (#24354281)

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.

Tortious interference (4, Insightful)

MattW (97290) | about 6 years ago | (#24354309)

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?

Seems like a great way to fcuk Apple... (3, Interesting)

Ralph Spoilsport (673134) | about 6 years ago | (#24354365)

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

Hardware/Software (1)

certain death (947081) | about 6 years ago | (#24354389)

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!

Re:Hardware/Software (1)

base3 (539820) | about 6 years ago | (#24354415)

I don't know if it'll run the current version of MVS/OS390/zOS, but have you seen this [hercules-390.org] ?

Re:Hardware/Software (1)

certain death (947081) | about 6 years ago | (#24354455)

Yes, I had a couple of guys working with me a few years back from a company named e-Security. They used Herc to develop a SIM/SEM tool agent for our mainframe on it. Very impressive stuff!

.tk (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24354433)

"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!

Apple won't sue using the EULA... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24354451)

"'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.'""

No, the case that Apple would make is that you are using their trademark of "Mac OS X" in an un-authorized fashion, which is a case you will most definitely lose.

This is gonna make Slashdot implode... (0, Flamebait)

RockClimbingFool (692426) | about 6 years ago | (#24354569)

This article is going to show the true hypocrisy of slashdot.

Normally, the slashdot community will agree with telling software companies to shove that EULA up their ass. But oh no, not with Apple. You bought the software, you agreed to Apple's terms, end of story.

Everyone should be gung ho behind this company, because it seems to have a really good chance to finally throw away EULAs.

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.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...