Mac clone maker vows to test Apple on OS X licensing terms

[CoolCatBad]

[Don't confuse "neowin technology scene" with "technology scene." ]

Oh dear! How it must pain you to dwell amongst us troglodytes, perhaps you should seek a more salubrious environment, of zealous Mac fundamentalists....there are plenty on the Net you know.

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

The average user (i.e. the majority of people buying computers) doesn't care about how they work, they just want something that works.

If that's a dell or a mac, who cares.

A minority wanting to be able to swap parts out and such, aren't effecting Apples sales.

Edit: People invoking the anti-trust laws in relation to MS, do you actually know why MS got in trouble, or are you just invoking them to look cool?

Edited April 16, 2008 by The_Decryptor

[markwolfe Veteran]

I see this as great, as Apple has never gotten any anti-trust bull from anybody.

Yet, Microsoft gets it nearly everyday, and that impacts on the product we get, which seems completely unfair.

Also, if clone machines become available, and Apple is forced to lower prices, I might stop saying Apple products are overpriced.

Jeez, so flimsy of a position that I found something with just a quick google search:

http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2006/03/70402

Yes, Apple does have its own legal wrangling with anti-trust type issues.

Of course you would also expect Microsoft, as the worlds dominating (not just leading) OS provider to be subjected to tons of these. 95% of the market means 95% of a target.

And your point is?

[Rudy]

lol, the gf 8600gt's are used by apple and therefore they have the drivers.

damn, i want an opencomputer. something in this sweet antec case running osx, what else could i need

you can most likely build a better one yourself. There's plenty of places to find out which components are 100% compatible and when you're done with it you can install the same EFI emulator they use (since they didn't make it)

[macf13nd]

i'm affraid "they" might not even exist for real:

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/technology/200...g_a_little.html

that's very interesting... (Y)

[ScottKin]

It sounds like a lot of people want Apple to lose this case because it's not "fair" that they can't run OS X on whatever hardware they want.

Uh... seriously? How would you like being told by the government what to do with your product?

The irony...the irony!

Ask the folks at 1 Microsoft Way, Redmond, WA - I'm sure that they'll be happy to tell you how they feel about having the Government telling them what they can and can not do with their products since 1993.

--ScottKin

[LTD]

This has nothing to do with monopolies or anti-trust.

It has everything to do with Apple's EULA and intellectual property rights being violated.

Psystar is in for quite a rude awakening . . . not because it will necessarily be that easy for Apple to succeed against them on legal grounds, but because Apple can issue OS X firmware updates.

Apple issues regular updates to Leopard, and future revisions might require massive changes to the way Psystar - or any prospective clone-maker - sells software in this virtual environment, and usually these things don't last long unless there's some sort of agreement.

In the end, the clonemaker is always playing catch-up and it ends up being caught in a compatibility nightmare.

So get your cheap Mac clones (party like it's 1995) while you can, folks. It won't last long.

Remember: Apple's success = tight control over software/hardware in order to deliver a user experience that achieves a specific level of quality, across the board, all the time.

;)

Edited April 16, 2008 by LTD

[darkz]

you can most likely build a better one yourself. There's plenty of places to find out which components are 100% compatible and when you're done with it you can install the same EFI emulator they use (since they didn't make it)

well, they say if i buy the os x, they'll preinstall it for me. that's a good thing, because

a) i wouldnt be a 100% pirate anymore b) might save me some headache with the installation -- but afterall it seems to be not that hard (i wanted to build one some time ago but didnt because i was too lazy//had other stuff to do, just as i have now)

[LTD]

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/technology/200...g_a_little.html

And, as was mentioned in this thread before, it might just be enough baloney to make a sandwich.

[markwolfe Veteran]

well, they say if i buy the os x, they'll preinstall it for me. that's a good thing, because

a) i wouldnt be a 100% pirate anymore

...

Yes, you still would be. You would just have someone else also involved.

Like paying someone to do something illegal for you.

[LTD]

Cheaper doesn't necessarily mean better. Not by a long-shot.

And if you are NOT prepared to pay a premium for a better product, then you might as well forget OS X altogether.

Sure, you can always do hacks and build an OSX86 rig, but you have no right to expect things to work flawlessly and certainly no right to complain when Apple's updates break the OS.

And I'm in complete support of Apple's position. It's a superb business model, it's what's largely responsible for their success, and it's afforded my a worry-free and extremely enjoyable computing experience.

[Joe User]

Yes, you still would be. You would just have someone else also involved.

Like paying someone to do something illegal for you.

Except this probably isn't illegal.

It would be a huge stretch to pull the DMCA into this, but that hasn't stopped Apple before, so YMMV.

So what you're left with is a license dispute. Since you paid for the software, it would be pretty tough to prove fraud, so I think that rules out criminal court.

Now, Apple can sue away in civil court, which would test if their EULA is valid or not. Since there are mixed rulings in the federal courts it could go either way.

[drumthrasher109]

lol, the gf 8600gt's are used by apple and therefore they have the drivers.

damn, i want an opencomputer. something in this sweet antec case running osx, what else could i need

EDITED OUT BY DRUM!

Figured I shouldn't have put that in there.

[markwolfe Veteran]

...

SO basically you say you agree that this violates the terms of the EULA. You question the validity of the EULA, but want to see it tested in court to see if they affirm or reject the terms.

So, per the license, it is an illegal installation, pending any potential lawsuit that establishes otherwise.

[Joe User]

SO basically you say you agree that this violates the terms of the EULA. You question the validity of the EULA, but want to see it tested in court to see if they affirm or reject the terms.

So, per the license, it is an illegal installation, pending any potential lawsuit that establishes otherwise.

No, like I said, I don't think it's illegal. Illegal meaning violating a law, not some unsigned agreement from Apple that you don't get to read at the time of purchase.

Did you pay a $699 linux licensing fee to SCO? :) After all, they said what you were doing was against their licensing. (I know that's not a great example, I'll think of a better one later)

[Joe User]

Forget the Courts ? Apple May Fight Mac Clones With Tech Second page.

"The problem, say lawyers contacted by Wired.com, is that breaking a EULA technically isn't illegal (it's not a signed or executable contract) and penalties tend to vary from state to state, making it very hard to stop. "

[markwolfe Veteran]

...

Did you pay a $699 linux licensing fee to SCO? :) After all, they said what you were doing was against their licensing. (I know that's not a great example, I'll think of a better one later)

No, but I complied with the GPL license given to me.

And I did submit my name to the "SCO, Sue Me" online petition offering myself as a Linux user volunteering to be a target of a lawsuit. :p

[+Warwagon MVC]

I see this as great, as Apple has never gotten any anti-trust bull from anybody.

Yet, Microsoft gets it nearly everyday, and that impacts on the product we get, which seems completely unfair.

Also, if clone machines become available, and Apple is forced to lower prices, I might stop saying Apple products are overpriced.

What the hell does Anti-Trust have to do with apple? They make all their own hardware and they put THEIR os on it. Whats the problem? You think just because they don't release it for any other computer other than an apple to install it on makes it a case for anti-trust?????? This is so restarted i'm not even going to continue typing...

[1759]

While I like the sound of an xMac, I don't see any way of this company, getting around the EULA - it does mentioned that OSX can only be run on Apple-branded HW, and anything else would still a Hackintosh.

The whole (almost universal) point in buying the Apple, over using a Hackintosh build, is the relatively seamless integration of parts, apps, and the OS, and the fact that it works, 99% of the time.

Likewise, it's analogous to me, wanting to use legit copies of Vista - less hassle of WGA workarounds, and 99% of the time, the systems just work.

[LTD]

Seems this is nothing more than scam/load of bull****.

[Denis W. Veteran]

Seems this is nothing more than scam/load of bull****.

Might be the few times I agree with you as well.

Let's consider this OpenComputer. Take the Leopard option. All is well for a month until - oops - Apple updates Leopard and bricks the EFI emulator. Of course you could deny any updates or shut off Apple Software Update entirely and miss out on critical patches, or you can Google this emulator and see if they've worked around it - but in the end, what you've essentially done is just pay $399 for a custom built box with questionable value on its hardware components, something you can get done yourself or at your neighbourhood computer shop. And of course you're on your own if Leopard screws up. So what makes this any different than the thousands of custom built boxes? To be honest, I trust my local computer shops a hell of a lot more than this random upstart who probably Googled possible fake addresses to use as their office location.

They could've opted to keep only Windows, Ubuntu, or none as the only options. But no one would care in the least. They damn well knew that the first second they mentioned Leopard support, the world wide press-o-sphere will be on it like flies. They'll take in some nice number of sales, wait until it hits, say $10000 worth of OpenComputers, then shut down business and disappear.

Imagine if Microsoft allowed mom and pop shops to offer Windows XP/Vista preinstalled with some WGA cracks. Sounds similar to this case - both EULA violations.

[bryonhowley]

I don't see how Apple could lose. The copy protection is a key in the TPM chip. They can't legally copy it.

The Mac's sold today do not even use the TPM chip. They were really only inuse with the Developer's Kits.