Policy regarding OS X on non-Apple Hardware

[FloatingFatMan]

now i remember on MACworld.com they reviewed the frakenmac. the osx86 mac that you could buy with it pre installed.. would that be illegal if i were to stumble across this site and buy a mackinhackinfranketosh ? and use it?

i uddderstand thats a whole nuther issue in ittitself

As far as I understand how the law works, it would be a breach of the EULA, but you wouldn't be the one committing that breach if you bought it pre-installed. Therefore you wouldn't be suable, but the vendor would be.

Remember folks, it's NOT a criminal offense to breach the terms of an EULA, it's a civil offense. No cops will come knocking on your door, but a lawyer might.

[Suren]

Discussion of OS X on non-Apple hardware is allowed on Neowin. The amendment to the rules was conclusively made after much discussion among our staff. The primary reasoning behind this is a 1984 Federal Court ruling specifically makes it illegal for a company to force their users to install the OS on specific hardware. Which is ultimately the reason we're now allowing this discussion.

Note: Be aware though that Apple has a right to deny you support and service for OS X with a breach of the EULA. Neowin will not be held responsible in the event you void your warranty or support contracts.

Also please be mindful that Neowin still has a strong policy against warez of any kind and thus any discussion on illegally obtained copies of Mac OS X and such will be dealt with accordingly.

In order to differentiate new support threads in the forums, tagging your thread title with [OSx86] is now necessary.

Example: [OSx86] Can't get wireless card to be recognized

We do not intend to remove or amend warnings or other restrictions on accounts for previous violations of this rule because at the time the warning was placed on the account, these were the rules of Neowin.

Thank you for your understanding and patience.

I don't won't to sound like an idiot, but what has american laws have to do with Neowin since it is in Netherlands? Have we all become citizens of america or something?

On another aspect of this, some mods allow people ask about downloading tv programs for people from canada. so does this mean I can post an audio cd in neowin if my country laws says that I can?

btw: Which country laws does Neowin follow when it comes to copyrights? If its american laws, why?

[Ji@nBing]

I never could get it to install. I tired several different versions, but it would always just reboot just when it's about to load Darwin. I tried asking on several forums dedicated to this kind of stuff, but no one could ever figure out why as it should be able to install on my system easily.

[Wannes]

btw: Which country laws does Neowin follow when it comes to copyrights? If its american laws, why?

Neowin is an LLC, so actually it's a company in America I thought. Therefore they need to follow the rules of the United States.

Also it's not because the founders are from Holland that Neowin should follow the rules of the Netherlands. It depends on the location of your servers.

[Srsly]

^Yes indeed. And where is Neowin hosted then?

Well i was wrong a couple of pages back then. I thought it was illegal, but breaking the EULA is not illegal then. Now i want to try OSX86 too :laugh:

But in what forum should i post OSX86 threads?

[FloatingFatMan]

^Yes indeed. And where is Neowin hosted then?

Neowin is hosted on Stardock's servers, in the US.

But in what forum should i post OSX86 threads?

For now, the Apple General forum, prefixing with [OSx86].

[REM2000]

as it has been stated before by some other posters, the main thing that's worrying me, is that apple will introduce similar methods to activation just like microsoft have with windows.

The beauty of OSX and Mac's was that when you wanted to reinstall the OS you put the disk in and let it install.

[mrt2]

Petty arguing over the violation of laws pushed by special interest groups and written by corrupt government officials getting under the table payoffs to limit consumer rights for the purpose of corporate profit. EULAs and "licenses" specifying what you can and cannot do with the product you payed for and own.

I can't help but laugh at all of you playing into the game of greed.

Wowzers... I can't think of anything more well put being said in this forum or media for that matter.

[Marshalus Veteran]

I don't won't to sound like an idiot, but what has american laws have to do with Neowin since it is in Netherlands? Have we all become citizens of america or something?

On another aspect of this, some mods allow people ask about downloading tv programs for people from canada. so does this mean I can post an audio cd in neowin if my country laws says that I can?

btw: Which country laws does Neowin follow when it comes to copyrights? If its american laws, why?

Our servers are hosted in the United States, Neowin is registered as a corporation in the United States... we are bound by the laws of the United States.

[Circaflex]

If it is not Apple Labeled (Official or Officially Licensed) Hardware, it is in violation of the EULA. Depending on who you ask around here you will get a different view of if it is legal or illegal.

legal if you are in the US

[ThehAWKs]

How is it illegal to install software you own. You're not stealing anything, only breaking the EULA.

EULA violations have never been tested in a court of law. So, there's no precedent or case history to look at.

Apple is attempting to create a monopoly or at least using monopolistic practices and they are violating fair trade practices, therefore the Apple Eula is illegal.

[Cara Veteran]

How is it illegal to install software you own. You're not stealing anything, only breaking the EULA.

EULA violations have never been tested in a court of law. So, there's no precedent or case history to look at.

Apple is attempting to create a monopoly or at least using monopolistic practices and they are violating fair trade practices, therefore the Apple Eula is illegal.

How can a company with less than 50% of the market (way less) be consider a Monopoly. There are other options available on Apple systems, you are not locked into running OS X in anyway... Apple's decision to limit THEIR intellectual property to THEIR equipment is their right and until someone legally challenges, and wins, against the Apple EULA (Not some 80's decision given how the landscape of copyright and IP laws have changed since then) it is still a violation of the EULA to install OS X on anything other than official Apple (or Apple Licensed) hardware.

[BajiRav]

How can a company with less than 50% of the market (way less) be consider a Monopoly. There are other options available on Apple systems, you are not locked into running OS X in anyway... Apple's decision to limit THEIR intellectual property to THEIR equipment is their right and until someone legally challenges, and wins, against the Apple EULA (Not some 80's decision given how the landscape of copyright and IP laws have changed since then) it is still a violation of the EULA to install OS X on anything other than official Apple (or Apple Licensed) hardware.

Can I read EULA on the box of OS X (when buying)?

Yes: It might be valid and stand a chance in court.

No: It doesn't mean ****.

I think there was a case in part where Microsoft lost in similar fashion?

[Hell-In-A-Handbasket]

where is this court decision document that everybody is citing, iv searched and couldn't find it, but i also dont know the *Who VS. *Who either.

and a rulling in 84 ( or whatever year ) vs current Tech i way different, which is why they redid the DMCA

dhan: MS lost a case where they were limiting what could be installed on the OS by manufactures ( OEM's were installing Netscape Communicator instead of IE on the desktop ) not hardware related from what i remember

[evo_spook]

I never could get it to install. I tired several different versions, but it would always just reboot just when it's about to load Darwin. I tried asking on several forums dedicated to this kind of stuff, but no one could ever figure out why as it should be able to install on my system easily.

wow, you went and bought several versions of OSX and none of them would install on your PC, that must really suck, spending all that and getting now where

How is it illegal to install software you own. You're not stealing anything, only breaking the EULA.

EULA violations have never been tested in a court of law. So, there's no precedent or case history to look at.

Apple is attempting to create a monopoly or at least using monopolistic practices and they are violating fair trade practices, therefore the Apple Eula is illegal.

then again, you could say the same about installing XP on more then one machine, so its that ok to discuss?

[BajiRav]

<snip>

dhan: MS lost a case where they were limiting what could be installed on the OS by manufactures ( OEM's were installing Netscape Communicator instead of IE on the desktop ) not hardware related from what i remember

I was not talking about the Netscape/DOJ case. I faintly remember someone suing MS because they couldn't read EULA beforehand or something like that.

[FloatingFatMan]

Apple EULA (Not some 80's decision given how the landscape of copyright and IP laws have changed since then) it is still a violation of the EULA to install OS X on anything other than official Apple (or Apple Licensed) hardware.

Breaking the EULA is a breach of contract, which is a civil matter. Doesn't matter how you try to paint it, it's not illegal.

[Darran]

FloatingFatMan, it's a Civil matter, dealt with in Civil law, so theoretically it's ilegal to break the contract (the Eula).

[FloatingFatMan]

Nothing illegal about breaking a contract; you can't go to prison for that. It's a purely civil matter, so you can be sued sure, but it's not a matter of breaking the law.

In fact, as the law goes, it's less serious than not paying a parking fine.

[dyn]

Simply put, "a 1984 U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision held that a software publisher can't require consumers to run an operating system on a specific type of hardware." The US Supreme Court has refused to hear the case, so at this point it is legal for anyone who owns a copy of OS X (Leopard) to install it on any other hardware. The only thing Apple can do is refuse you support. That's where we come in.

Have you got a link to the entire decision? The other thing I can't find is where other laws such as the dmca come in. As mostly with law there are certain pieces that alow something whilst others forbid it: inconsistency. There's also a chance that this decision is overruled by newer pieces of law and decisions. Were those kind of things also checked?

In other words: are you absolutely sure that this decision from 1984 is the only thing that tells something about OS X on non-Apple hardware? Since it's a bit strange that in 24 years time no one has ever used it against Apple and it's also strange because this decision would affect nearly all electronics in the US in some way (it would mean that every single OS out there has to be crossplatform which is quite impossible).

There's also Darwin which is what OS X uses as a base. Darwin is free and you can run it on a pc if you want to. Specific parts that make up the rest of OS X are not free. So in what regard is Apple not fulfilling that 1984 decision? They've had Darwin for years which you can install on non-Apple hardware.

[Hurmoth]

Full citation is Digidyne Corp. v. Data General Corp., 734 F.2d 1336 (9th Cir 1984), cert denied, 473 U.S. 908 (1985)

DATA GENERAL CORP. v. DIGIDYNE CORP. , 473 U.S. 908 (1985)

The Mac OS X end-user license agreement prohibits its use on hardware other than that sold by Apple. It reads, "You agree not to install, use, or run the Apple software on any non-Apple-labeled computer, or to enable others to do so."

A little legal history now. Way back in 1978, a company by the name of Digidyne brought suit against Data General, alleging that it was restraining trade by "tying" its RDOS operating system to its Nova minicomputer hardware. (Digidyne sold Nova clones.)

The case wound its way through the courts. A 1984 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision held for Digidyne; the case was later denied rehearing by the U.S. Supreme Court.

It was a convoluted court case, but the bottom-line result was that Data General could not prohibit the use of its operating system on someone else's hardware. To use the legal term, you could not "tie" hardware and software. Related cases have involved prohibiting the use of specific supplies (such as punch cards) with a specific vendor's hardware.

Continue reading here.

I believe, and apparently a lot of other people do as well, that this case right here is why Apple hasn't put a stop to the OSx86 Project, the Psystar Mac Clone project and various websites from discussing this. Apple couldn't win without this case first being overturned by the US Supreme Court.

[markwolfe Veteran]

Full citation is Digidyne Corp. v. Data General Corp., 734 F.2d 1336 (9th Cir 1984), cert denied, 473 U.S. 908 (1985)

DATA GENERAL CORP. v. DIGIDYNE CORP. , 473 U.S. 908 (1985)

...

Thanks for the link. (Y)

Put the link in the first post, where it mentions the ruling?

[Hurmoth]

^ Done :D

[giga Veteran]

Don't post my private messages to you in the public forums. Feel free to discuss them with a supervisor though.

[Miuku.]

I think I can wrap up this whole thread with the old pirate saying "I can't afford it hence I'm allowed to pirate it".

Everything else is just excuses.