MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

You think these people would have better things to do with their money.

Hoax?

I bet those are the Psystar brothers again

Jul 23, 08 - 09:06 am Comment from: Steveeee

@ MikeR

.... and their talent

Jul 23, 08 - 09:09 am Comment from: Scott

I don't think there is anything wrong with selling a computer saying it is compatible with OS X. They aren't breaking anything, the people who install OS X on the computer are they ones that will be breaking the law.

Jul 23, 08 - 09:10 am Comment from: Buster

Stupid is as stupid does....

Don't these guys ever learn. I say spank'em hard Apple.

Jul 23, 08 - 09:12 am Comment from: Buster

Scott....don't you think it is a problem enticing people to do illegal things?

...ethical issues anyone?

Give us a midtower (somewhere between imac and mac pro) and there wouldn't be a need to run os x on ordinary PCs

Jul 23, 08 - 09:25 am Comment from: Horseman

Well, what about this analogy?

Suppose you're a small company building cars. You initially install a Chevy engine in your cars and Chevy complains, saying they don't want their engine being used in your cars. I suppose they could do that. BUT... suppose you build a car without an engine, saying customers can install any engine they want. And if they want to put a Chevy engine in there, you will provide users with a kit to install it. Ultimately, the customer is responsible for obtaining the engine and putting it in. Could Chevy complain about that? Does this analogy even apply?

Jul 23, 08 - 09:28 am Comment from: since1985

@ Scott

Well, except OS X's EULA states that not only can one not use OS X on a non-Apple branded computer but that one cannot "enable" others to do so, neither.

This article clearly states, "offering its customers a mystery 'do-it-yourself kit' that will guide them through installing a separately-purchased copy of the Apple software. "

I disagree with the article that states, "avoiding a conflict with Apple's Software License Agreement" and "The company itself would absolve itself of responsibility and put the focus on the user". It appears to me that by Open Tech advertising and providing the kit, the company is breaching the EULA, too.

Interesting to see that these crude cloning schemes are coming in as the Mac's market share really begins to take off. Obviously these companies can see which way things are going to go in the next few years and are desperate to set up something that resembles the current PC market.

They're so desperate to get a piece of the OSX action that they really think that can succeed in getting a foot in the door where hopeful Dell and the others have all failed so far.

Expect to see more of this type of thing as Apple computers and OSs begin to enter a golden age.

Jul 23, 08 - 09:31 am Comment from: Think

Just proves how many stupid people there are in this world.

There is no EULA with engines. Once you purchase an engine, or any other car part, you can do pretty much anything (legal) you want with it. Customizing cars has gone on since the beginning of cars. You own the car. You own the parts.

Apple's requirement that you agree not to install their software on anything else than an Apple computer seems to be without much precedent. They could lose this one in court, which is why they are threatening to put a smoldering hole in the ground where Psystar used to be, but will probably settle out of court for terms that wont be disclosed. You just never know what's going to happen in court.

Don't think that Dell or somebody isn't behind this.

Jul 23, 08 - 09:44 am Comment from: Metryq

@ Dirty Pierre, "a piece of the action"? Then I think it's about time we set up a game of Fizzbin. (But only if it's dark on Tuesday.)

They can offer plenty of disadvantages, but where is the advantage, unless you are a person who likes to build cars from junkyard parts.
Have done it, it can be done well if you are willing to spend $20,000 to build a $10,000 car.
Been there, done that.

I think Horseman's analogy does apply in this situation. And since1985 interpretation is incorrect. Open Tech is not in violation the Apple's OS X EULA. The EULA is between the purchaser/licensee of OS X and Apple. It's an end user agreement.

It seems to me that the legal issues hinge on the mystery "do it yourself" kit and what it does. It's not inconceivable that it could violate the license terms.

Jul 23, 08 - 09:49 am Comment from: Gordon

Signs of the times. OS X and Macs are becoming so popular and attractive that these types of operations are starting to pop up.

Few points of clarification:

Only legislatures can make laws. Violating the terms of an EULA may result in civil action, but such violations are not illegal.

A EULA can only apply to someone that uses the underlying asset being licensed. Apple putting in their OSX EULA that folks cannot enable others to violate the agreement is legally useless. However, it may signal that Apple will attempt to link such actions to theft of intellectual capital...a separate civil matter.

Apple certainly has the right and, more, obligation to protect i-cap like OSX, but they have to be careful how the do it.

My guess is that Psystar will lose such a battle because they hosted and provided modified code, which is distributing Apple i-cap w/o permission or compensation.

That said, I think Apple would lose if they tried to prevent an individual from installing OSX on non-Apple hardware. They wouldn't want such a loss going public so I doubt would litigate against individuals or companies that simply sell compatible hardware and instructions. Of course, Apple will be under no obligation to support any installation of OSX on non-Apple hardware.

If this trend continues as others think it might, the easiest thing for Apple to do is include code in OSX to check for the presence of some proprietary pice of apple hardware present within every Mac. Hackers will, of course, find this little snippet of code and create work arounds, but Apple can reset that every time they push an update.

Who wants their computer to break several times a year. That's a bit antithetical to the Mac experience. Apple did it with Ringtones for the first six months of the iPhone's existence, but didn't have the moral high ground on that issue. They do when it comes to OSX running on non-apple hardware.

Finally...it would be wise of Apple to examine why there is a market for such computers. Personally, I think there are three reasons:
1) Some folks just like to hack stuff (tiny population--who cares)
2) Some folks want cheap Macs (small population--cede it)
3) Some folks want a non-Uber headless Mac (sizeable population -- meet the need and ignore populations 1&2;)

Thus ends my soapbox diatribe for the day.

pax,
rwr

1. Legal or not, what these companies do that is the biggest disservice to their potential customers is that #1 thing that should advertise is a warning that following their suggestion you will lose warranty and support of your product. They do not advertise that, and so one questions the true customer service attitude of these companies. Disingenuous.
2. If you are not an authorized reseller, are you allowed to resell OS X, even at cost? Especially in this case the incentive to for them to make profit from selling the rest of the system and the "Mac kit", and in so doing obviously violates Apple trademark by using Apple appeal to sell your product without agreement with Apple. Dumb.
3. Should Psystar sue them for copying the Psystar systems commercial names ("Open Whatever")?

Jul 23, 08 - 10:04 am Comment from: HMCIV

Anyone remember that game Whack-A-Mole?

I wonder if Apple can get PsyStar and Open Tech to make that delightful squeak sound when they bludgeon them.

Jul 23, 08 - 10:23 am Comment from: rahrens

Hey, slow up, folks, the word ILLEGAL is a bit too harsh.

A EULA is a simple agreement between you and a software manufacturer, and the legality of EULA's has not been definitively ruled on by the courts.

Violating a EULA is NOT breaking the law, there is no law against violating agreements.

The courts get involved in enforcing agreements between individuals and/or companies as a matter of civil tort, which is NOT like the criminal system at all. A violation of an agreement means that the court will rule as to the legal facts of the case, i.e., who did or did not violate the agreement. It will then issue an order granting the violated party relief according to the terms of the agreement, what ever they may be, based upon that finding of fact. There are NO criminal consequences, and the civil relief granted can range from cash payments to outright cancellation of the agreement, depending on the terms of that agreement.

The only place an illegality may come into play is in copyright law, and if these guys are not distributing altered copies of Mac OS X, I don't see how Apple could do anything. The most is that Apple could force them to stop using Apple's name or the name of Mac OS X in their advertising. Those names ARE copyrighted, and may not be used without permission.

@ Rahrens:

Great point about legalities and applicability in civil litigation. However, does illegality come into question when allowing other individuals to break copyrights, such as end users? Is Open Tech breaking copyright law by exposing work-arounds for end users to utilize?

My short answer would be no. Recent example remains those individuals who jailbroke (not unlocked) their iPhones: such practices were a direct violation of the EULA by end-users, but not so by the developer of the software (in Open Tech's case, the "kit"). Apple merely refused to service or repair such iPhones, but never had a legal leg to actively pursue the developers of the jailbreak software.

@ rwr:

An EULA is applicable to any person or company who purchases the software with the exemption of authorized resellers. Being that Psystar was actively installing OSX without the distinction of authorized reseller makes them an "end user."

Apple does provide recourse for individuals who purchased hardware with OSX preinstalled that violates the terms of the EULA (said hardware must be returned to manufacturer). Unfortunately, it looks as though Open Tech may have found a loophole, unless an argument can be made regarding copyright infringement.

Mac OS X is licensed not owned, thew only thing you own when purchasing OS X is the physical CD\DVD you can at your discretion us it as a Frisbee if you like. Apple may not be able to go after them for enticing users to break there EULA but they do own the Triad Mark for Mac OS X and so the fact that this company is using Apple Triad Mark to sell there products is something Apple's legal team can hunt them down for.

Jul 23, 08 - 10:43 am Comment from: Zach

They don't even have a real website! They have it hosted on freewebs.com! Wow! Let me go out and buy one right away from such a legit looking company!

I did, however, just think of something. Open Tech must have a computer they have tested their "kit" on, which would place them in violation of the EULA by not only modifying the code of their own computer, but allowing others to do so as well.

At such a point, they are liable for any damages (i.e. Macs not sold as a result of Open Tech sales) as well as punitive damages. Booya!

@E-Dub:

Heh...put down the crack pipe. By your logic, Apple would have recourse against anyone who jailbreaks their phone and loads Apps, because it decreases demand for Apps provided solely through the iTunes store. Apple would also have had recourse against iToner and iPhoneRingtoneMaker for lost ringtone revenues.

Trust me on this...such litigation will never see the light of day. The courts, time and again, have proved unpredictable to lenient when dealing with how consumers use things they've purchased in ways undesired by the MFR.

My guess is that Open Tech is very much in the legal clear so long as they do not distribute OSX with their products. My bet is they provide public torrents to the Hacked OSX bits and a CD with non Apple proprietary, e.g., EFI hacks.

Seriously, pursuing such companies is not worth Apple's time because the tiniest fraction of people want a computer that exists without support.

That said, the Libertarian in me says more power to such maverick individuals. They buy the hardware, they buy Windows, and OSX. They Download Linux. They get all three working and keep them working.

I don't think companies should have the ability to dictate how you use their products so long as its for individual use and not resale.

People should not be protected from making stupid decisions that only affect themselves...and you can quote me on that

I built my own Windows Vista machine right when it came out. What a stupid decision...now I use a Mac. Good Decision...see...self correcting.

These cloners will always be out in the cold with Apple OS's frequent updates.

MDN, they're not breaking that agreement because they aren't giving you copies.

A few points-

The EULA states:

"...or to enable others to do so."

If this new company doesn't buy Mac OS X, they are not subject to the EULA. They can't be subject to a license agreement for a product they did not license!

As far as copyright violations, it isn't. The worst they would be guilty of is helping others violate a license agreement. Kind of like how Toast "helps you violate a license agreement" by allowing you to make copies of original software media. Supplying information or tools that can be used to violate a civil agreement is not a violation of copyright. Especially if these tools (computers) can run other OS's, which I assume that they can. They're selling a bare box, and it's up to the purchaser to install an OS on it, and therefore the purchaser would be the person violating any EULA's.

As far as warranties, if this company warranties their product, how would a customer be at risk of violating a warranty? Granted, Apple would not (and at this point, anyway, SHOULD not) support installations of it's OS that are in violation of it's EULA, but the last time I checked, Apple's warranty pretty much secifically claimed that the software is not warranted for any particular usage, and Apple are not responsible for any problems caused by it's software. Which is pretty much the same as any other software publisher says about they're software. Anyone who thinks Apple would warranty this company's hardware is a moron, and deserves what they get.

I still just don't understand all the vehement hatred in this forum about anyone who wants to do anything with a product that they paid for that is in any way not intended by the manufacturer.

I'm starting to agree with some of the posters that many folks who post here are just Apple Fanboi's, and if the same situation came up for, say, Dell, or Microsoft, these folks would be the first in line voicing their support for the people who hack their products or do anything that goes against the "norm".

There's a small market that Apple doesn't server- if that market can cobble together a way to get a great OS running on the hardware that best fits their need, more power to them! It doesn't hurt Apple, as Apple made the choice to not sell to that market. There aren't any lost sales- so why all the hulabaloo?

Jul 23, 08 - 12:04 pm Comment from: HolyMackerel

The is a side of me that wants these cloners to win - the same side that tells me it is OK to Handbrake a movie that I legitimately purchased.

My other side worries that if they succeed, then Apple will raise the price of MacOS X or introduce serial number installations or more encrypted code.

Jul 23, 08 - 12:05 pm Comment from: s

OpenTech may not breaking EULA contract, when they sell the computers, but how about when they test their computer for OSX compatibility? If they tested the computer with OSX, they have broken the contract. If they did not test the computer, then claiming OSX compatibility will be a false advertising.

Jul 23, 08 - 12:36 pm Comment from: Macjammer

Should Open Tech have tested their method out, I bet that computer has long since been disassembled. Then so without that concrete evidence it'd be hard for Apple to prove it.

So I guess with Open Tech it's a case of watch this space. I have a strong feeling that as mentioned above this is akin to the iPhone unlocking issue. So Open Tech might survive where Psystar did not.

You'll just see notices placed around particular busy parts of every Apple retail store that would state something like: 'Any third party (or non Apple branded) computing device which is running any version of OSX will not be supported or serviced at this store'. Of course being placed in every store makes it mean every store by default.

Likewise online notices in forums or a preamble with any AppleCare agent over the phone or a pre-recorded notice prior to connection.

Jul 23, 08 - 12:37 pm Comment from: HMCIV

@HolyMackerel

I'm guessing one way or another Snow Leopard will leave more than a few Mac cloners out in the cold. (God that Snow/Cold pun is never going to get old for me!)

Apple has no one else to blame but themselves for these series of "clones"

You need a OS/hardware tie-in or suffer numerous lawsuits which will drive up the cost of the real Apple hardware and then MICROSOFT WINS!!!

Come on Apple, get with it. You bonded with the devil Intel, now you reap the whirlwind.

Jul 23, 08 - 12:57 pm Comment from: Macjammer

@ s

One thing to think about in law are those disclaimers. That can also void any issue over false advertising, certainly were a clause expressly states E&OE;, or similar. That is Errors And Omissions Exempt.

Therefore Open Tech, Inc indemnify themselves.

Open Tech, Inc, if I were them, would have a disclaimer that using their kit is at the end users own risk and that Open Tech, Inc are not responsible for any damage caused by using their kit and that the purchasing of said kit is an agreement by the end user to indemnify Open Tech, Inc. Apple, Inc, do this as does nearly every software vendor.

Open Tech is not selling OSX to their customers and so that voids any issue over their corporate liability for their customers in terms of the EULA.

So, if you're a real tinkerer you might decide to take the risk that should it your efforts not work, you cannot blame anyone else but yourself.

Could end up costing more by buying testing out and failing different hardware mixes than buying an Apple branded computer in turn if that is the case, could work in Apple, Inc's favor.

However someone will publish their hardware mix that works and then Apple posts an update, hidden in a security patch, which then causes an Open Tech kit computer to stop working and then off again.

Sure there are people out there that have the time and money to keep doing that.

Who knows maybe just maybe Apple does what is now deemed unprecedented and permit their technology partner Acer to make 'clones'. Think about it, Apple using Intel chipsets was once thought as a 'never going to happen' thing?

Markets change, Apple, Inc doesn't sit still, it's a business and like any business it exists to make money!

Jul 23, 08 - 01:00 pm Comment from: HMCIV

@Raving MacHead

The devil (Intel) is no longer the greatest threat to salvation, due to last weeks discovery of the Super Devil.

The super devil is at least six inches taller, he has a flying motorcycle, and a jar of marmalade that we believe forces you to commit adultery.

"effectively just custom-built Intel systems based on commonly available -- and somewhat outdated -- parts"

So they're following Apple's system design strategy.

"It appears to me that by Open Tech advertising and providing the kit, the company is breaching the EULA, too."

You can't breach an agreement you're not a party to. The EULA is between Apple and the customer.

If you could make an agreement binding without the other party agreeing to anything people would just write up contracts like "If my neighbor drives out of his driveway this morning, I will own his house", and when he does claiming they have an enforceable deal with them.

If the cloner's hands don't touch the software then there's no harm, no foul under the EULA. Apple might try to make some of the other claims stick.

Since a Mac is basically a standard PC with EFI Bios, there's no way Apple can keep it closed long term without designing in some proprietary part which would be illegal to clone.

Jul 23, 08 - 01:52 pm Comment from: LordRobin

If this company is not going to sell OS X themselves, Apple shouldn't worry about them. Seriously, what is the real market for empty PCs on which you have to separately purchase and install the operating system? 95%+ of the market wants their computers to work straight out of the box. Only Linux nerds and box-builders are happy installing the OS themselves, and they wouldn't be interested in this product.

------RM

Jul 23, 08 - 02:11 pm Comment from: money talks

Anyone know the legal definition of "non-Apple-labeled computer" ?

Jul 23, 08 - 04:36 pm Comment from: Forrest, Forrest Gump

@Buster:

I could'nt say it better.

I suspect that this new company is run buy the same people who run Psystar.

This sort of thing happens all the time in the UK, a company cons customers out of their money then they close down and afew weeks later the same people setup a new company selling the same products but under a different company name.

This is a major loophole in England law and is exploited every day blatantly.

if apple really wants to stop this kind of thing they should make a son $600 mac

Jul 23, 08 - 07:03 pm Comment from: Scot Murphy

It seems a little coincidental, this new company rising just days after the lawsuit against Psystar. I wonder if some big bucks are backing both of these companies so they can file a class-action lawsuit against Apple.

You can all wake up now. There will be no Midtower Mac. What do you think Apple is? Dell?

What is the legal definition of "Apple labeled"? Interestingly, Apple includes official Apple logo stickers with the Leopard retail package. If I slap one of those on an Open Tech or Psystar computer does that make it "Apple labeled"?

After all, it's an official Apple logo sticker conveniently supplied by Apple Inc. with the retail copy of the Leopard OS that I purchased.

Exactly what is "Apple labeled" anyway? AFAIK they don't define the term in the EULA.

NOOBS!!!!!! YOU ARE ALL NOOBS!!!!!

Jul 25, 08 - 09:34 am Comment from: Mr. Peabody

Just because a company says a thing, does not automatically make it a law. That's why Apple has to pursue it's grievance against Psystar in court rather than just being able to pick up the phone and call the police - No law has actually been broken until the court makes one, and then decides that the defendant has broken it. With the exception of the initial purchase, every specific point of an EULA constitutes an assumption of agreement to the terms specifically listed in the EULA, and each specific requirement is arguable and defensible in a court of law.

Jul 26, 08 - 12:57 am Comment from: cheese

Just a thought, EULA is for end users to follow not for manufacturers to abide. I mean, if I make a PC that can run OSX, Windows, Linux -- sell it and advertise it to be compatible with OSX will that be a violation of the EULA? I mean manufacturers didn't buy the software they just provided the hardware, so it's really the end users --- the pc buyers --- who are at stake of getting sued.