Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Desktops (Apple) OS X

Second Mac Clone Maker Set To Sell, With a Twist 621

Posted by timothy
from the so-they-say dept.
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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Second Mac Clone Maker Set To Sell, With a Twist

Comments Filter:
  • 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 ... (Score:5, Informative)

      by PC and Sony Fanboy (1248258) on Saturday July 26, 2008 @09:32PM (#24353957) Journal
      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 ... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by palegray.net (1195047) <philip.paradis@pa3.14legray.net minus pi> on Saturday July 26, 2008 @09:41PM (#24354029) Homepage Journal
        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 ... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by aliquis (678370) <dospam@gmail.com> on Saturday July 26, 2008 @10:03PM (#24354217) Homepage

          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 ... (Score:4, Insightful)

            by mrchaotica (681592) * on Saturday July 26, 2008 @10:12PM (#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: (Score:3, Insightful)

            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 ... (Score:4, Insightful)

            by wellingj (1030460) on Saturday July 26, 2008 @11:42PM (#24354865)
            Maybe the point is that $129 is the right price for a lovely operating system, if one has the choice of operating systems.
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by STrinity (723872)

            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 if frogs had wings, they wouldn't bump their asses when they jump.

            I don't have any contract with Apple promising that I'll only buy OS X to install on a Mac running a previous version. If I can get a computer that will work with Apple operating systems, and a legal copy of that OS, Apple has no claim over me.

            I mean, if I print a book that's sealed with tape saying, "If you

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

        by Darkness404 (1287218) on Saturday July 26, 2008 @09:47PM (#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.
        • 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?

          • 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.

            • by Telvin_3d (855514)

              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.

          • by Macrat (638047)
            Very little of what is on eBay is legitimate...
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by aliquis (678370)

        What moron moderated you flamebait? Rather insightful.

    • by PC and Sony Fanboy (1248258) on Saturday July 26, 2008 @09:33PM (#24353965) Journal
      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?
      • 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: (Score:3, Insightful)

          I could use it as intended, or as an expensive doorstop.

          I read that as doorstep, which I guess is just as legitimate a use...

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by aliquis (678370)

      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?

  • by Apple Acolyte (517892) on Saturday July 26, 2008 @09:32PM (#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).
    • 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.
    • by Lank (19922) on Saturday July 26, 2008 @09:44PM (#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.

      • by X.25 (255792)

        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?

    • by aliquis (678370)

      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?

      • 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.
    • by aliquis (678370)

      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 C

    • by Afecks (899057)

      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.

  • by fm6 (162816) on Saturday July 26, 2008 @09:48PM (#24354099) Homepage Journal

    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.

    • I dont understand the reasoning by them anyway. ANY PC can run the Mac OS as long as your willing to play with it to get it to work. There are plenty of instructions out there on how to spoof the OS to run on anything from a high end Alienware system, to those microlaptops all the rage now. So what are they really accomplishing here?
  • Which is cheaper? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by BadAnalogyGuy (945258) <BadAnalogyGuy@gmail.com> on Saturday July 26, 2008 @09:50PM (#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?

    • by aliquis (678370)

      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.

    • by Al Dimond (792444)

      In the case of these machines there aren't really similar Apple machines to compare it to. There's a big hole in Apple's lineup. The Apple-obsessed might call it, "A Mini, but big enough that it doesn't have to use laptop components, and maybe is upgradeable"; or, "An iMac but, again, upgradeable, and that isn't tied to a monitor for no good reason"; or, "A highly down-spec'd Mac Pro geared towards home use". These are all stupid descriptions. It's called a cheap standard tower, and Apple doesn't make o

  • Sassy. (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 26, 2008 @10:07PM (#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 ? (Score:4, Funny)

    by keeboo (724305) on Saturday July 26, 2008 @10:09PM (#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?
  • by Zergwyn (514693) on Saturday July 26, 2008 @10:12PM (#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.

  • by MattW (97290) <matt@ender.com> on Saturday July 26, 2008 @10:16PM (#24354309) Homepage

    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?

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Hal_Porter (817932)

      They don't have to prove damage to the users, only to Apple

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference#Elements [wikipedia.org]

      1. The existence of a contractual relationship or beneficial business relationship between two parties.
      2. Knowledge of that relationship by a third party.
      3. Intent of the third party to induce a party to the relationship to breach the relationship.
      4. Lack of any privilege on the part of the third party to induce such a breach.
      5. Damage to the party against whom the breach occurs.

      Tortious interference always reminds me of this quote from The Insider
      http://www.dailyscript.com/scripts/the-insider_shooting.html [dailyscript.com]

      HELEN CAPERELLI
      (cuts in)
      And, I'm told there are questions as to
      our "star witness'" veracity.
      LOWELL
      (trying to control his anger)
      His "veracity" was good enough for the
      State of Mississippi.

      HELEN CAPERELLI
      (historic)
      Our standards have to be higher than
      anyone else's, because we are the
      standard...for everyone else...
      Whatever that means...

      LOWELL
      (wry)
      Well, as a "standard"...I'll hang with
      "is the guy telling the truth?"

      HELEN CAPERELLI
      Well, with tortious interference, I'm
      afraid...the greater the truth, the
      greater the damage.

      LOWELL
      Come again?

      HELEN CAPERELLI
      They own the information he's disclosing.
      The truer it is, the greater the damage
      to them. If he lied, he didn't disclose
      their information. And the damages are
      smaller.

      LOWELL
      Is this "Alice in Wonderland"?

      Note in this case the damage was to the tobacco company, not to the guy who broke the confidentiality agreement.

  • by Ralph Spoilsport (673134) * on Saturday July 26, 2008 @10:23PM (#24354365) Journal
    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

    • The real loser ends up being the legitimate customers. There is no Apple equivalent of WGA at this time, and I'd prefer there never is. If the courts decree that Apple may not tie the software to a specific piece of hardware, Apple will have to seek a technical solution.

      What's the big deal with running OSX on non-Apple hardware, anyway? There is all kinds of products sold every day that have the software and hardware tied specifically together, but suddenly it's bad for Apple to do this? They are peddli

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Mr2001 (90979)

        The real loser ends up being the legitimate customers. There is no Apple equivalent of WGA at this time, and I'd prefer there never is. If the courts decree that Apple may not tie the software to a specific piece of hardware, Apple will have to seek a technical solution.

        No, they might choose to seek a technical solution, but they won't have to.

        Other OS vendors get along just fine without tying their operating systems to particular hardware. They just charge enough for the OS to pay for the cost of developing it. Nothing's stopping Apple from doing the same thing.

        What's the big deal with running OSX on non-Apple hardware, anyway?

        Non-Apple hardware is cheaper. Just look at the prices in TFS: $620 gets you 3GB of memory, an nVidia GeForce 8600 CT video card and a 500GB hard drive. The only Mac you can get for that price is the Mini, which ha

  • .tk (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    "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!

  • I am up for it. (Score:2, Insightful)

    If Apple fought this very strongly, they would be hurting themselves.

    Obviously Apple wants more control, for profit motives. But you can't have everything. Especially if what you want is unethical.

    Do less evil, Steve.
  • by po134 (1324751)
    Even though Apple prohibit installation of their software on non-apple hardware, I think this is a good think as it might just make Jobs realise that it's time to open-up and prove that their OS is really up to the battle with the competition. If only there were a specific hardware component such as a usb key that could be purchased to turn any computer into an apple-compatible one I would most certainly buy one to try out OS X once and for all.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by LinuxInDallas (73952)

      As has been pointed out by many people, Apple is a hardware company. Their software groups exist to help Apple sell more hardware by providing a complete and easy to use system. There is no reason for Apple to to prove that their OS is "really up to the battle" by allowing it to be installed on other's hardware.

  • info about Open Tech (Score:3, Informative)

    by e r i k 0 (593807) on Saturday July 26, 2008 @11:15PM (#24354705) Homepage
    The only site I could find for Open Tech is here: http://www.freewebs.com/iopentech/ [freewebs.com]. It seems pretty sketchy - a legitimate business hosting on FreeWebs? Also, the photos of the machines (XT) seem to be empty cases, with no drives or anything installed. It puts me off that I don't see any with the side panels off or anything which would reveal an actual computer inside. FWIW I tried their .tk domain (http://www.iopentech.tk/) and I got a 502 Proxy Error.
  • If you really want the OS, then it just makes sense to acquire it in a fashion Apple wouldn't mind.

    Do I believe in draconian EULA limitations? No. Is it perfectly legitimate to install OSX on a system not blessed by apple? I think it should be.

    However, practically speaking, it's a bad path. Just as you have the right to use the software as you see fit, Apple has the right (even if a bad idea) to withhold updates/support from such people. If an OSX update fixes important security issues *and* kills the

  • _second_? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by imasu (1008081) on Saturday July 26, 2008 @11:49PM (#24354901)
    This is not the second Mac clone maker, it's the third. How soon everyone forgets Power Computing [wikipedia.org], and what Apple did to them.
  • Win-win for Apple (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jay-be-em (664602) on Saturday July 26, 2008 @11:53PM (#24354923) Homepage

    Apple isn't going to lose any hardware sales off of this -- people buy Macs for the whole package experience, not to install operating systems, and don't really mind the lock-in, probably aren't even aware of it.

    Apple is going to gain software sales off of this from people who otherwise wouldn't buy Macs because of the lock-in.

    • people buy Macs for the whole package experience, not to install operating systems

      Speak for yourself, Kemosabe.

      People buy Macs for all kinds of reasons, but given how anemic the hardware is for the price ($600 for a $600 laptop without the most costly component in a laptop... the sceren? That's what you get with a Mac mini) it's not reasonable to blithely assert that the hardware is a significant part of the draw.

      Apple won't lose hardware sales from these people because anyone who was going to make a hackintosh from these boxes is capable of buying the same parts for less money piecemeal. Not because they wouldn't lose hardware sales to someone who had a legitimate Mac clone.

      That doesn't mean they couldn't make money off legitimate clones. Selling an "unlocked" version of OS X retail for $400-$500 would cover their profits nicely. They screwed up on the original clones by selling the OS for too little to pay for the lost sales.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by kklein (900361)

        I just kinda want to reply to this sentiment.

        I am perfectly capable of making a Hackintosh. I've been building my own Windows and a couple Linux systems for 10 years. I used to have a small business as a whitebox builder.

        When building for myself, I build quality. I use top-notch parts, and I don't skimp on the silent cooling or the quality of the case.

        You know what? That stuff is expensive.

        When I decided to switch to the Mac full-time a few months ago, I thought about building a Hackintosh, but

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by argent (18001)

          I thought about building a Hackintosh, but by the time I had my parts list down, I was nearing $2000 in parts. And even that wasn't at the quality of the Mac Pro.

          If you're trying to build something comparable to a Mac Pro, you're not even in the same volume (let alone the same page) as most of the people building their own white boxes.

          I mean, I've built a bunch of computers and the only time I went over $1000 in parts was in the early '90s...

          Think "Mac mini Pro", not "Mac Pro".

          Even though I'd be the first t

  • by Dzimas (547818) on Sunday July 27, 2008 @11:42AM (#24358935)

    I suspect Apple will sue if Open Tech uses an Mac trademarks or alludes to Apple's trade dress in any way. There's no way that Open Tech will be able to defend themselves - things will get very expensive, very quickly. I doubt Apple would risk playing the EULA card in case the judge finds against them and finds it reasonable for Open Tech to use Apple software on whatever bloody hardware they wish. If that was to occur, Apple would find themselves starring in their very own version of "Attack of the Clones."

    Apple will wait quietly to see what ammunition Open Tech provides them. I can't imagine the new company will be able to successfully advertise without alluding to Mac, Apple, or OS X. Apple is the patient shark, and sooner or later the surfer will dangle a limb over the edge of the board.

In the sciences, we are now uniquely priviledged to sit side by side with the giants on whose shoulders we stand. -- Gerald Holton

Working...