Second Mac Clone Maker Set To Sell, With a Twist 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.'"
Might work ... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Tortious interference (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re: Fixed that for you (Score:3, Informative)
Oh, by the way, here's the relevant portion explaining this concept from the license itself:
Re:Time to open up Steve ! (Score:3, Informative)
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)
Re:Might work ... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Which is cheaper? (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.toshibadirect.com/td/b2c/pdet.to?seg=HHO&poid=412522 [toshibadirect.com]
vs
http://store.apple.com/us/configure/MB134LL/A?mco=NzUyMzc4 [apple.com]
Re:Seems like a great way to fcuk Apple... (Score:3, Informative)
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 has 1 GB of memory, an 80 GB hard drive, and integrated graphics (and no room for expansion).
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?
It's bad when anyone does it. Apple is just the most visible offender.
They are peddling a solution, take it or leave it, vote with your wallet. But you have to take it or leave it in its entirety.
That's what Apple would like us to believe, but it's probably not true. They sell copies of OS X to people who don't own Macs. Once you own a copy, you can legally install and run it (see 17 USC 117), regardless of how any license agreement purports to restrict you.
Re:The Tenuous EULA Claim Apple May Make (Score:3, Informative)
I don't think that's the issue at all. The issue is not "Is there hardware out there manufactured by a party other than Apple, Inc. on which software made by Apple, Inc. is capable of executing?" I don't think Apple will try to stop that. What Apple is probably concerned about, and probably within their right to enforce, is to stop is another manufacturer saying "We are building specifically Apple-compatible computers," and using that as marketing. Basically, the argument will probably be over misappropriation of the Apple brand-name, not technical capabilities of the product.
If some other company sold an "empty" computer, and just said "this computer has these hardware capabilities. You are free to choose an operating system." Then there would be no issue. The specific mention of Apple, and specific bundling of OSX with that computer, is what likely will cause problems.
Re:Might work ... (Score:3, Informative)
Surely $129 is more than enough for the cost of making a CD and the flimsy manuals they provide these days.
I am a software tech writer, you insensitive clod! Seriously, though, you'd be amazed at the cost of a flimsy (and I'll add mostly useless) manual. Start with a base salary of about $40/ hr. for the tech writer, then charge about, oh 8 hours per page, then throw in about 90% markup to cover overhead and you get a really expensive, and mostly useless process. I love capitalism!
Re:_second_? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Might work ... (Score:4, Informative)
Okay, for the fifty-millionth time, there's a difference -- a legal difference, not just a wishful one -- between an end user license like Apple's EULA and a distribution license like the GPL. The former attempts to take away the property rights that you already inherently have, by virtue of the fact that you bought the copy of the software. The latter gives you additional rights that you did not not already have under copyright law.
In other words, FOSS licenses deserve to be respected because they actually provide a benefit to both the licensor and the licensee. EULAs don't. Do you see the difference?