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.'"
Good luck with this, Apple. (Score:5, Insightful)
Might work ... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Might work ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Might work ... (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
Apple's choice of business model is its problem, not ours!
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:Might work ... (Score:5, Interesting)
On the contrary, "labeled with an Apple logo" is just as valid an interpretation of that phrase.
Besides, if you're using a sticker from the box, then Apple did make the label.
Re:Might work ... (Score:5, Funny)
And, if you use an apple to apply the Apple made Apple label, you can honestly argue that the label was put there by "apple". ^_^
Re:Might work ... (Score:4, Insightful)
No it's not. Label is a term with a legal definition.
"An informative display of written or graphic matter, such as a logo, title, or similar marking, affixed to goods or services to identify their source. A label may be put on the packaging or container of a manufactured product, or on the packaging or surface of a natural substance." Black's, 8th.
The sticker does not magically transform it into an Apple-labeled machine, despite your best efforts, no matter how badly Slashdotters wish it were so.
If they lose the challenge, then Apple will change its business model, since the retail sale of OS X does not even account for 1% of their revenue, and it is the sale of Macs, with their full license, that pays for development. OS X packages are released for Macintosh computers at $129 as an upgrade. That will end if it is ever forced to permit reselling of upgrade packages for white box systems.
Of course, that will never happen, because the discounted upgrade price is a consumer benefit, and no court in its right mind would eliminate that source of low-cost purchasing.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The media does not require any "license" to use, any more than a book or a shirt or a lawnmower requires a "license!"
Re:Might work ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Ahh yes, intent is an issue. Consumer intent to sign a contract. I don't see much.
Whatever Apple intends, as long as it sells its OS at retail it doesn't have a very good case for including crazy restrictions.
Especially since brand-tying is generally not enforceable.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I love how these companies are "making a statement", but seriously, what statement does it make? How does selling a computer without the OS installed great for consumers? Apple really doesn't care about hobbiests on on OSX86.org trying to get this to work themselves. Howe
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't understand why it would be so hard to accept that people decide what the fuck they want to do with their product, if this is what customers want to do with their product, let them.
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?
Re: (Score:3)
No, because we want to exercise our fundamental right to use our own property! In case your reading comprehension skills were too poor to notice, we're not talking about copyright infringement here! We're talking about using the software you legally purchased in a legal manner, but that is disallowed by an insane, unenforceable EULA.
Do you understand the horrible precedent that would be set if Apple is allowed to get away with this? It undermines the right to own a
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)
Re:Might work ... (Score:5, Insightful)
But that's probably because we are willing to spend the $129 in sweat equity to make our operating systems what we want. Most people don't have that option and are happy to pay $129. In other words: A carpenter wouldn't pay another carpenter to remodel his home...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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:4, Insightful)
Yea, i mean its just plastic, in fact any old CD will do just fine. What's on it doesn't matter at all.
Re:Might work ... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (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: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Might work ... (Score:5, Insightful)
but MS has a much smarter business model. Provide just the software, and don't lock down
You lost me there. Back then you COULDN'T get a PC without MS Windows on it. I'd say MS pretty much locked down every other piece of hardware (that wasn't Apple) on the planet. And that was enough to get them a headstart, and a trip to the courthouse.
Re: (Score:3)
And Apple learned (or always knew) that selling only an OS without hardware and then twisting hardware manufacturer's arms to only work on their OS would be trouble and kept their products integrated. Smart.
Better end-result in the long run for the user too, who just wants the shit to work when they turn it on.
Best yet, they took all the best bits from OSS and integrated that into a cohesive working OS too, all legally.
It really must bother the F/OSS tards who spend days downloading proprietary video drive
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Breaking what, the "contract" you don't see until long after you've become the legal owner of the software?
There's a big difference between selling a program and selling a box which contains an unknown contract you may or may not be willing to sign. If the second is their intent, they should label it as such and charge accordingly. I might be willing to risk $.50 on that - like an AOL cd ... save on downloading something to try it out. But it sure isn't a real product, like everything else on store shelves,
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you disagree with the terms of the EULA, you can return the software to the vendor and you are entitled to (usually) complete refund.
Ok go to your local BestBuy, Target, WallMart, {insert other box stores here} and buy some boxed software. Take it home and open it, insert the disk and decline the EULA. (You can just pull the shrink wrap off in the parking lot too to test my theory). Now try and return it, you can even tell them its because you found the EULA unacceptable. You are going to get stonewalled. Few retail places are taking returns of open item movies, music, or software. I don't know but I don't think you will get very
Re:Might work ... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
What moron moderated you flamebait? Rather insightful.
Custom Firmware Debate... (Score:4, Insightful)
I mean, do we really BUY anything, anymore - or are we just licensing?
Re:Custom Firmware Debate... (Score:5, Insightful)
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:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh yes, EULAs fly completely in the face of all contract law - the idea of hidden contracts and such - but let's just assume they're valid until we hear otherwise. And then let's assume that whatever other crazy legal ideas the software companies have are right until specifically overturned.
Perhaps, if we're just going to trust someone, we could pick someone other than the companies directly using those "laws" against us.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
So then get away from Slashdot and into a place where it counts and make them change the license, because as of now the consumer DON'T have the right to choose what hardware to run the OS on.
Things was so much easier for them when they used PPC ..
Re: Fixed that for you (Score:5, Insightful)
(1) Apple sells me an operating system in the form of installable media.
(2) I receive said media, and having completed the sale, the right of first sale doctrine kicks in. I can do any damned thing I please with that media, aside from distributing the copyrighted material to others while I'm still using the product.
(3) Legally speaking, Steve can take a printed copy of his EULA and smoke it.
There, fixed that for you.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
1) Apple sells you a CD with a license bound software.
Fixed that for you.
Unless your point of view are proven correct, which I find unlikely since sort of any software are sold under a license as the market works now and I doubt any court would like to render it all useless.
Also I guess your point also makes it ok to steal the code of any open source project and release it in your own closed product, I mean, the code was there to grab, I took it, now it's mine, how does the license matter now when I have th
Re: Fixed that for you (Score:5, Interesting)
Also I guess your point also makes it ok to steal the code of any open source project and release it in your own closed product, I mean, the code was there to grab, I took it, now it's mine, how does the license matter now when I have the code?
You could not possibly be more wrong. I'm a programmer myself, and make a habit of releasing my software under the GPL (among other OSI-compatible licenses). If I were to incorporate someone else's code into a product I distribute, in violation of their licensed terms of distribution, I would be legally and ethically in the wrong (of course, I'd never do that). However, if someone takes my software (say it's GPL licensed), makes modifications to it, and uses it in his business, he has no legal burden to release those changes back to me unless he distributes the software to others.
Re: Fixed that for you (Score:5, Insightful)
That is not even slightly true. There is a fundamental difference between any EULA and a copyright license like the GPL. In fact, the difference is indicated by the name itself: an EULA, or End User License Agreement, is designed to apply to the end user. There is no copying or distribution involved; copyright law does not apply. In contrast, a license like the GPL is a distribution license. It only kicks in when a person tries to perform an act, such as copying or distribution, that would otherwise violate copyright law. You can legally use GPL software without agreeing to the GPL at all; if you perform an act that would require agreeing to the GPL, then that act wasn't mere "use."
Incidentally, this exact issue is explained in the GPL FAQ [gnu.org]. To wit:
Incidentally, this means that some software's (e.g. OpenOffice's) practice of presenting the GPL in the installer as if it were an EULA (requiring you to agree to it before continuing the installation) is at best useless, and at worst, dangerously misleading.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Oh, by the way, here's the relevant portion explaining this concept from the license itself:
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
1. No he had it much closer than you did. Which is ironic because what you say demonstrates that you didn't even bother to read or understand that license. They sold you both a medium containing the Operating System and more importantly the right or license for to install and use a single instance (lets stick to COTS product for now) of their Operating System. And if you read the last line of ANY EULA ever they almost always say something to the effect of "these terms may be superceded by the laws of you
The Tenuous EULA Claim Apple May Make (Score:5, Interesting)
What a slippery slope! (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
If they go and win, the apocalypse is around the corner.
.. you know, t1000's running around, enslaving humanity. That sort of apocalypse.
Re: (Score:2)
.. you know, t1000's running around, enslaving humanity. That sort of apocalypse.
This I gotta see, a bunch of 1U UltraSparc T1 servers moving by themselves and ordering people around. Sun's been tooting their horn alot about these systems, but I didn't realize they went that far...
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, because everyone are forced to make their Software run on all hardware! That's the law!! Give me final fantasy 13 for my NES please!!!
Re:The Tenuous EULA Claim Apple May Make (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That thinking is part of the problem. Why do business with a company so actively hostile toward its customers?
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize that Apple, as far as I know, has not actually sued any of Open Tech's clients, right? Open Tech really doesn't even have any clients yet. So Apple has not been actively hostile towards these non-existent entities, you're just using a hypothetical situation to justify your argument. Why don't we wait for an official Apple response?
Re:The Tenuous EULA Claim Apple May Make (Score:5, Insightful)
Since Apple is a hardware company, if you don't buy an Apple computer, how are you their customer?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The Tenuous EULA Claim Apple May Make (Score:4, Insightful)
No, it has nothing to do with contract laws. It has to do with who a company perceives as a customer. That means from the company's perspective you are not a customer.
A business relationship should be one where both parties benefits (symbiotic). If only one side benefits then it's not going to last since it's typically at the cost of the other side (parasitic).
If a company is not benefiting you when you buy their goods and services, you should consider no longer buying their goods and services. Likewise, if you operate a company and taking care of a customer's needs ends up costing you, it's smart to encourage that customer to go somewhere else.
Since companies are fond of making money and less fond of losing money, you can tell where you stand as to whether or not you are a customer based on the company's attitudes towards you. Look at who they treat well and whose business they desire to determine who their real customers are.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
and all are practically unenforceable against consumers
Says WHO? You? And now everyone have to obey? #1195047 is the new law interpreter, court and separator of right and wrong?
How does it matter if it's "weak" aslong as it's "valid"?
Re: (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 Appl
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't real macs also contain the TPM-part with the correct key for the encrypted binaries in the OS?
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
OK, but where's the profit? (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I can't tell about Asia, but I want to see your source numbers about Canada. Even in techy circles I don't know all that many people who build computers. If you add businesses in there, the percentage must be seriously insignificant.
Re: (Score:2)
Where do you get your figures? My guess: you have 3 friends and 1 of them builds his own computers, as do you.
Re: (Score:2)
Not every computer company needs to be Dell.
Actually, they do. Well, not quite, but you do need a lot of scale to be profitable. And we're talking about semi-proprietary hardware that is inherently less profitable than a generic PC.
Apple itself is just barely big enough to make that work. Even so, they're considered a niche market. Now these guys think they can make a profit with the same semi-proprietary hardware, and a target customer base that's a small niche within Apple's small niche. Oh yeah, and they have to charge less than Apple, or else nob
Which is cheaper? (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (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]
Sassy. (Score:4, Funny)
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)
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?
Re:XT ? (Score:4, Funny)
What next, Macs shipping with a DB15 joystick connector?
Of course not... that is on the ISA sound card silly
Trademark and ads actually the real issues (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Tortious interference (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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.
Seems like a great way to fcuk Apple... (Score:4, Interesting)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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)
"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)
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.
Time to open up Steve ! (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (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)
But in the end why? (Score:2)
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)
Re:_second_? (Score:4, Informative)
Win-win for Apple (Score:5, Insightful)
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..." (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
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)
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
Apple doesn't need to have a winning case to win (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
"I hope they can get enough capital to stop Apple's legal department."
You can de-fund Apple by not buying their software, and avoid supporting Apple by not using warez copies.
There are Free and Open alternatives after all.
Re: (Score:2)
And the purpose of that would be? Considering the only people who cares in the first place are the people who WANT to use their software.
If they don't do it they kind of have no point of not doing it since it doesn't matter if Apple can defend their property or not.
Re:This is dumb (Score:4, Insightful)
The main reason to get a Mac is because the hardware and software have designed for each other. Things "just work".
For Joe Sixpack yes, but if you looked at /.'s slogan, it is "news for nerds" not "news for the mainstream public", most of us want a A) fast OS B) Secure OS C) Good looking OS and D) compatible OS. Out of all of the OSes, Windows only has good software compatibility but nothing else, BSD and Linux are fast, secure and can be good looking, but a lot of niche software isn't written for them. With OS X you get a fast OS, secure because it is UNIX, looks nice, and is compatible with a lot of apps (Note: I am not a Mac fanboy, I don't even own a Mac).
Re: (Score:2)
No one can because the board would be illegal, but if you accept to run a hacked version of the OS you can buy more or less any motherboard.
Re: (Score:2)
You sure about that? Slashdot is always full of people wanting to see license agreements enforced. Surely you've heard of the GPL.