can you read the EULA before you buy? have you ever tried to return software because you didn't agree with the EULA?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Disabling Support for Intel Atom Processor in Latest 10.6.2 Build?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
can you read the EULA before you buy? have you ever tried to return software because you didn't agree with the EULA?
As I see it in the article. The keys are placed inside the SMC chip that only Apple manufacturers.
Hackintosh motherboards do not have the chip, so I believe, the OSx86 installers put something in the firmware of the Hackintoshes to make OS X believe they are working on a Mac, with SMC chip.
That's similar to what XBOX360 chips do, and they are illegal. Although they might be more complex (encryption, obfuscation, whatever, only a bunch of people get that), the same principle applies.
You can read the EULA before you install. The buying part is between the retailer and you.
But, I'll concede that every clickwrap, shrink-wrap, browsewrap and box-wrap contract has an element of procedural unconscionability that requires the court to consider whether the challenged term of the contract is overly harsh or one-sided. This opens up the content of contracts to legal supervision, which is great in a situation where the customer hasn't really been able to bargain, negotiate or otherwise exercise market power.
So both sides have rights. But keep in mind the manufacturer's rights to pursue legal remedies as well. Not necessarily impose them arbitrarily, but pursue them.
Well lets see Apple take someone to court. Frankly they are too ***** scared that they will loose and that opens a huge bag of hurt for them.
They won't take individuals to court, although they *could*. But they WILL take entities like Psystar to court, and they are perfectly within their rights to make it more difficult for potential violators to circumvent the EULA, in keeping with the principles they're enforcing with larger, commercial entities.
By violating the EULA as an individual, what your are doing is potentially actionable, and conversely, potentially defensible.
But thats the whole point, Apple is not going to go after an individual, so the whole EULA is pointless and that is why people have no issues with hackintosh (those who do it)
The North Korea of the computer world strikes again.
Do you have anything to add to the discussion, or are you just throwing out the anti-Apple rhetoric every few pages?
The EULA is not pointless because of apparent or circumstantial procedural difficulty. It is at the very least an agreement in good faith. Encouraging wholesale violation of it (and the occcurrence of wholesale violation of them) can have serious consequences for the way in which manufacturers can sell their products and for the integrity of their intellectual property. These consequences can be passed onto the user in some form, or in the form of other, far more draconian attempts to secure manufacturer IP rights.
No one - NO ONE, selling computers or software in the current market is interested in seeing a legal precedent set that blows a hole in the principle of the EULA.
Do you have anything to add to the discussion, or are you just throwing out the anti-Apple rhetoric every few pages?
Bubba's a one-liner kinda guy. Sometimes they're actually clever.
Going to an Apple store? Seriously?
The average user needs at least a week before getting comfortable with a completely new OS, getting rid of their old habits. What do you suggest, that they set up a bed in the Apple store?
And who says breaking Apple's EULA is illegal? No Court has ruled on the validity of EULAs in general! Decisions are limited to particular provisions and terms. It could very well be that Apple's EULA is invalid, we don't know that until it's tested in court.
You mean the arguments against the Hackingtosh community? Because, yeah, I haven't seen any convincing ones either.
Not if the Software License Agreement infringes the end-users rights.
That's the point.
Sony doesn't sell the PS3 OS! If they did and were to legally try to stop someone from trying to install it on third-party hardware, they would be wrong to do so. That is precisely what Apple is doing.
I paid for it. Clive at Five, pleased to meet you.
I do not disagree with you on that point. EULA are here to stay, though for someone that wants to run a hackintosh the EULA is pointless, and there will be no legal repremands. Apple is not going to go after individuals.
The problem is not that they're violating Apple's EUAL as individuals. We've known that for a while now.
THe problem is they're crying foul beacuse Apple is acting within their rights by making it more difficult for them to violate Apple's EULA. But Apple could also be dropping Atom support for completely different reasons.
This kind of also reminds me of Apples stance on not being able to install OSX on VM's.
Well, if by lock, you mean something to prevent operation, it is legal to open it. Sega v. Accolade. If the lock qualifies for DMCA protection, then it would be illegal.
My bold.Wikipedia-Sega v. Accolade said:
It's not pointless when Apple is fighting their legal battle with Psystar.
An EULA is at the very least, a deterrent and a statement if principle that is potentially enforceable by law. In strictly objective terms, Apple *can* pursue individuals. The procedural ease of doing so is subejctive and variable. It makes no difference.
The individual is still violating an agreement, regardless of a manufacturer's ability to realistically enforce it. That can vary. The EULA must still be in place, especially when an entity like Psystar pops up. With whom and where Apple chooses to attempt to enforce is is strictly up to them.
Yes, you are being dense. It is Piracy and the illegal use of Apple IP. You are authorized a license to use OS X on Apple hardware only.
At any rate, this move is to strengthen the case against Psystar.
Hackintosh is tolerated for not selling a commercial use product.
Psystar has eliminated that for the Hack community; and rightly so.
That's like arguing that courts have not ruled on whether contracts written in green ink on orange paper are valid "in general." It's a contract. It has the same requirements and limitations of any other contract. As long as the provisions of the contract are legal, it is just as enforceable as any other contract.
Which end user legal rights does the SLA infringe upon?
Not exactly, but yes, it's still enforceable.
Every clickwrap, shrink-wrap, browsewrap and box-wrap contract has an element of procedural unconscionability that requires the court to consider whether the challenged term of the contract is overly harsh or one-sided. This opens up the content of contracts to legal supervision, which is great in a situation where the customer hasn't really been able to bargain, negotiate or otherwise exercise market power.
So both sides have rights. But keep in mind the manufacturer's rights to pursue legal remedies as well. Not necessarily impose them arbitrarily, but pursue them.
Psystar, however, is a different case. They've done far more than simply install OS X on unauthorized hardware.
That doesn't change what I said. Any contract would be subject to the same consideration. The fact that it is a license agreement is irrelevant to its enforceability.
I present to you the case of Autodesk:
With the help of Public Citizen, an eBay merchant has won the right to sell used copies of AutoCAD on eBay. Autodesk had sought to block the sale under the software's license agreement, but a court ruled that such sales were legal under copyright's First Sale Doctrine.
Source: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...odesk-affirms-right-to-sell-used-software.ars
Mr. Vernor bought second hand copies of the AutoCAD software and sold it on eBay. The judge decided that he had the right to sell the original packages (and nothing else). You and Psystar and anyone else can do the same thing completely legally with MacOS X: You can buy a box, and then sell it on to the next person.
But that is not what Psystar does; they sell copies that are illegally installed on Psystar computers. You should also note that the judge told Autodesk that the companies that had sold their copies of AutoCAD to Vernor had most likely acted against their license and Autodesk was free to sue them.