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 Legal vs x86 Mac OS X
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
javiercr said:
Not really, because as the article even states:
They are posting videos of "illegal" actions being done with Apple's SDK. I'm not really into legal stuff, but I think they have more than enough reason to be angry or agressive, if they'll obtain anything this way is another matter.
Maybe Apple wants this to be silenced before they make support for others PC's official. Who knows... it could happen.
Maybe they see it like if someone posted a picture of any Apple product before its official release.
Everybody who is in legal posession of the OS X/Intel software has signed an NDA.rinseout said:
So these videos are either in violation of a signed contract or they are made by people who have pirated copies of Apple's software.
Are you saying that Apple shouldn't try to enforce its contracts and its copyrights?
Why does it matter?rinseout said:
If I sign a contract that says I won't disclose this software to the public, and I violate that contract, I'm liable to whatever extent the contract specifies. Unless the contract puts those penalties in terms of actual damages (which would really surprise me), the net effect of disclosure is irrelevant.
It is you who don't get it. Apple's market share is currently growing not shrinking.Marx55 said:
Marx55 said:
I couldn't disagree more. Microsoft makes money because they sell 95% OS's. Apple is also very profitable, but makes it's cash off of hardware sales.
Ignoring iPod, and figure the average Mac user spend $1500 on equipment. That means they'd have to sell more than 10 Tigers to make up for it (i'm speculating here - i really don't know what kind of margins these products have). So, the userbase would have to increase by 10 fold, which would put Mac OSX at 50% of the market (10 times 5%), and I highly doubt that's even a remotely obtainable goal - as M$ will step in and start giving away Windows for free until Apple goes under. (man, am I being speculative!)
Furthermore, OS's can just up and run on "any ol' hardware". The OS has to know how to talk to, for example, a CD ROM drive, which means the manufacturer has to write a driver to act as the "interpreter". Anyone who's worked with a homegrown box knows that drivers are one giant pain in the butt when they don't work, and I'm perfectly happy that Apple is currently free and clear of supporting random hardware.
I hope it *never* happens, and let them concentrate on hardware (which they rule at) and software (which they rule at) and not support calls (which they're ok at).
Apple doesn't have any "Manifest Destiny" at work here, and I don't really care how much marketshare Macs have, and neither should you. They have "enough" now, as I have no problems finding software, and rather enjoy being the underdog. They are profitable in all departments right now, and do not have shrinking marketshare.
I don't understand what the fuss is over anyway. Apple has said the developer kits are not what is going to be the actual version of the Mactel computers. I'm sure they've got some hardware lockout up their sleeves to prevent this when they go live.
As for Apple pressing legal charges, aren't there really strict rules that you have to agree to when you get one of the developer kits? I'm sure Apple snuck some text about this issue into the aggreement. Though from Apple's perspective, its probably good that someone hacked the software, so they can close up all the loopholes before they go live with the Mactel boxes.
With regards to Apple letting people put OS X on PCs, it would be suicide for them. Apple is a hardware company. They make little to no money on software. Most of the public doesn't care what hardware they use (as is evidenced by how many people own Dells). If you allow Mac users to put OS X on a Dell, then that is more people that won't be buying that MacMini or iMac and contrary to popular opinion Apple can't support itself on iPods alone.
As for Apple pressing legal charges, aren't there really strict rules that you have to agree to when you get one of the developer kits? I'm sure Apple snuck some text about this issue into the aggreement. Though from Apple's perspective, its probably good that someone hacked the software, so they can close up all the loopholes before they go live with the Mactel boxes.
With regards to Apple letting people put OS X on PCs, it would be suicide for them. Apple is a hardware company. They make little to no money on software. Most of the public doesn't care what hardware they use (as is evidenced by how many people own Dells). If you allow Mac users to put OS X on a Dell, then that is more people that won't be buying that MacMini or iMac and contrary to popular opinion Apple can't support itself on iPods alone.
this is all a big joke
if gaming companies, adobe, macromedia and all other big companies watermark ALL their betas sent to developers, don't tell me apple never heard about this. they try harder than any other companies to keep everything secret and for something as important has running OS X on a pc they said, well no, don't watermark this thing... yeah right!
if gaming companies, adobe, macromedia and all other big companies watermark ALL their betas sent to developers, don't tell me apple never heard about this. they try harder than any other companies to keep everything secret and for something as important has running OS X on a pc they said, well no, don't watermark this thing... yeah right!
baleensavage said:
I think all the fuss about the developer version of the OS is they don't want people judging a non-final product.
c0n said:
Oh- so it's just by coincidence that they offer the best computing experience available? Maybe, but I don't think so.
What I think would work is if Apple went to ROMs for their OS. Upgrade your OS? Take out the old OS chip and put in the new one. I think that'd be the most successful.
What does Apple do to keep general PPC hardware from running OSX?
What does Apple do to keep general PPC hardware from running OSX?
This is useless...
The CAT is out of the bag... pun intended.
Now that Apple is moving to intel their hardware/computers will become even more and more marginalized.
IMO the future of Apple as a computer company teeters on the edge.
The CAT is out of the bag... pun intended.
Now that Apple is moving to intel their hardware/computers will become even more and more marginalized.
IMO the future of Apple as a computer company teeters on the edge.
rinseout said:
I'm no fanboy, but from a legal perspective, Apple *has* to take action when an NDI or it's IP rights are being violated. The reason has very little to do with instant harm from the prohibited activity itself. Rather, if it does not take affirmative action to enforce its rights, then courts may refuse to enforce those rights in the future. Put differently, Apple can't legally pick and choose which of its rights it considers important. It must protect them all, or risk having them read very narrowly.
As far as PR risk is concerned, a decision like this may not even have been made by Apple's management. If it's like most companies with significant IP, its in-house counsel has standing orders to enforce NDI's.
HTH.
stridey said:
Okay, just wondering how this is "illegal?" I mean, it's just a "video." They're not offering the OS as a download or anything, right? I don't think they signed any NDA with Apple. But as for how they got their hands on the Intel version of the OS...
If Apple wants to continue to flush their positive image down the tubes then they should continue to sue everyone that creates free hype for them.
OS X's market share will hit a brick wall if they don't sell it shrink wrapped for PCs. The market wants this and it won't cannibalize their hardware sells because people will still buy powerbooks and imacs because they are well designed.
As Dvorak said on TWiT, if Apple is following the money then they should look at Microsoft's bank account and re-consider being a "hardware-only" compnay.
OS X's market share will hit a brick wall if they don't sell it shrink wrapped for PCs. The market wants this and it won't cannibalize their hardware sells because people will still buy powerbooks and imacs because they are well designed.
As Dvorak said on TWiT, if Apple is following the money then they should look at Microsoft's bank account and re-consider being a "hardware-only" compnay.
elo said:
Not true, unless you're discussing a trademark. Copyrights, signed contracts, and patents work differently, and can be selectively enforced if the owner so chooses. That is definately how trademarks work, though... see the classic case studies of Kleenex and Xerox...
In any case, I haven't read the actual filing, but they have to be either after them for piracy (copyright) or breaking an NDA (contract), so they are not legally obligated to protect their property.
Why is it exactly we want people to run Mac OS X on any computer. I like it just the way it is Virus free!!! the second we start letting Dell and HP run our system is the day every hacker and weirdo starts writing viruses that will put us in the same boat as windows. As for me I like my quiet Mac world! and I would like it to stay that way.
I don't blame them for doing this, but come on Apple - do you really think you can win against something this large?
Regardless of the details, (assuming a good implementation) having OS X running on PCs is a good thing. It's either that, or decades more of low single-percent marketshare. You decide which is better. 😎
Times are a-changing. What an exciting time to be an Apple supporter!
Regardless of the details, (assuming a good implementation) having OS X running on PCs is a good thing. It's either that, or decades more of low single-percent marketshare. You decide which is better. 😎
Times are a-changing. What an exciting time to be an Apple supporter!
7on said:
What a strange idea!
I think it'd likely be more expensive, and security patching would be tricky. But, if you allowed the computer to update the ROM itself, then you can jsut download patches. But, then if you could update the ROM itself, it'd still get hacked.
I think.
Apple Legal's behaviour is quite odd on this one, why go after the videos of OS X booting on generic PC hardware? Why not the images of it running, or the sites that provide the info on how to get it running or even the leakers of the torrent?
I just find it weird that they went after something so trivial as videos, you would think if they're serious they would be a little more heavy handed.
I just find it weird that they went after something so trivial as videos, you would think if they're serious they would be a little more heavy handed.
wot about this then?
hmmm. fastest pc on ebay eh?
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=5231874383
st
hmmm. fastest pc on ebay eh?
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=5231874383
st