The only legal issue that I can see with jailbreaking would be those people that install Apple developed software from a repository. Obviously, the repositories are not licensed to distribute the software by Apple.
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.
EFiX Allows Mac OS X to Boot on a PC
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The only legal issue that I can see with jailbreaking would be those people that install Apple developed software from a repository. Obviously, the repositories are not licensed to distribute the software by Apple.
Where did you copy that from? It does not appear to be in the iPhone Terms and Conditions.
http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/iphone.pdf
The section that you quoted from only applies to the "Purchase of Apple Content."
Hmmm.... While that may (I stress this since it doesn't quite sound right regarding jailbreaking, it sounds like it applies to apps, DRM music & videos, or the cell service) apply to the iPhone it doesn't seem to apply to the iPod Touch, which furthers my doubt. Can you post a link to it in full?
Edit:
I see others beat me to it
just repeating what's already been said on these forums but how many of you *righteous* people against this me me me, I can do what I like with what I bought attitude at one point cracked your iphone?
iPhone?
Don't have one. Not available on my carrier (T-Mobile UK, which I'm content to stay with), and I don't really want to be faced with a situation where an update that bricks a cracked 'phone might also be otherwise vital.
I don't want to have to be in a constant arms race with the manufacturer of my gadgets. So I personally choose against relying directly on things they're likely to be blocking.
If you swop from Xeon to C4D then it's not a true comparison. That's if you're looking for a more mid-range machine, but for all people who gripe about Apple's machine hardware being so much more expensive than comparable PC. This list shows that it's not necessarily the case. Yes you can start to nit pick mice or the case, but in my office setting the case on a Mac Pro is actually a big plus.
The Core 2 Quads and Xeons are a lot closer than you think
Anyways, the legal issues is that I don't think Apple can sue the company making this software, only the users that choose to install it on non-Apple hardware, since that's what the license agreement says.
Jailbreaking violates section 2 c of the iPhone Software Licence agreement:
"You may not and you agree not to, or to enable others to, copy (except as expressly permitted by this License), decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble, attempt to derive the source code of, decrypt, modify, or create derivative works of the iPhone Software or any services provided by the iPhone Software, or any part thereof (except as and only to the extent any foregoing restriction is prohibited by applicable law or to the extent as may be permitted by licensing terms governing use of open-sourced components included with the iPhone Software).
Any attempt to do so is a violation of the rights of Apple and its licensors of the iPhone Software. If you breach this restriction, you may be subject to prosecution and damages."
Jailbreaking isn't unlocking, and being permitted to perform an unlock does not mean that the unlock method is automatically permissible. Jailbreaking is exempted from actions of infringement only as part of an unlocking process and only so long as the sole purpose of the tool is to permit the handset to function on other carriers.
Of note here is that among the §1201 exemptions considered with the above, but rejected, were tools to permit the use of particular software on other platforms, hardware, or operating systems other than those for which it was sold. There is accordingly no exemption for such activity, and will not be until Congress creates one.
I think I may jump in for this after its been out for a while so we can see if apple does anything to restrict the device from working. I can easily build a very nice PC for $1000 that would give me more performance then a imac but also give me the expandibility that the imac doesn't give me.
Yea yea "get a mac pro", well $2800 for a server pc is out of my league. Basically I'm in the market for something apple will never give me. A mid tower PC. I have a macbook pro that I got for school (which I'm still paying off). I can easily build a quad core pc for under $1000 so I'd rather do that the n go for then a mac pro.
Yea yea "get a mac pro", well $2800 for a server pc is out of my league. Basically I'm in the market for something apple will never give me. A mid tower PC. I have a macbook pro that I got for school (which I'm still paying off). I can easily build a quad core pc for under $1000 so I'd rather do that the n go for then a mac pro.
Tom's Hardware Guide have an interview with the company - http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/efi-x-efix-leopard-usb,2021.html
Hum, Apple label ...
So the "legal" question is ... can you print up a label that says "Apple" and put that on a hackintosh and be compliant with the "letter" of the law. Does the EULA define "Apple labeled computer"? A quick look at the EULA shows that it does not have a definitions section that defines Apple-labeled computer or hardware as a system manufactured by Apple Computer Inc. So, I wonder if an artful lawyer could get that one through the courts.
Just wondering ...
So the "legal" question is ... can you print up a label that says "Apple" and put that on a hackintosh and be compliant with the "letter" of the law. Does the EULA define "Apple labeled computer"? A quick look at the EULA shows that it does not have a definitions section that defines Apple-labeled computer or hardware as a system manufactured by Apple Computer Inc. So, I wonder if an artful lawyer could get that one through the courts.
Just wondering ...
this is interesting, so the gigabyte mobo requirement is to satisfy apple legal...hmmmm
The question is whether it would hold up in court.
Also, whether it is worth going after individuals who have these dongles.
Then again, I do find the law suit stupid to begin with because IMHO Apple should be obliged to prove damages rather than merely hypotheticals.
You know guys, it just occurred to me that if EFI-X works as promised, Apple will probably not attempt to go after this company due to the fact that it's based in Europe and not here in the States. Europe has strong laws combating anti-competitive corporate behavior. Unless Apple can prove the device utilizes stolen code, I'm betting Apple may choose to ignore the issue.
As an example, Germanys laws against unfair competition would mean Psystar would be closed down within five seconds if it was located in Germany. Strong laws combating anti-competitive behaviour don't affect Apple, since there is no anti-competitive behaviour.
If you put an "Apple" sticker onto your computer, there are two possibilities: a. You claim it turns your computer into an Apple-labeled computer in the sense of the EULA. In that case you have been infringing on Apple's trademark by putting that sticker on the computer, so Apple can demand that you first stop the trademark infringement and then remove the software. Or you claim it doesn't turn your computer into an Apple-labeled computer, so you can't install MacOS X.
However, the company that Apple is suing right now did _not_ put any Apple stickers on any computers they are selling, so this is not an argument.
Apple can successfully sue a company with a product where the only use involves someone violating Apple's EULA. It is illegal to induce others to break their contracts with Apple and to base your own business on this.