Is THIS illegal (Not what you are thinking)

[cjmillsnun]

I'm a loyal Apple customer, but as I said, it is not illegal. Breaking a EULA is not breaking a law, it's breaking an (rather unfair) contract. That is why it's a question of who has the better lawyers and how the judge feels to interpret it. If I choose to install OS X on a Dell Mini 10v, that's not breaking a law; I will not get arrested for that. Apple may choose to sue me, but it's not likely to hold up.

Besides, clicking "next" and "agree" buttons is not at all the same as signing a document; a judge can easily decide to forego an argument like that.

Contract law is LAW. Civil law may not send you to jail but you are still breaking a law. Please don't think criminal law is the only form of law.

The contract is perfectly fair. Apple has every right to say you can only run OS X on Apple hardware. As Psystar proves Apple is VERY likely to win.

Clicking Agree counts as an e-signature which is completely valid under contract law (google the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act)

Section 7 gives legal recognition to electronic signatures, records and contracts
(a) A record or signature may not be denied legal effect or enforceability solely because it is in electronic form.
(b) A contract may not be denied legal effect or enforceability solely because an electronic record was used in its formation.
(c) If a law requires a record to be in writing, an electronic record satisfies the law.
(d) If a law requires a signature, an electronic signature satisfies the law.

 

[ccdan]

No one owns the software, except for Apple. The end user has a license for use only.

Every user owns their own copy of the software, no matter what the license says... as long as you BUY a certain thing (software or not) you do OWN that thing, in this case that particular copy of software! The only things you can't do is sell copies of that software or install that software on more than one machine or the number specified in the license!

Also, every user is entitled to do whatever they want with that particular copy... unfortunately, many software companies abuse their right to write whatever they want in the EULA's, despite the fact that certain restrictions are contradicted by certain laws in the EU and in the US... one example would be the right to decompile/reverse engineer a software... tons of programs clearly "forbidden" decompilation of their programs , although the laws in the EU (and probably in the US too) specifically allow such a thing for interoperability...

However, the laws should be revised and many abuses like forbidding back-up copies, reverse engineering, and certain practices related to vendor lock-in (like not permitting "unsigned" applications on certain devices) should be strictly forbidden!

Up until recently consumers did't have a voice on these issues, because there weren't many problems in the real world...
However, since apple's restrictions on the iPhone, Symbian's simiar restrictions on their OS and apple's move to Intel products and the artificial restriction of OSX to "apple hardware", certain consumer-driven changes in the laws adressing these issues, are to be expected... because it is simply absurd to BUY certain products and to be prevented from using them the way you whish... it's something unheard of in any other industries... for example if you buy a mercedes or a rolls-royce you are free to do whatever you want with them... you can modify them however you want and resell them... at most, you might not be allowed to use their brands/trademarks if you modify them too much, but you can do whatever you want with them...

 

[pdjudd]

Every user owns their own copy of the software, no matter what the license says... as long as you BUY a certain thing (software or not) you do OWN that thing, in this case that particular copy of software! The only things you can't do is sell copies of that software or install that software on more than one machine or the number specified in the license!

You wanna bet on that? There is a big difference between ownership and licensing. Intellectual property is never owned. The only thing that you can own is the delivery item (like a physical disc). Of course, that ownership is useless - the only valuable content is the intellectual content. If it’s intellectual, copy-written content, you do not own any rights to it unless it is granted to you under license.

You do not buy software - you license it. The courts have ruled on that repeatedly. Look at OSX - the stuff you own (the disc, the box, the documents) are useless on itself - you don’t pay to own those. The real meat is the software and that is never owned by you. Anything you do to it (with very limited exceptions) is conditional to you accepting a license.

 

[Erasmus]

Your logic states that vandalism is not illegal. No one get's hurt by it after all, it's just annoying.

Not true. Some poor sucker's gotta clean it off. Bad example. Maybe you should try another?

If it wasn't illegal, why do you think Apple are successfully suing counterfeit mac companies?

Maybe because they are COMPANIES??? i.e. not an individual doing it to his own computer, thereby damaging Apple sales.

Get off your high horse. You'd be breaking the law.

High horse? Moi??? I'm not the one dispensing judgement and hatred from on-high. I guess you'll start the smiting soon.

Not that I care, just don't complain when Apple try and stop you by discontinuing OS X support for your hardware.

I don't have a hackintosh, and have no real wish to make one, other than interest in whether I actually could. I agree that what companies such as Psystar and the like are doing is wrong (that's pretty obvious), but I do not have a problem with people installing a copy of OSX on their own PCs. It is not a replacement for a real mac. And if you can't see the difference between a company like Psystar trying to make a business out of breaking licence agreements, and some random building his own personal hackintosh, then your sense of ethics and morality is severely flawed.

 

[ccdan]

You wanna bet on that? There is a big difference between ownership and licensing. Intellectual property is never owned. The only thing that you can own is the delivery item (like a physical disc). Of course, that ownership is useless - the only valuable content is the intellectual content. If it’s intellectual, copy-written content, you do not own any rights to it unless it is granted to you under license.

You do not buy software - you license it. The courts have ruled on that repeatedly. Look at OSX - the stuff you own (the disc, the box, the documents) are useless on itself - you don’t pay to own those. The real meat is the software and that is never owned by you. Anything you do to it (with very limited exceptions) is conditional to you accepting a license.

Yeah, I'd bet on that...

The software companies only dream of abusive business models, but the reality is bit different... they like to pretend that they somehow lease software (although they don't use this kind terms) while in reality they SELL software... the concept of "licensing" the way the companies see it, is just an idiotic invetion without any legal base!

They tried to prevent customers from making backup copies, from reverse engineering and from re-selling the products, every time invoking their idiotic concepts of licensing, but they lost quite a few suits... and the last one just reinforces what I said:

US court says software is owned, not licensed
OUT-LAW News, 05/10/2009

Software company Autodesk has failed in its bid to prevent the second-hand sale of its software. In a long-running legal battle it has not been able to convince a court that its software is merely licensed and not sold.

Like many software publishers Autodesk claims that it sells only licences to use its software and that those who pay for it do not necessarily have the right to sell it on. It sued Timothy Vernor, who was selling legitimate copies of Autodesk software on eBay, for copyright infringement.

The US District Court for the Western District of Washington has backed Vernor, though, in his claim that he owned the software and had the right to sell it on.

"Autodesk expressly retains title to the 'Software and accompanying materials,' but it has no right to regain possession of the software or the 'accompanying materials'. Licensees pay a single up-front price for the software

http://www.out-law.com/default.aspx?page=10421

 

[roadbloc]

Not true. Some poor sucker's gotta clean it off. Bad example. Maybe you should try another?

That poor sucker isn't hurt. He is just really annoyed at the most.

Maybe because they are COMPANIES??? i.e. not an individual doing it to his own computer, thereby damaging Apple sales.

Still... it shows that Apple are successful in proving that it "breaks the contract".

High horse? Moi??? I'm not the one dispensing judgement and hatred from on-high. I guess you'll start the smiting soon.

You'll have to forgive me... I get a little carried away with my opinion on these forums. Sorry

I don't have a hackintosh, and have no real wish to make one, other than interest in whether I actually could. I agree that what companies such as Psystar and the like are doing is wrong (that's pretty obvious), but I do not have a problem with people installing a copy of OSX on their own PCs. It is not a replacement for a real mac. And if you can't see the difference between a company like Psystar trying to make a business out of breaking licence agreements, and some random building his own personal hackintosh, then your sense of ethics and morality is severely flawed.

I respectfully disagree... I personally do not have a problem with it, I just get annoyed when Hackintosh's complain when Apple discontinue support for their hardware. What Psystar were doing is worse, but I still think Hackintosh is wrong, and I think Apple should be doing even more to stop them.

 

[HyperX13]

If Microsoft included in their EULA that it is illegal to install Windows 7 on any Mac computer, how many fan boys that are cursing Psystar would be up in arms?

As far as the EULA, I travel a lot. I am sorry but all Macs are big and do not work too well on airplanes. I like to use a netbook. I would love to have OSX on a netbook, but hey, I am stuck with oversized netbooks if I want to be all legal.

 

[macrem]

If Microsoft included in their EULA that it is illegal to install Windows 7 on any Mac computer, how many fan boys that are cursing Psystar would be up in arms?

As far as the EULA, I travel a lot. I am sorry but all Macs are big and do not work too well on airplanes. I like to use a netbook. I would love to have OSX on a netbook, but hey, I am stuck with oversized netbooks if I want to be all legal.

MacBook Air is too big??

PS: Apple puts a lot of emphasis on user experience & ensures an acceptable user experience on specific screen sizes. Probably they don't want to support every screen size on the market (+they want to sell Macs). I agree with their business model. Something that seems ridiculous to me is all the different editions of Windows + it seems the pre-installed OEM versions are inflexible (e.g., can't be installed in a VM).