New german Mac-Clone - PearC

[swagi]

Site is currently down, but here's a pic.

I'd like to dig out more, as soon as the site is available again.

Regards,
swagi

Site currently works again:
https://www.pearc.de/

 

[TrapOx]

Just another wannabe Hackintrash.

If you want a Mac, buy a Mac.

 

[nowonder24]

This should have less legal problems than PsyStar. At least the EULA is not an issue here.

Question is if there is any copright issues in the EFI code they are using?

 

[nanofrog]

This should have less legal problems than PsyStar. At least the EULA is not an issue here.

Question is if there is any copright issues in the EFI code they are using?

I've wondered about this, and why others haven't sprung up in Europe.

 

[KBS756]

noticed the highest one has a nvidia 9800gtx 2048 mb
is it possible to get a graphics card like that to work flawlessly with a real mac pro?

 

[Tallest Skil]

noticed the highest one has a nvidia 9800gtx 2048 mb
is it possible to get a graphics card like that to work flawlessly with a real mac pro?

In Windows, yes.

But that card isn't very good anymore, you know.

 

[KBS756]

yea i looked it up after posting that ... is there anyway to get a new nvidia card to work well with OSX? on a real mac pro?

those things look horrible they could have at least been sorta visually appealing

 

[Tallest Skil]

yea i looked it up after posting that ... is there anyway to get a new nvidia card to work well with OSX? on a real mac pro?

those things look horrible they could have at least been sorta visually appealing

Nope. You can flash the 8800 GTS with the 8800GT ROM, but there are only seven cards that are recognized by OS X.

 

[gnasher729]

This should have less legal problems than PsyStar. At least the EULA is not an issue here.

Question is if there is any copright issues in the EFI code they are using?

Less of a legal problem for Apple, you mean. Apple invested several hundred million dollars to create the software which it uses to make its computers competitive. This dubious company tries to sell computers with the same software at zero development cost, without permission from Apple. That is called "unfair competition", and there is tons of precedent for this situation from the 80's, when copyright for software was not established yet.

Step 1 will be to send them a polite letter to stop selling computers with MacOS X installed, to stop making claims that their computers come with MacOS X installed, to stop using Apple's trademarks, and to pay something round €5000 or so in lawyer fees.

Step 2 will be going to a court and getting an injunction, which should be no problem, as what they are doing is a clear case of "unfair competition" according to German law.

 

[andiwm2003]

In Windows, yes.

But that card isn't very good anymore, you know.

well for 1000 euro you get a quadcore and this card. it is quite ok for that price. on top of that there should be a way to get the 19% sales tax back if you're a foreigner. if that works it would be quite a bargain.

the question i have is wil this work with snow leopard?

i guess it's easy for apple to break compatibility with a OS X update that has so many changes under the hood.

if it works after snow leopard is released and a quadcore is around 800 euro i can imagine to get one.

 

[Benguitar]

Yeah those come around every once and a while, but most of the time Apple finds/sues/closes the company.

 

[Demosthenes X]

Apple invested several hundred million dollars to create the software which it uses to make its computers competitive. This dubious company tries to sell computers with the same software at zero development cost, without permission from Apple. That is called "unfair competition", and there is tons of precedent for this situation from the 80's, when copyright for software was not established yet.

Not true. If the company buys a retail copy of Leopard and installs it, they're not violating any software copyright. That would imply they were reselling OSX and claiming it was their own creation, and profiting from the sale of the software.

That's not the case. Assuming they do indeed buy a retail copy of Leopard for each machine they sell, then they are only guilty of infringing on the EULA (which is an argument that has not been tested in court), and perhaps of illegally using Apple's name in promotional materials.

But they haven't stolen any software. They've simply installed some legally purchased software on a computer. For accounting purposes, one would argue they are charging money for the hardware and perhaps the service of installing the OS, and not charging anything for the OS itself.

 

[BaldiMac]

Not true. If the company buys a retail copy of Leopard and installs it, they're not violating any software copyright.

They are buying the copy on the DVD. The SLA is what gives them the right to install the software.

That would imply they were reselling OSX and claiming it was their own creation, and profiting from the sale of the software.

It implies no such thing.

That's not the case. Assuming they do indeed buy a retail copy of Leopard for each machine they sell, then they are only guilty of infringing on the EULA (which is an argument that has not been tested in court), and perhaps of illegally using Apple's name in promotional materials.

A SLA is a legal contract in the US. As stated by the judge in the Psystar case, "Apple asks its customers to purchase Mac OS knowing that it is to be used only with Apple computers. It is certainly entitled to do so."

But they haven't stolen any software. They've simply installed some legally purchased software on a computer. For accounting purposes, one would argue they are charging money for the hardware and perhaps the service of installing the OS, and not charging anything for the OS itself.

They haven't stolen any software. They've simply illegally installed some legally purchased software on a computer.

Whatever one could argue about how they account for the sale of the software doesn't matter. Whether they profit directly from the sale of the software or indirectly through the hardware is irrelevant. It would even be illegal if they gave everything away for free.

 

[nanofrog]

This is arguing in circles.

EULA's aren't law, and I seriously doubt the argument will ever change. Not unless EULA's come under direct legal scrutiny in court. Apple, and other software vendor's want to avoid this like the plague.

They wouldn't want to take that risk, and Apple has carefully tried to keep this out of the proceedings with Psystar. Successfully so far, last I read.

 

[BaldiMac]

This is arguing in circles.

EULA's aren't law, and I seriously doubt the argument will ever change. Not unless EULA's come under direct legal scrutiny in court. Apple, and other software vendor's want to avoid this like the plague.

They wouldn't want to take that risk, and Apple has carefully tried to keep this out of the proceedings with Psystar. Successfully so far, last I read.

I haven't seen anyone claim that EULAs are law. They are a legal contract.

Psystars counterclaims are a pretty direct attack on the terms of Apple's SLA.

 

[nanofrog]

I haven't seen anyone claim that EULAs are law. They are a legal contract.

Psystars counterclaims are a pretty direct attack on the terms of Apple's SLA.

I know.

But this does cause some confusion, at least in general. (Older thread on Apple v. Psystar somewhere on the forum).

Without a legal decision on EULA's themselves, how do we truly establish what's legal?

So it appears the argument is circular, with no definitive answers from what I can tell. Internationally speaking, it seems even more complicated.

 

[BaldiMac]

I know.

But this does cause some confusion, at least in general. (Older thread on Apple v. Psystar somewhere on the forum).

Without a legal decision on EULA's themselves, how do we truly establish what's legal?

So it appears the argument is circular, with no definitive answers from what I can tell. Internationally speaking, it seems even more complicated.

ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg actually spoke directly to whether a shrink wrap license is enforceable. The Seventh circuit court ruled that it is valid and enforceable, and that clicking "I agree" constitutes consent. I am not saying that is an end all case, but there is legal precedent.

SLAs are a legal contract. Like any contract, certain provisions may be found to be unenforceable based on a variety of factors. Spreading the FUD that EULAs may not be enforceable because they have never been challenged as a whole is not right. It directly contradicts years of legal and commercial precedent.

It also distracts from the real issue of whether or not Apple can limit OS X to Apple hardware as part of its license agreement. As I quoted in an early post, the judge in the Psystar case certainly thinks it's reasonable.

 

[nanofrog]

ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg actually spoke directly to whether a shrink wrap license is enforceable. The Seventh circuit court ruled that it is valid and enforceable, and that clicking "I agree" constitutes consent. I am not saying that is an end all case, but there is legal precedent.

SLAs are a legal contract. Like any contract, certain provisions may be found to be unenforceable based on a variety of factors. Spreading the FUD that EULAs may not be enforceable because they have never been challenged as a whole is not right. It directly contradicts years of legal and commercial precedent.

It also distracts from the real issue of whether or not Apple can limit OS X to Apple hardware as part of its license agreement. As I quoted in an early post, the judge in the Psystar case certainly thinks it's reasonable.

OK.

But I do have a question. Did the judge rule on the concept of a SLA being acceptable in Apple v. Psystar only as an SLA, or did he rule on the content of their specific EULA?

That is, have the specifics of of Apple's, or any other EULA ever been scrutinized?

 

[nowonder24]

Less of a legal problem for Apple, you mean. Apple invested several hundred million dollars to create the software which it uses to make its computers competitive. This dubious company tries to sell computers with the same software at zero development cost, without permission from Apple. That is called "unfair competition", and there is tons of precedent for this situation from the 80's, when copyright for software was not established yet.

I would be very interested if you could cite any precedent relevant to this case. You seem to be referring to the German UWG. As far as I can see Apple could only sue on the basis of "Verwertung fremder Leistungen" (exploitation of third-party achievements) which seems extremely far-fetched as long as they are not selling Mac OS X under their own brand.

Step 1 will be to send them a polite letter to stop selling computers with MacOS X installed, to stop making claims that their computers come with MacOS X installed, to stop using Apple's trademarks, and to pay something round €5000 or so in lawyer fees.

Even such an "Abmahnung" needs a legal basis. I frankly don't see any so far.

Step 2 will be going to a court and getting an injunction, which should be no problem, as what they are doing is a clear case of "unfair competition" according to German law.

On this we disagree. Again, can you show any precedent or quote from UWG why this behaviour should be "unfair competition" in the sense of the law?

Note that I am only talking about the legal side of this. Morally, you may be well justified to call it "unfair competition".

 

[Ploki]

its not officially supported, barely legal if legal at all...

 

[Demosthenes X]

They are buying the copy on the DVD. The SLA is what gives them the right to install the software.



It implies no such thing.



A SLA is a legal contract in the US. As stated by the judge in the Psystar case, "Apple asks its customers to purchase Mac OS knowing that it is to be used only with Apple computers. It is certainly entitled to do so."



They haven't stolen any software. They've simply illegally installed some legally purchased software on a computer.

Whatever one could argue about how they account for the sale of the software doesn't matter. Whether they profit directly from the sale of the software or indirectly through the hardware is irrelevant. It would even be illegal if they gave everything away for free.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. I was responding to a poster who claimed that installing OSX on a non-Apple system was copyright infringement. It's not - not unless said company also claims that OSX is their creation or redistributes it for free.

Where they can get in trouble is a) breaking the terms of the EULA, and b) reselling OSX without being an authorized reseller (hence my comments about accounting procedures - if they're not charging for a copy of OSX, Apple will find it more difficult to come after them for unauthorized resale).

Whether or not what the clone makers are doing is legal or not I'm not sure. But I don't think they're violating copyright law.

 

[BaldiMac]

OK.

But I do have a question. Did the judge rule on the concept of a SLA being acceptable in Apple v. Psystar only as an SLA, or did he rule on the content of their specific EULA?

The judge has dismissed all counterclaims by Psystar that are based on antitrust and unfair competition laws. Apple does not have the market position in the personal computer or operating systems markets to support such a claim.

He has not made any rulings about Apple's SLA. But as I posted earlier, he did say in dismissing Psystar's original counterclaims that "Apple asks its customers to purchase Mac OS knowing that it is to be used only with Apple computers. It is certainly entitled to do so." The provision of the SLA that deals with this issue is the main point of contention in this case.

That is, have the specifics of of Apple's, or any other EULA ever been scrutinized?

Specific provisions of SLAs (and other contracts) are often scrutinized in court. The most frequent provisions to be struck down in an SLA seems to be clauses that limit arbitration options. The court generally has to find a specific provision "unconscionable".

 

[BaldiMac]

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. I was responding to a poster who claimed that installing OSX on a non-Apple system was copyright infringement. It's not - not unless said company also claims that OSX is their creation or redistributes it for free.

Where they can get in trouble is a) breaking the terms of the EULA, and b) reselling OSX without being an authorized reseller (hence my comments about accounting procedures - if they're not charging for a copy of OSX, Apple will find it more difficult to come after them for unauthorized resale).

Whether or not what the clone makers are doing is legal or not I'm not sure. But I don't think they're violating copyright law.

Copyright law is what gives Apple the right to license and distribute their software as they see fit. Without a valid license, an installation of the software is copyright infringement. Breaking the terms of the SLA invalidates the license.

 

[takao]

ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg actually spoke directly to whether a shrink wrap license is enforceable. The Seventh circuit court ruled that it is valid and enforceable, and that clicking "I agree" constitutes consent. I am not saying that is an end all case, but there is legal precedent.

under _german law_ it's different i'm sorry ... for retail boxes license agreements inside of the box not visible at the point of sale are null and void (difference between downloadable software where they might be presented before buying)
and even if the whole EULA was printed on the box (impossible) it would have to adhere to the BGB rules about AGBs which are very strict and limiting

It also distracts from the real issue of whether or not Apple can limit OS X to Apple hardware as part of its license agreement. As I quoted in an early post, the judge in the Psystar case certainly thinks it's reasonable.

_if_ the Apple EULA is valid as an AGB then it could be very easily argued that the restriction of the "software installation/usage only to be allowed on apple branded computers" might break with §307 of the BGB since it is restricting the enduser onesided and thus would make the AGB invalid and then the german "Erschöpfungsgrundsatz" comes to play ...

go to the top of the thread and read the "german" part again (thus your Dr. Zoidberg case is not applicable here)


wether or not those Pears are "unlauterer Wettbewerb" is another ballgame but it looks like quite a thin case to me .. but since Gravenreuth has finally be convicted everything is possible now

 

[BaldiMac]

under _german law_ it's different i'm sorry ... for retail boxes license agreements inside of the box not visible at the point of sale are null and void (difference between downloadable software where they might be presented before buying)
and even if the whole EULA was printed on the box (impossible) it would have to adhere to the BGB rules about AGBs which are very strict and limiting



_if_ the Apple EULA is valid as an AGB then it could be very easily argued that the restriction of the "software installation/usage only to be allowed on apple branded computers" might break with §307 of the BGB since it is restricting the enduser onesided and thus would make the AGB invalid and then the german "Erschöpfungsgrundsatz" comes to play ...

go to the top of the thread and read the "german" part again (thus your Dr. Zoidberg case is not applicable here)


wether or not those Pears are "unlauterer Wettbewerb" is another ballgame but it looks like quite a thin case to me .. but since Gravenreuth has finally be convicted everything is possible now

Sorry, I can't speak to the German situation. I was responding to comments about the Psystar case in the US.

I do have a question about German law in this matter. What would prevent you from buying one copy of a piece of software and installing it on every computer you own? What if a company does the same? If the licensing terms are spelled out in the SLA, and the SLA is invalid, how does a company limit the copying of its software?