Yeah, all that innovation that Apple seemed to lack under Gil's "leadership". I think Moto sold only a few clones - PowerComputing and Umacs sold the lion's share of the clones. I still have my Supermac C600 with a G3 card. The thing is awesome.
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.
Non Hackintosh Osx-pc?
- Thread starter gusanitoverde
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yeah, all that innovation that Apple seemed to lack under Gil's "leadership". I think Moto sold only a few clones - PowerComputing and Umacs sold the lion's share of the clones. I still have my Supermac C600 with a G3 card. The thing is awesome.
Let's get this straight....
For the 1,00th time, they are NOT breaking a LAW. They are violating Apple's wishes as Apple has expressed them in a EULA. The EULA is a contract. Some say in invalid, unenforceable contract but in no way is it a "law". Laws are what governments write, contracts are what people and companies write.
The question about if the EULA is valid hinges on if both parties ever agreed to it. Contracts are only valid after both parties agree to be bound by it's terms. There is some question if an Apple customer has the option not to agree to a EULA. We can argue this point but if it this is a law or not.
Any modification of software or hardware to get OS X to run on hardware not intended to do so, is by definition a hackintosh.
Bogus,
In the year of 1995, the clones sold a couple of hundred thousand clones vs. 4 million Macs. Apple nearly died because it was terribly run, it had no future, and OS 7 was a crock of ****.
Bogus,
In the year of 1995, the clones sold a couple of hundred thousand clones vs. 4 million Macs. Apple nearly died because it was terribly run, it had no future, and OS 7 was a crock of ****.
Absolutely correct. But even after both parties agreed on the contract, there still is the question whether the contract complies with applicable laws. Or in simpler words: Apple says you are not allowed to install OS X on non-Apple hardware. You agree to this. And yet, a court of law might some day decide that these terms are ILLEGAL and that you are, by all means, entitled to install OS X on whatever hardware you like.
This might not happen in the USA, but it could happen in Europe.
Other than that: If this guy sells just an EFI dongle, probably based on Open Source software, that allows the native installation of OS X Leopard, Apple can cry havoc as long as they want and cannot make this machine disappear. They can sue him for trademark issues (as Apple has been repeatedly AND SUCCESSFULLY sued by The Beatles for using Apple as their trademark), but that's the worst he can expect.
If I sell you a computer with Open Source software on it that allows the installation of an unpatched OS X Leopard retail box, Apple's legal department can do NOTHING to stop me from doing. At least they can do nothing legal.
By the way, Apple still have not sued the German Mac cloner and also not the Russian Mac cloner. Use your imagination why that might be.
I couldn't give a crap about the EULA. I'm not talking about an EULA. I'm talking about modifying copywritten software and selling it for a profit without paying the company that made the software.
Ah. That explains why my OSX box only says "Piece of Plastic" on the outside. Because that's all I bought.
Apple is selling OSX. When you purchase a retail copy, you are buying the Operating System.......
it's quite clearly marked on the outside of the package that what you're buying is subject to a license:
for the same reason you can't make and sell copies of "your property".....apple has only sold you a license to use it in certain ways and not in other ways.
Yes they are breaking the LAW, they are NOT including the OS X box or DVD.
Which makes me wonder how they can include OS X on the machines.
Must be all the family packs they bought, buy one copy and they are good to load it on 5k machines and sell them.
Which makes me wonder how they can include OS X on the machines.
Must be all the family packs they bought, buy one copy and they are good to load it on 5k machines and sell them.
True. However in the case of Apple we can clear this up right off the bat. Judge Allsup (in the Psystar case) already ruled that Apple can sell their operating system in the method that they choose. He also added that customers knowingly buy OSX with the understanding that it is not to be used on non-Apple hardware (whatever that may be - thats based on Apple's branding). So we can end the EULA arguments since they are pretty much moot anyway. Businesses are also held to much higher standards and should not be reselling products without the owners permission. Businesses are much different bests that consumers.
I doubt it. Software is still sold in other countries - and all software is licensed to a degree.
1) The Beatles trademarks were over the name of the company which Apple now owns the rights to - they essentially won that case. It was over the NAME, not the other trademarked and patented parts of OSX. The two cases are not applicable to each other.
2) They are illegally distributing OSX since they do not posses an OEM licensing agreement with Apple. It does not change how OSX is licensed to anybody. Not to mention that this company is not even providing the retails disc (which still doesn't make it legal). I am not 100% sure of this, but I believe Apple's usage of EFI involves encryption (which is the basis of the Psystar suit - DMCA charges).
Are you sure of that??? I am very sure that I cannot distribute open source software that allows me to install upgrade copies of Windows that overcomes the upgrade paths that they require.
Thats meaningless. It took months before Apple sued Psystar. Companies go for months before suing all the time. It has nothing to do with the validity of said suit. Psystar started selling their hackintoshes in April 2008. It wasn't until July that Apple sued Psystar. Filing lawsuits is a time consuming process when businesses are concerned. Thats the way the law works.
ETA: Just so that we are on the same page here, shrink wrap licenses (or the ones that you have to click through) have various degrees of legality depending on the jurisdiction, but have largely been upheld.
From Wikipedia
We should point out a couple of things in this case:
1) Apple's SLA is readily available before purchase (Here is Apple's) so it isn't necessarily click though or shrink-wrapped...
2) The legality or illegality of hackintoshes goes far beyond EULA's or SLA's. Its not accurate to say that hackintoshes are legal if Apple's SLA is rendered illegal.
3) If there was any legality to hackintoshes, we would have seen them already by the likes of Dell, HP or other PC vendors who have long desired to sell Apple's OS but have not.
A law is broken. It's called the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmca
Please read it..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmca
Please read it..