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.
Open Star Pro!?! Half the price of the mac pro!!
- Thread starter jjahshik32
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Violating a contract (EULA) is not against the law in and of itself. It's just a breach of contract and the most that Apple could do would be to come after an end user in civil court. CIVIL. Not criminal. No crime has been committed. You can't go to jail. The state or federal government can't come after you and so on. Apple can, at best, seek damages for EULA violators which, in the case of OSX would be, at most, the cost of the copy of OSX a EULA violator bought at a retail store.
Um, wouldn't it be a violation of contract law, something this is enforceable by a court of law?
Yes, but only enforceable to the extent of the damages the other party is seeking and only in civil court. You can't go to jail for breaking a EULA because you have not violated any laws. You've violated the things the EULA maker said you will agree or not agree to and EULA makers are not law makers. Again, breaking a contract, in and of itself, is not breaking the law. It's breaking contracts.
Of course, there are cases where a term in a contract also happens to be a law. If you break that term you're breaking a contract and breaking a law. But, in the case of OSX's EULA, the law doesn't have anything to say about what you do with a piece of software you've either bought or leased. Specifically U.S. law doesn't have anything to say about the legality of installing OSX on non-apple hardware. There are just no laws about that. Now, Apple, on the other had does have something to say about installing OSX on non-apple hardware. Namely, don't do it. But the good people at Apple are not in the business of law making in the U.S. (or any other country for that matter). Law-makers make law. Not Apple.
So, when you install OSX on a non-apple machine you're just doing what Apple doesn't want you to do. You're not breaking any laws. Sure, you're in breach of a contract and Apple could come after you for that. But, in all likelyhood, they wont. Because all they could get would be the cost of that copy of OSX. You do not go to jail. You could just be forced to pay Apple damages. That's it.
Question: When Safari was released for Windows and it contained the same EULA language in it that OSX does about not installing this software on non-Apple hardware, were there suddenly thousands of law breakers around the world? Nope. Because unless something in EULA also happens to be a law somewhere, the statements in an EULA are not law.
Interesting article here:
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/501/1050501/efi-x-boots-us-partner
This shows an almost complete misunderstanding of the situation.
Apple is licensing its software. To make a copy of the software on the DVD, you need permission of the copyright holder, in other words, a license. If you make a copy that is not allowed by the license, that is copyright infringement. It has nothing at all to do with breach of contract. Copyright infringement costs between $750 and $150,000 in statutory damages per copy. It can be criminal if it is done for financial gain. It can be criminal if it involves violation of the DMCA.
Have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobsen_v._Katzer for precedent that if you have permission to copy software in agreement with a license (here: by installing it on a Macintosh), but copy it against the terms of the license (here: by installing it on a non-Macintosh computer), it constitutes not breach of license terms, but copyright infringement.
The first sale doctrine allows you to resell exactly what you bought. If you bought a box with a MacOS X DVD and a license at a store, then you have the right to sell that box with the license to anyone you like, and there is nothing that Apple or anyone else can do about it. That's where the first sale doctrine ends. If you buy MacOS X Leopard and install it completely legally on an older Macintosh, then the first sale doctrine does _not_ allow you to sell that computer (but lucky enough, the license that comes in the box has explicit wording that allows you to sell it in this case). If you install MacOS X on a non-Apple labeled computer, that is (1) copyright infringement, (2) you lose your license to install the software anywhere, and (3) anyone buying that computer would commit copyright infringement every time the OS is launched and therefore copied into memory.
It doesn't matter much whether you read the license or not. The only difference it makes is whether you know your rights or you don't. As a consumer, not knowing what rights you (don't) have might be an excuse; for a company not knowing what rights they (don't) have is just stupid.
Actually, it is illegal. So what's the difference between Psystar and the osx86 project? Have a look here: http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page
You won't see one bad word about Apple there. It's all about happy people happily making MacOS X work on all these otherwise unhappy computers, doing the world a big favor and spreading the word about how good MacOS X is. On the other hand, you have Psystar with heavy rhetoric about evil, anti-competitive, monopolistic Apple who should allow Psystar to rip them off. So guess who Apple sues and who they don't sue.
That's right. In fact, even if a court upholds the terms of a contract that doesn't mean those terms are law. Contract terms are not law.
KítscheñÇinqµe
macrumors regular
I think its perfectly clear had anyone actually taken the time to read the EULA, you clicked ok/proceed during the install which confirms that you (maybe not in the sense of you signed your name on a paper contract) agree'd to the terms. One of which is not to install OSX onto a non Apple branded machine which for the adventurous geek doesn't really mean squat. Its the same logic that pirates typically tend to have ethically which means hey I dont mind paying for something good but stuff like fancy OS licenses and EULA's dont apply to me.
Quick question to everyone I want everyones opinion on this:
When you buy a copy of a software regardless if its an OS/Game/Software do you legally own it?
Aka you can do what ever you want with the spiffy new DVD you got or are you merely buying a license to use it from that DVD?
To the OP:Kinda sounds like:
1. You've found a hackintosh on Ebay and are asking about the legality of selling such a machine on Ebay as well.
2. Midway through you said it cost you NOTHING to install OSX which to me sounds like you'd plan on using a single license of OSX and if your intention is to try and sell hackintoshes on Ebay are committing copyright infrigement which last I checked by the DMCA is a little more then a slap on the wrist or Apple asking you to buy copies of OSX @ $130 a pop.
Quick question to everyone I want everyones opinion on this:
When you buy a copy of a software regardless if its an OS/Game/Software do you legally own it?
Aka you can do what ever you want with the spiffy new DVD you got or are you merely buying a license to use it from that DVD?
To the OP:Kinda sounds like:
1. You've found a hackintosh on Ebay and are asking about the legality of selling such a machine on Ebay as well.
2. Midway through you said it cost you NOTHING to install OSX which to me sounds like you'd plan on using a single license of OSX and if your intention is to try and sell hackintoshes on Ebay are committing copyright infrigement which last I checked by the DMCA is a little more then a slap on the wrist or Apple asking you to buy copies of OSX @ $130 a pop.
Not quite. As I said above, me and my lawyer can draw up any kind of "contract" we want. For example, every time you open my door you agree to giving me your credit card and PIN. Would that hold up in court? No, because it quite obviously violates a law.
EULA's might not be so cut and dried, but just because they tell you you're agreeing to their terms doesn't actually mean that they can. Furthermore, the terms themselves don't have any legal weight until a Judge sides with a software company when someone challenges it. No one ever has.
For more on this, I remember an article in MAKE about all sorts of ridiculous contracts you agreed to by purchasing something at a store, EULA style documents, etc.
EULA's to my knowledge don't violate any sort of laws so while they aren't written and signed contracts per say they still state what you the end user can and cannot do with the license you purchased. Whether you the end user agree or follow those terms set forth in the EULA is your own business but they do carry some weight in governing whats expected of you to follow in using the software. If you dont agree to the terms simply dont use the software it should be as simple as that but since no one ever seems to read EULA's anyways I guess it doesnt matter.
I've heard all about those in the stores like agree'ing to abide by the rules set forth by your issuing credit cards institution regarding purchases made on your credit card and any fee's and liability..I mean what kinda crap is that lol. I do recall the rules when you buy something to the extent of personal information not being sold to 3rd parties but alas people just sign and go just like the EULA's.
I bought a t-shirt that says that from InsanelyGreatTees.
And just for quote purposes, Bill Gates made that line.
LOL.I bought a t-shirt that says that from InsanelyGreatTees.
And just for quote purposes, Bill Gates made that line.
I didn't remember who originally said it
, but it was certainly common at the time. It was everywhere. 
My example "EULA" of sorts was void because it conflicted with already existing federal/state laws. While EULA's aren't in conflict with existing laws, it is not clear whether Apple, Microsoft, or any other software company has the right to make this choice for you. In short, they're arguably enforceable - or unenforceable. Nobody knows!
Do they? Until an EULA is enforced in court, they have no legal weight whatsoever. I don't view this as a reason to pirate as someone brought up, I buy all my software and music (CD sound quality > AAC), because I'd like those companies to profit and grow. However, I don't like companies deciding that I can only use this software on XYZ brand computer. I bought the disk and the license, I'll do what I want with it.
Is Apple ever going to go after OSX86 users? No, it's bad PR, not to mention they, along with every other software company, don't want to hold their prized EULA up to real legal scrutiny.
I see. So is copyright infringement that is not done for financial gain and does not involve a violation of the DMCA considered criminal? Also, a seperate but related question. What constitutes an Apple labeled computer? Suppose my Mac Pro's case gets badly damaged in some way. I don't want to take the time to get an Apple replacement so I just put it in a PC case or a wooden box or whatever. Is that still an Apple labeled computer? Now suppose I replace the HD, memory, video card, and even the CPU. At what point does it stop becoming an Apple labeled computer? Is it when there is literally no Apple label on it? Or, is it when some essential component internal to the case is replaced with a similar component that happens to not have been shipped from an authorized Apple dealer? What would that essential component have to be? The motherboard, CPU, memory, HD? Which one? Or, as long as there is one remaining component which was shipped from an Apple source is that computer still considered "Apple-labeled."
It's worth pointing out that every Mac user running a non-Ultimate or non-Enterprise version of Vista in parallels is violating Microsoft's EULA and thus commiting copyright infringement.
YAY! my first post... i'll probably start a new thread with this, but anyhow, here goes:
I bought an openstar
and yes, i will be posting about it. good or bad.
i'm a very loyal mac user, and have been using macs since the apple II.
i'd love to have a macpro but cannot afford even a used one. i currently own a g5 1.8 dual, but desperately need an intel based desktop mac.
I bought an openstar
and yes, i will be posting about it. good or bad.
i'm a very loyal mac user, and have been using macs since the apple II.
i'd love to have a macpro but cannot afford even a used one. i currently own a g5 1.8 dual, but desperately need an intel based desktop mac.
YAY! my first post... i'll probably start a new thread with this, but anyhow, here goes:
I bought an openstar
and yes, i will be posting about it. good or bad.
i'm a very loyal mac user, and have been using macs since the apple II.
i'd love to have a macpro but cannot afford even a used one. i currently own a g5 1.8 dual, but desperately need an intel based desktop mac.
Wait.. you really bought one?!?
wait... can you really read?!?
so yea... i did. i'm taking the risk... for the affordability of it. no reason to state anything obvious. i'm an apple veteran. i'm also a comp sci major, so i should be able to handle any obstacles that come my way. eitherway i'll let you know. fanbois get ready!
Even if the court does rule in Apple's favor, I'm not sure they would allow a recall. It's not a safety issue.
In this instance, recall or not, the end user's would still have to deal with a Hackintosh, and provide their own support.
They're the ones who would get ripped in the end.
hahahaha, recall? more like 'search and seizure', and ya, i'm not 2 worried about that.
BTW the lawsuit is against psystar not openstar. quit being so butthurt, i'm a loyal macuser on a budget.
i've always done the support myself for the most part anyway.
And you're assuming that if Apple wins the Psystar case, the ruling won't apply to all other Hackintosh sellers?