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.
'OpenMac' Promises $399 Headless Mac... But Not From Apple
- Thread starter star555
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That's the 'Shrinkwrap Contract' argument, where the contract is held to be void because the manufacturer says 'you agree to the terms within as soon as you break the seal on the box' before you have the opportunity to read and consent to the license terms.
However, companies can get around that by
1) printing the EULA on the envelope that the disk comes in and
2) promising to refund your money if you don't agree and return the product with the envelope still sealed.
or
3) by putting the EULA in the opening screen of the installer and saying "by clicking 'I accept' and 'Continue' you agree to be bound by the terms and conditions of this agreement"
1. Apple probably feels they won't make any money off of such a box, because
2. The trend in the market is moving away from desktops, and
3. Only a small number of Apple customers would be interested in such a machine, at least according to them
It's actually quite logical why Apple doesn't sell a mid-tower sized Mac. I'm not saying it's right, but it does make sense.
I really hope you being sarcastic here.
This is getting so ridiculous, that I wonder what happened to common sense in our world.
First, *slapping* an authorized Apple logo on hardware for any other reason than marketing or advertising is going to get you in trouble. Do you recall multiple law suits from the NFL over the years protecting their brand name from people attaching labels and misusing trademarks on non official clothing?
Second, I love it when people take "quotes" of contracts and read them as is out of context. Reminds me of Bible bashing...
Apple stamped out the last company before they even sold their first machines using actual Apple parts.
This company is going to be gone rather quick, likely you will find their legal advice was from people on the internet.
Any lawyer stupid enough to sign off against a company that goes after clone makers like Apple probably is still retaking and failing the bar exam.
---
Selling the Mac alternative and a copy of Mac OS X on the same order is dangerous ... and likely get you an invitation to visit Apple lawyers in Cupertino.
Selling the Mac alternative with a copy of Mac OS X preinstalled, well idiots deserve to be punished.
This company is going to be gone rather quick, likely you will find their legal advice was from people on the internet.
Any lawyer stupid enough to sign off against a company that goes after clone makers like Apple probably is still retaking and failing the bar exam.
---
Selling the Mac alternative and a copy of Mac OS X on the same order is dangerous ... and likely get you an invitation to visit Apple lawyers in Cupertino.
Selling the Mac alternative with a copy of Mac OS X preinstalled, well idiots deserve to be punished.
Terms of Service from Psystar
Note that their Terms of Service document you must "agree" to when buying an OpenMac states:
"When you purchase an OpenMac you understand that you are not purchasing a computer made by Apple Computers, Inc. You understand
that Apple Computers does not support the OpenMac in any capacity and that they may not approve of your usage of the OpenMac.
In the same token Psystar does not guarantee that each and every program and feature will not operate correctly as the OpenMac is not
supported by Apple Computers. Psystar does not support the OS X operating system. All copies of OS X sold by Psystar are legitimately
licensed and purchased from Apple Computers and are not pirated in any way. Psystar does not guarantee that any of your peripherals,
Apple-related or not, will function correctly. Psystar will not be responsible for your usage of the OpenMac in any way."
Doesn't sound to me entirely like a statement from a lawyer.. To some degree perhaps, but that kind of serves as a blow to my confidence in the OpenMac being a save investment.
Note that their Terms of Service document you must "agree" to when buying an OpenMac states:
"When you purchase an OpenMac you understand that you are not purchasing a computer made by Apple Computers, Inc. You understand
that Apple Computers does not support the OpenMac in any capacity and that they may not approve of your usage of the OpenMac.
In the same token Psystar does not guarantee that each and every program and feature will not operate correctly as the OpenMac is not
supported by Apple Computers. Psystar does not support the OS X operating system. All copies of OS X sold by Psystar are legitimately
licensed and purchased from Apple Computers and are not pirated in any way. Psystar does not guarantee that any of your peripherals,
Apple-related or not, will function correctly. Psystar will not be responsible for your usage of the OpenMac in any way."
Doesn't sound to me entirely like a statement from a lawyer.. To some degree perhaps, but that kind of serves as a blow to my confidence in the OpenMac being a save investment.
i hope more of these types of osx compatible computers won't pop on to the market. I can't really see Apple being able to do anything about it but it just seems wrong to take an os and build a computer that can run it (against the eula) without getting in trouble. this will just dilute the whole mac experience. this probably won't catch on though since people who want a mac will probably buy an actual mac, not some pc look alike with crappy parts. plus you don't get the great apple service 
This is interesting, they have some serious balls to try this. Apple wont like it and I wonder if they have the support from osx86 developers like Netkas? It seems like they are trying to offer a good service rather than rip off the developers, so we'll see.
EULA's are not law and almost all of them have things that are literally against the law to hold people accountable for. Apple suing people for putting OS X on a PC is just something that will probably be laughed out of court and effortlessly counter-sued, but selling a computer without the proper license to sell the product could prove trouble.
If these guys just gave you a copy of leopard in its retail box, along with a disc that automates the patching process in Windows then I bet they would be completely legal. The problem is that you need a working copy of OS X to run the current patches.
Of course this totally depends on the country they are located in.
EULA's are not law and almost all of them have things that are literally against the law to hold people accountable for. Apple suing people for putting OS X on a PC is just something that will probably be laughed out of court and effortlessly counter-sued, but selling a computer without the proper license to sell the product could prove trouble.
If these guys just gave you a copy of leopard in its retail box, along with a disc that automates the patching process in Windows then I bet they would be completely legal. The problem is that you need a working copy of OS X to run the current patches.
Of course this totally depends on the country they are located in.
Hmmmmm... Let's see... Apple, Inc. vs. Psystar... I have a prediction here...
By Friday, all mentions of "Apple", "OS X", "Mac" and "Leopard" will be removed from the site.
By the following Friday, Rodolfothe Pedraza (Psystar.com registrant, and presumably, the owner) will be living in a refrigerator box because he gave his last dime to his lawyers.
This will be a swift and brutal beating, like we haven't seen since Patrick Smith vs. Scott Morris.
I've defended myself in a lawsuit against a small company before. Even though I was completely in the right, I had to cave when I ran out of money. Anyone can sue anyone else for anything, and force them to spend money defending themselves. Apple's attack will be overwhelming and this will be over quickly.
By Friday, all mentions of "Apple", "OS X", "Mac" and "Leopard" will be removed from the site.
By the following Friday, Rodolfothe Pedraza (Psystar.com registrant, and presumably, the owner) will be living in a refrigerator box because he gave his last dime to his lawyers.
This will be a swift and brutal beating, like we haven't seen since Patrick Smith vs. Scott Morris.
I've defended myself in a lawsuit against a small company before. Even though I was completely in the right, I had to cave when I ran out of money. Anyone can sue anyone else for anything, and force them to spend money defending themselves. Apple's attack will be overwhelming and this will be over quickly.
Wouldn't think so.
Microsoft have a lot more to lose with any outcome in this case that goes against Apple.
Unless your suggesting that they have set this up to be shot down in a flaming mess, to reinforce the legal standing of EULA's.
To be honest... there might... just might be some good out of it. Like... maybe Steve will get the idea that we really want an upgradeable power user tower like the mac pro, but using the Core 2 Duo or Quad, not the stupid Xeon which many of us can't afford... or that upgrading video cards is so prohibitive... or that finding drivers for some things are so hard to find... but enough fantasy.
I do like Apple products... but so many times I find myself tempted to make a hackintosh... If only Mac OS with Lenovo hardware...
But more likely Psystar will have the @£%^ sued out of them, unless they are in a country where they cannot. Not that they don't deserve it to some extent. What's best for consumers is not necessarily best for Apple.
And 10.5.3 will probably find a way to brick all hackintoshes, at least for awhile. sigh. That was probably the wrong way to do things, Psystar.
I do like Apple products... but so many times I find myself tempted to make a hackintosh... If only Mac OS with Lenovo hardware...
But more likely Psystar will have the @£%^ sued out of them, unless they are in a country where they cannot. Not that they don't deserve it to some extent. What's best for consumers is not necessarily best for Apple.
And 10.5.3 will probably find a way to brick all hackintoshes, at least for awhile. sigh. That was probably the wrong way to do things, Psystar.
I like it.
Seriously, I've always pondered over what it would be like if OS X was compatible with standard PC hardware (I.E the EFI restrictions removed). It would attract hundreds of thousands, if not millions of new customers that want OS X on their standard computer, but don't want to pay Apple's (lets face it) rip off prices for (most of the time) poor build quality products.
IMHO this can only be a good thing, that someone is tempting Apple into non Mac based hardware.
Seriously, I've always pondered over what it would be like if OS X was compatible with standard PC hardware (I.E the EFI restrictions removed). It would attract hundreds of thousands, if not millions of new customers that want OS X on their standard computer, but don't want to pay Apple's (lets face it) rip off prices for (most of the time) poor build quality products.
IMHO this can only be a good thing, that someone is tempting Apple into non Mac based hardware.
If Apple takes some quick action against these people while they are actively selling 'Leopard Installed' I am sure they could do enough damage to make them want to close up shop. Honestly, I'm pretty sure one of their accountants could come in and talk about how much they owe in damages by advertising their product and not being an authorized reseller (which I am guessing they are not). Pretty open and shut case for Apple to put and end to that bs if you ask me.
No it wont, they will never be able to stop hacks. This project has been around since Tiger and everyone was worried that Leopard would make it impossible, but all the developers said that for Apple to do that they would end up making it impossible to run on real macs as well. And they were right. They had Leopard already running on PC's when it was still in beta. Its impossible to lock out PC's as long as they use PC hardware.
Company is registered in florida... and the names seem to match.
http://www.sunbiz.org/COR/2007/0709/30654553.tif
Don't know if the direct link works. But easy enough to find through the FL corporation commission on www.sunbiz.org
Wanted to point out a few things:
1) These guys are small timers and know nothing of business; looking at the products they sell and the way they designed their site, its probably 1-2 guys struggling to find a way to make money... getting sued is not a good way to make money
2) Yes, a EULA is only read after purchase, meaning it is often ignored by courts. HOWEVER: Once they install it, they know the terms...the second, third, fourth, 500th time, etc that they install it, they knowingly were violating the terms of the agreement before they purchased it. Blowing by terms and not reading it when they accepted the terms is not an excuse for breaking the EULA on all subsequent installs.
3) Copyright law states that people can only use copyrighted works if given permission by the author. EULAs are designed for two reasons: To limit liability to the company when the software corrupts data or crashes (Ever notice how all software says cannot be used in Air Traffic Control or Nuclear Power Plants?), and to supply the conditions of the license granted for use of a copyrighted work. They are wilfull participants in copy infringement; infact, once installed while paid for, you do not have permission to have or use OS X...hence it actually becomes Pirated in a legal sense. The courts would side with Apple on this in a heart beat.
4) Its nice how any system software updates involving the kernel are probably going to render the machine useless without a patch...
5) They used the Apple Mac trademark in the name to willfully dilute the Apple trademark and branding; and to encourage violation of Apple's copyrights and promote illegal activity. That alone dooms them.
These guys will be gone, on the streets and broke within days.
1) These guys are small timers and know nothing of business; looking at the products they sell and the way they designed their site, its probably 1-2 guys struggling to find a way to make money... getting sued is not a good way to make money
2) Yes, a EULA is only read after purchase, meaning it is often ignored by courts. HOWEVER: Once they install it, they know the terms...the second, third, fourth, 500th time, etc that they install it, they knowingly were violating the terms of the agreement before they purchased it. Blowing by terms and not reading it when they accepted the terms is not an excuse for breaking the EULA on all subsequent installs.
3) Copyright law states that people can only use copyrighted works if given permission by the author. EULAs are designed for two reasons: To limit liability to the company when the software corrupts data or crashes (Ever notice how all software says cannot be used in Air Traffic Control or Nuclear Power Plants?), and to supply the conditions of the license granted for use of a copyrighted work. They are wilfull participants in copy infringement; infact, once installed while paid for, you do not have permission to have or use OS X...hence it actually becomes Pirated in a legal sense. The courts would side with Apple on this in a heart beat.
4) Its nice how any system software updates involving the kernel are probably going to render the machine useless without a patch...
5) They used the Apple Mac trademark in the name to willfully dilute the Apple trademark and branding; and to encourage violation of Apple's copyrights and promote illegal activity. That alone dooms them.
These guys will be gone, on the streets and broke within days.
To everybody who screams loud that this is illegal:
Just think if Micosoft would start to enforce certain hardware. They would be in front of court in no time, for monopoly abuse etc.. .
Think of the monay they have to pay in europe in a number of cases.
I would not be suprised if the apple eula would not withstand all court cases, but who knows.
I happily run geunine mac hardware, but that doesn't mean that I value this enforcement and if that itself is legal can be questioned.
Just think if Micosoft would start to enforce certain hardware. They would be in front of court in no time, for monopoly abuse etc.. .
Think of the monay they have to pay in europe in a number of cases.
I would not be suprised if the apple eula would not withstand all court cases, but who knows.
I happily run geunine mac hardware, but that doesn't mean that I value this enforcement and if that itself is legal can be questioned.
yno what.. come to think of it.. they do have an extremely small number of hardware parts to support directly, compared to what all is out there...
still we do have hardware issues.
oh well..
See, this is where people are making the mistake.
People rationalize their thoughts and justify their actions each day to make themselves feel better about their decisions.
I think free software is great! Where did you catch me saying that it wasn't? And how is it that you turned my comments onto open source software? Disbanding the community? Bonehead...
I've written handfuls of GNU and MIT licensed applications over the years.
Digital content theft and / or breaking software licenses is easy to do and causes people to not feel like they are doing anything wrong. Sitting at home in their socks sucking on coffee, just isn't the picture we associate with thieves and criminals.
What happened to morals and ethics? ... and don't give me the crap about big business and their morals and ethics, because _you_ don't have to buy their products. If I don't like a product or company I don't buy from them. Simple.
Too bad most of the whiners here don't have this level of self control.
We all suffer because of this blatant disregard for rules. We have to spend hours and hours building in protection mechanisms for our software so our customers can get angry at our licensing methods.
Nice circle isn't it. So who do we blame...
Oh, and our licenses are leased. Not all our users may know this, because they don't read the license agreement publicly posted on our website, and within the software where they need to click an accept button before installing. We even provide refunds for those who are surprised and refuse our EULA after purchasing but before installing.
I'm not claiming to know whether it's legal or not. I'm predicting that the owner(s) of the little Florida company will be homeless long before the case ever sees a courtroom.
so, it is EULA or an agreement right? i thought agreements were not punitive in nature if violated, only contracts were.
lol proud of buying apple...
what is the most relevant difference between a normal pc and a mac? its mac os
and if this dissapears apple is not more than an average pc.
and dont tell me apple is a premium quality seller because they are not.
why arent u happy that there might be people now who are able to use mac os with a way cheaper pc?
i dont see how apple can sue them if they just offer an pc which is mac os run able. if they pre install it its a different story.