Why, just get a label, write "Apple" on it, stick it to the machine...
Yet another Mac clone maker has surfaced, but this time with a twist: Quo Computer will sell its hackintoshes in its own bricks-and-mortar retail store in Los Angeles. As reported on Friday by Cnet News, Quo's founder Rashantha De Silva plans to open his storefront on June 1st. Previous hackintoshers such as Florida's recently …
This post has been deleted by its author
For those who don't know much English, there are two types of noun. One is the common noun, which identifies a class of things, the other is a proper noun, which identifies a unique thing. Common nouns appear with a lowercase letter, as in "I'm going to the shop". Proper nouns appear with capitalisation, as in "I'm going to Shaftesbury Avenue".
This rule is taken to extreme in legal contracts, where they tend to apply the slightly different rule that anything that is unique for the purposes of that text is a proper noun.
According to either construction, "Apple-labeled" therefore means "labelled by the unique entity, Apple". If Apple change their logo but continue labelling their computers then you can continue to install that copy of OS X on them. If someone other than Apple labels a computer but happens to use a picture of an apple, then that doesn't mean you are within the licence rules.
Surprisingly enough, the 'I don't really know the language' defence is rarely a winner, in the same way that if I, sitting here in the UK, decided that I wasn't bound by any software licence because the document Apple gave to me is a 'license' and that's exclusively a verb, the ruling would be unlikely to be in my favour.
selling the machine, and oddly retailing a copy of the OS along side the purchase? They are then simply a normal PC retailer selling hardware with no OS. And also just selling coincedently a Apple OS along side it. What the user does with the disc is utterly there business and nothing to do with the company is it :P
Just because the hardware could run the OS isn't the issue, after all so can a Dell and Apple isn't chasing Dell down for selling hardware which a user can install onto.
Since the BSD license states that "redistribution in binary form" is permitted, does that include the bit at the heart of Mac OSX?
It seems ironic that Apple make loadsa money from free software and then disses its redistribution.
Paris 'cos she's probably much nicer to the Regents of the University of California.
"Mac OS X's Software License Agrement (PDF) is quite plain when it says "This License allows you to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time. You agree not to install, use or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-labeled computer, or to enable others to do so."
We're no legal eagles, but that seems rather straightforward to us."
I'm no legal eagle either, but while the license agreement is plain enough, there's no suggestion that it's inevitably valid or enforceable. A recent case involving a chap who resold Autodesk software on ebay; a Federal judge eventually ruled that this was ok, as, though the software claimed to be 'licensed' rather than sold, this legalese didn't change the fact that it walked like a duck and quacked like a duck, and the Doctrine of First Sale applied; the chap did in fact OWN the software, and was free to resell it or do whatever he liked with it.
I can see how a similar judgment could quite easily result in a case involving OSX. You buy a copy of OSX, you own it - Apple doesn't get to tell what machines you can and can't run it on.
You can't just stick 'Apple emblems' on a computer and cal it that. If you take take an Apple product apart, there's 'Apple' indicators all over it establishing the manufacture. But overall, we're playing with semantics here.
Like what Allan Rutland said; he could 'buy' copies of OS X and re-sale them in his shop at face (or less) value and sell his OS-less machines -but don't indicate about loading it.
He should cut his loses ahead of time and buy a fully sick machine, run OS X on it and boast on his site what he (or anyone) is capable of doing. He'll save HEAPS!!
Economic crises; rubbish!!
Regarding the OS-less system + OS X disk model Allan Rutland and others have suggested - to run OS X on a Dell, or any other non-Apple computer, I thought you had to first modify the actual kernel? Unless I'm mistaken, I don't see how he could sell copies of OS X modified to run on his computers without seriously violating both the EULA and copyright law.
This is a Friday article, right? I'm pretty sure this exact issue had been settled in courts in the US a couple decades ago in Apple's favor, right? One of the many things that made software licensing so successful and last so long. I'm pretty sure MS had to modify their OS license a lot of times over the last decade (back when they tried to own the computer the OS is installed on), but their license has kept all MS (OS) clones from coming into existence. Though it is possible, that if one puts together a hardware clone Mac/Apple/Whatevertosh, which is easy now since Apple's are PC's inside (x86-etc.0), anyone should be able to find out what they put into those things and just buy it all, then get the Mac OS for that particular clone and it should run fine, assuming no bios issues. Pretending I'm a fan of MS, I could say that Apple must now allow anyone who purchases it's OS to be able to install it on any hardware they can get it onto, just as MS has had to over the years while Apple has stood by laughing at them (justifiably so, MS tried to steal my computer with their license! :-P). When Apple used obscure, and proprietary, hardware it was easy for them to keep people from putting the Mac OS on anything other than an Apple. But now, there really isn't any reason I shouldn't be able to install Mac OS on my PC right now, assuming I had the proper drivers, and no bios issues :P.
I hope they get Apple to change their licensing terms. This company, that has no web presence but for some reason needs scripting on it's page, could win a case to let Apple sell them the licenses legally so that they can install them into their clones. Which should have really happened back when they went PC and Unix inside. Now it's just the competition of the user interfaces, it's the horribly flashy, and confusing, in all the made up acronyms and lingo (I blame the marketeer's who were made management for everything wrong with the governments and economies of the world, those idiots). But they have to justify the black-hole of wasted good developer talent, and user cash for something they don't need except to run something that should have run just fine on their last version of ./whatever.net.com.bubble/burst/illusion.snakeoil
Based on all this, we're paying for the interface of the Mac OS, since I believe it is run over their version Linux. I think MS should do the same thing, freaking scrap Windows OS, and modify an OS interface that runs over a Linux kernel, instead of trying to inch their way towards the "our does every thing theirs does, anything else we'll add eventually", and I don't mean end user interface bell/whistle crap, I mean stability, security, and efficient functionality behind the curtain. Everyone's pretty much caught up to MS in the interface side, all are annoying in different ways. User's are demanding actual upgrades for the cash they shell out for everything nowadays (so annoying, needy peasants :P). If Apple has to open up their OS to any hardware the user can get it on, then that will make MS's life a lot more difficult since they currently are working so hard to fight Linux. Most of their arguments to the common users against Linux will not stand up against the Mac OS, so the Mac OS can slip in nice and quick, zip past Linux, and start finally smacking MS in the face like it was the 1980's again, except with roles reversed with Apple trying to do things like MS has been to increase access to a larger customer base, which is hysterical :)
SO I guess this article did have a lot of implications I didn't think about when I first read it. The copyright thing is almost a joke, well more than almost, it was funny to think someone would actually open a clone shop inside the US, but more so because I was trained to think that way when it came to Apple esp after the 80's and the clones that never lasted due to litigation or whatnot (it's exactly why PC's became dominant, competition between "clones" brought prices down to where I have a supercomputer here to browse the internet :P). Almost every other piece of computer tech either are proprietary, or what are effectively clones based off standard licensed tech, which is insanely common.
So it is about time for Apple to change it's license, they won't really have a choice since they've been using PC tech for so long now. They should have at least stuck with the OS on the EEPROM thing, that would have kept them safe ;P i.e. proprietary. Again, it is why MS only has control over the OS, and even there the user has a lot of rights as well as to what they can actually do with it. I'd be shocked to find rules in the MS license that says anything about what I can't install it on, they just want me to buy the license. I think Apple is just afraid of money, as usual. They've got the popularity thing down finally, but they're still afraid of the cash. I know a lot of people who would install Mac OS on their PC's if they could.
If this does go the way I think, in the end it will be cheaper, and standard computers for everyone, where all the programs made will work on any computer type device even though different OS company and PC companies exist, competition has them finally be interoperable, so utopia-esque. Of course this includes all the standard interoperable big brother back-doors, tracking, and logging mechanisms. Everything of course using almost no power, durable, blah blah blah. Stuff they really should have had 10 years ago if everyone wasn't so greedy :P
Good lord, what a comment, sorry for any misspellings and inaccuracies, I'm just one of those peasants with a weird obsession with trends and why organizations don't make decisions when they should. Instead of innovation in technology, they innovate how to drag out development so they can release slowly and maximize profit. If it wasn't for the marketeer managers buying the whole Moore's law thing we'd still be using computers with the power of 486's, then again we'd probably have the whole unified standard interoperable thing by now too since they would have been able to put cash into developing more infrastructure on the tech at a normal speed :P AND prices would still have dropped due to clone competition.
Well, I say we just skip the whole "should we allow Mac on our PC's" question and get them all together to come out with a real computer that costs at most $200 that does anything anyone would expect a computer to do, then work from there. Maybe something the size of an old Walkman that has a touch screen on it, and if you want to have a bigger screen or input devices, that's what the plugs are for, dock it, or plug devices into it. Isn't that the design they're going to anyway eventually? Something like an iPod you can hook up and use as a real computer with a keyboard, mouse, or big flat touch screen as it's interface? Power sources a problem for something so small, because good batteries explode? Make the power supply external. Not really a big deal with a device of that nature. Portable external battery packs don't have to be that big to power a hand-held sized computer, they have one for the iPod.
This whole idea I hereby copyright, the reg can use it and patent the Regomatic, or whatever they feel like calling the real computer of the future. I'm pretty sure a lot of hand-held manufacturer's have copyrights that cover such computer devices and overlap, but none of them are making a real hand-held standard computer, not even the cell manufacturers, and the cell-co's have already asked them to, and they haven't been around as hand-held computers for that long, that part of their functionality is wasted more often than not, or are insanely expensive for no good reason. Not really a good model for a micro computer that you want to saturate the market.
Bah, I'm done, can't wait to see how it all plays out. I'm betting on the Chinese or the Indians making this computer first, or maybe the UK for old times sake. Well, after WW3 is over, with the way things are looking, lol :P It would be hard for anyone to make a new tech for the public when the public can't use it, too busy cleaning crap from pants.
I agree with earlier comments, once Apple sells you the software, it's yours to do with as you wish - you can use the disc for a frisbee, or you can install it on a non-Apple PC. Granted you may not get tech support if you desire to not install it on an Apple computer, and there is no guarantee that any other software will properly operate with it (as if there ever has been, almost all software is sold "AS IS" with no guarantee of even functioning for its intended purposes), but if you're willing to do that then it shouldn't be any of Apple's business what you do.
And if this guy is buying the software then modifying it so it can run on the hardware that he wants, so what? Toyota can't use you for modifying your Prius with after-market modifications or fudging with the vehicle's software and turning around and re-selling it, software companies shouldn't either.
Forgive my innocence, but Apple's EULA seems to legally bless and extoll the virtues of bundling in a way that only MS could dream. MS can't even include a poor quality browser without getting hundreds of millions of Euro fines for this bundling (lobbied for by poorly run companies wanting a 'benefit state' support for their otherwise fine products...opera). Apple get away with the restrictive practise of tying OSX to Apple hardware. It's ridiculous that it is illegal for me to buy OSX and install it on, for example, a Dell box.
Apple are quite the Jekyll and Hyde. On one hand, poster child for all that is trendy, while keeping a dark side of restrictive practice and legal aggression.
... the Operating System, you are purchasing a licence to run it on ONE machine. Granted you own the media on which it came as well.
This applies to ALL software and Operating Systems you do not buy the software only the right to use it according to the licence agreement.
The only case where this is a problem is when those rights are only available to read after you have opened the box thus meaning you cannot return after you have decided you cannot comply.
When it's in the UK it does! In the UK, UK law applies along with all its proper spellings. US law applies in the US, so US (mi)spelling is tolerable there. But, if Apple is selling computers here, attempting to form legal bonds with its EULAs etc, they should have the common decency to run their prose past a native speaker of the English language. Same goes for Microsoft (what is a "favorite"?) and Google (no I did NOT mean to search for "neigbor" and "mold").
Mr. Ramsay: go and look at the link to the Autodesk case I provided. Autodesk swore blind to the court that their software was licensed, not sold, and that the license included a 'no resale, not transferable' term; they tried to shut down a guy who was selling used copies of Autocad or whatever on ebay.
They failed. The judge ruled that the claim that the software was only licensed was a fig-leaf; there was no expiry date on the license, for instance, no further payments were due, the entire transaction looked like a straightforward one-time once-and-for-all sale. So the Doctrine of First Sale applied, and the Autodesk license terms restricting what the purchaser could do with the software after they bought it were invalid.
In view of this judgment, I think the 'Apple-only' term is distinctly shaky legally - in fact, I think the whole rather odd 'licensed, not sold' business practices that the software industry seems to have invented may need some rethinking, if the view that 'first sale' applies to shrink-wrapped software survives any possible appeal.
The Autodesk case was an issue of first sale, which is not a problem with Apple's licence. Autodesk claimed you couldn't sell on or transfer your license once you'd done with it. Apple's license states:
> You may not rent, lease, lend, redistribute or sublicense the Apple Software. Subject to the
> restrictions set forth below, you may, however, make a one-time permanent transfer of all of your
> license rights to the Apple Software (in its original form as provided by Apple) to another party...
Stephen Sherry; You've manage to write a lot and say nothing. Impressive. Firstly, I need someone to explain to me *why* Apple "must now allow anyone who purchases it's OS" (you need to understand the difference between licensing and outright ownership)? You mention that when they used "obscure hardware[sic]" that this wasn't possible. Plenty of other electronics manufacturers were using a similar processor architecture as Apple, why is it any different now that they use Intel processors? When Windows NT4 was release, Microsoft made a version that would run on PowerPC architecture. You could have, *in theory*, made a dual booting Mac/PC way back in 1994. I read a lot of comments that say the hardware is "off the shelf". Well can you tell me where I can buy an EFI based mainboard?
Then it's the "XNU is Linux" doosey (Darwin is the name of the Open Source projects. No. It. Isn't. The XNU kernel is based mainly on the MACH kernel, produced originally at Carnegie Mellon University. The BSD (again NOT Linux) part of the kernel is there to provide the POSIX API. If you can be arsed to write the essay that you did, you could have looked it up. Your assertion that you are essentially paying for the UI is wrong to.
So based on you (plainly wrong) musings, Apple mush change their license because they are using "PC tech". Oh. Dear. APPLE HAVE ALWAYS USED PC TECH!!!. I can only assume that you mean "Wintel". In fact, the main difference between Apple PC's (see what I did there?) and Windows PC's, traditionally, was the processor architecture on which the OS ran. How is it any different now that they run on *similar* architectures? I stopped reading at that point...
Anonymous Coward Posted Sunday 31st May 2009 09:31 GMT. What. The. Fuck. For starters Internet Explorer IS a shit browser. Apple have ALWAYS conducted business this way. They haven't leveraged their market position to send another company into bankruptcy, which is universally ILLEGAL. They haven't, AFAIK, had their CEO behave like a petulant child whilst under federal investigation for allegations of anti-competitive behavior - which were subsequently UPHELD. And why is it ridiculous that you can't install OS X on a Dell? Idiot.
Not quite as idiotic as Adam. ODFO you moron. I hope that one day you have to argue this in court. I'd love to judges face as he laughs you out of court and find for Apple. See Section 12. Controlling Law and Severability.
Finally. Corestore. The Autodesk case isn't an adequate precedent. The circumstance of the case are entirely different. The Apple License discusses resale clearly in Section 3. Transfer.
A commentator on an article seemed to know his stuff
"post-sales restrictions on use are not enforceable in the EU"
So you can do what you want with the OS, be it installing it on a non-"Apple-labelled machine". How could they enforce against this?
What about then the O/S fails to do XYZ or starts doing ABC? Where are you going to get support? Is this guy going to run his own support desk or as I suspect simply tell people to go to the Apple support site?
Can't wait for the first nob to ring Apple Support and when they ask what machine..
"OK sir, where did you buy it?"
"Oh dunno, some PC I bought at such and such! Now fix it please!"
"Sorry, we can't support that. Have a nice day!"
Apple charge a premium on their kit for a bloody good reason. You can take your box to any Apple store and they will try to help you fix it, hardware or software, you pay through the nose for that kind of customer service!
best of luck mate!
If you knew anything about hardware (you clearly don't) you'd know that the architecture of ALL desktop computers as we know them has essentially been the same since their initial inception in the early 80's with the IBM AT platform, Apple architecture moving toward this architecture with the early Performas. Infact, the ONLY thing that really separates the various desktop PC's is how they initially boot. This, on what you refer to PC's (see my first sentence) is done by something called BIOS. Apple uses a system, initially designed by Intel, called EFI, which has been around and used by several hardware vendors for quite some time, with Linux being the first OS to fully support it. Incidentally Windows Vista x64 SP1/Server 2008 SP1 are the ONLY versions of Windows that FULLY support EFI. But hey, why piss on your fire? Apple's computers are "just a PC clone now" if it's helps you sleep at night.
Please note that the EULA has more than one clause; aside from the installation bit, it also forbids anyone from encouraging its use on un-authorised hardware.
If the store only contains two items: PC's and OSX media, then there is very little doubt that that restriction is being breached.
With regard to the AutoCad and similar cases, these were all about intent - the original purchase had been honourable, therefore the subsequent resale was considered okay, this guy has no such defence, he intends to obtain OSX media (good luck with that, by the way) for no other reason than to undercut Apple, by selling (with/alongside) un-supported hardware.
Incidentally, my reading of the 'labeled' clause is that the OS may only be used on hardware that has been labeled by Apple Inc, but I don't have a degree in English or Law, so that may not be the only interpreation.
Surely this has to be either a publicity stunt for his next enterprise, or a money-laundering operation via his lawyers, because there is no way that he is going to make money off this deal in the long term. (Nor should he be allowed to.)
How do apple get away with this? If Microsoft sold Windows that only worked on hardware made and sold by them for a hugely inflated price then the anti competition crowd would have a field day.
If Microsoft are taken to the cleaners for bundling IE with windows why aren't Apple being investigated for blatant anti competitive behaviour?
I may be totally wrong but I have always wondered how they get away with it!
@ Anonymous Coward Posted Monday 1st June 2009 13:09 GMT
Don't hide behind the penguin - we all know you're a MSFT fanboi...
Chances are that *if* MSFT had taken the approach Apple have the market wouldn't be so imbalanced and MSFT WOULDN'T HAVE A MONOPOLY TO ABUSE - hence the anti-trust suit9s0 that have been brought, and UPHELD, against them !!! It's *really* not that hard to imagine... Do your views apply to the XBox?
@Mac Phreak Posted Monday 1st June 2009 13:46 GMT
I am a mac user have been for years but just very annoyed that i have to fork out so much more money just to be able to use OS X. I can get a good spec Dell Laptop for £500 but a similar spec Mac Book Pro will set me back £1,300 absolute madness.
Both Apple and Microsoft are just as bad as each other.
While I feel that you ought to be able to do anything you like with products you buy -- yes, _buy_ -- just because they tell you you're "licensing" it doesn't stop it being a purchase (see the comments about EU law). I really don't know why someone would want to buy one of these machines.
If you want Apple buy Apple or loose them a little market share and go elsewhere -- paying for an operating system so you can install it on a machine they don't want you to is just hypocritical.
If Apple decided to sell its OS to install on any machine you want I _might_ even buy a copy at least to play with -- as it is I don't buy from companies who think they can tell me what to do with products I buy from them.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021