“Open Tech Inc. is following in the same vein as [Psystar] and is launching two purportedly ‘open’ PCs, the Open Tech Home budget computer and the quad-core Open Tech XT, that are effectively just custom-built Intel systems based on commonly available — and somewhat outdated — parts,” Aidan Malley reports for AppleInsider.
“Unlike the similarly-designed Psystar Open Computer (initially OpenMac), Open Tech hopes to promise Mac compatibility while avoiding a conflict with Apple’s Software License Agreement that forbids selling Mac OS X installed on non-Apple hardware,” Malley reports.
“Instead of installing Mac OS X itself or bundling a copy with the sale, this new builder is offering its customers a mystery ‘do-it-yourself kit’ that will guide them through installing a separately-purchased copy of the Apple software. The company itself would absolve itself of responsibility and put the focus on the user,” Malley reports.
“In making claims of compatibility with the software, however, Open Tech is nonetheless still at risk of running afoul of some of the same legal roadblocks that resulted in Apple’s lawsuit against Psystar last week,” Malley reports.
More in the full article here.
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “Sir Gill Bates” for the heads up.]
MacDailyNews Take: Apple’s Software License Agreement for Mac OS X explicitly states: 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.
[MDN Editor: bold added for emphasis]
You think these people would have better things to do with their money.
Hoax?
I bet those are the Psystar brothers again
@ MikeR
…. and their talent
I don’t think there is anything wrong with selling a computer saying it is compatible with OS X. They aren’t breaking anything, the people who install OS X on the computer are they ones that will be breaking the law.
Stupid is as stupid does….
Don’t these guys ever learn. I say spank’em hard Apple.
Scott….don’t you think it is a problem enticing people to do illegal things?
…ethical issues anyone?
Give us a midtower (somewhere between imac and mac pro) and there wouldn’t be a need to run os x on ordinary PCs
Well, what about this analogy?
Suppose you’re a small company building cars. You initially install a Chevy engine in your cars and Chevy complains, saying they don’t want their engine being used in your cars. I suppose they could do that. BUT… suppose you build a car without an engine, saying customers can install any engine they want. And if they want to put a Chevy engine in there, you will provide users with a kit to install it. Ultimately, the customer is responsible for obtaining the engine and putting it in. Could Chevy complain about that? Does this analogy even apply?
@ Scott
Well, except OS X’s EULA states that not only can one not use OS X on a non-Apple branded computer but that one cannot “enable” others to do so, neither.
This article clearly states, “offering its customers a mystery ‘do-it-yourself kit’ that will guide them through installing a separately-purchased copy of the Apple software. “
I disagree with the article that states, “avoiding a conflict with Apple’s Software License Agreement” and “The company itself would absolve itself of responsibility and put the focus on the user”. It appears to me that by Open Tech advertising and providing the kit, the company is breaching the EULA, too.
Interesting to see that these crude cloning schemes are coming in as the Mac’s market share really begins to take off. Obviously these companies can see which way things are going to go in the next few years and are desperate to set up something that resembles the current PC market.
They’re so desperate to get a piece of the OSX action that they really think that can succeed in getting a foot in the door where hopeful Dell and the others have all failed so far.
Expect to see more of this type of thing as Apple computers and OSs begin to enter a golden age.
Just proves how many stupid people there are in this world.
There is no EULA with engines. Once you purchase an engine, or any other car part, you can do pretty much anything (legal) you want with it. Customizing cars has gone on since the beginning of cars. You own the car. You own the parts.
Apple’s requirement that you agree not to install their software on anything else than an Apple computer seems to be without much precedent. They could lose this one in court, which is why they are threatening to put a smoldering hole in the ground where Psystar used to be, but will probably settle out of court for terms that wont be disclosed. You just never know what’s going to happen in court.
Don’t think that Dell or somebody isn’t behind this.
@ Dirty Pierre, “a piece of the action”? Then I think it’s about time we set up a game of Fizzbin. (But only if it’s dark on Tuesday.)
They can offer plenty of disadvantages, but where is the advantage, unless you are a person who likes to build cars from junkyard parts.
Have done it, it can be done well if you are willing to spend $20,000 to build a $10,000 car.
Been there, done that.
I think Horseman’s analogy does apply in this situation. And since1985 interpretation is incorrect. Open Tech is not in violation the Apple’s OS X EULA. The EULA is between the purchaser/licensee of OS X and Apple. It’s an end user agreement.
It seems to me that the legal issues hinge on the mystery “do it yourself” kit and what it does. It’s not inconceivable that it could violate the license terms.
Signs of the times. OS X and Macs are becoming so popular and attractive that these types of operations are starting to pop up.
Few points of clarification:
Only legislatures can make laws. Violating the terms of an EULA may result in civil action, but such violations are not illegal.
A EULA can only apply to someone that uses the underlying asset being licensed. Apple putting in their OSX EULA that folks cannot enable others to violate the agreement is legally useless. However, it may signal that Apple will attempt to link such actions to theft of intellectual capital…a separate civil matter.
Apple certainly has the right and, more, obligation to protect i-cap like OSX, but they have to be careful how the do it.
My guess is that Psystar will lose such a battle because they hosted and provided modified code, which is distributing Apple i-cap w/o permission or compensation.
That said, I think Apple would lose if they tried to prevent an individual from installing OSX on non-Apple hardware. They wouldn’t want such a loss going public so I doubt would litigate against individuals or companies that simply sell compatible hardware and instructions. Of course, Apple will be under no obligation to support any installation of OSX on non-Apple hardware.
If this trend continues as others think it might, the easiest thing for Apple to do is include code in OSX to check for the presence of some proprietary pice of apple hardware present within every Mac. Hackers will, of course, find this little snippet of code and create work arounds, but Apple can reset that every time they push an update.
Who wants their computer to break several times a year. That’s a bit antithetical to the Mac experience. Apple did it with Ringtones for the first six months of the iPhone’s existence, but didn’t have the moral high ground on that issue. They do when it comes to OSX running on non-apple hardware.
Finally…it would be wise of Apple to examine why there is a market for such computers. Personally, I think there are three reasons:
1) Some folks just like to hack stuff (tiny population–who cares)
2) Some folks want cheap Macs (small population–cede it)
3) Some folks want a non-Uber headless Mac (sizeable population — meet the need and ignore populations 1&2;)
Thus ends my soapbox diatribe for the day.
pax,
rwr
1. Legal or not, what these companies do that is the biggest disservice to their potential customers is that #1 thing that should advertise is a warning that following their suggestion you will lose warranty and support of your product. They do not advertise that, and so one questions the true customer service attitude of these companies. Disingenuous.
2. If you are not an authorized reseller, are you allowed to resell OS X, even at cost? Especially in this case the incentive to for them to make profit from selling the rest of the system and the “Mac kit”, and in so doing obviously violates Apple trademark by using Apple appeal to sell your product without agreement with Apple. Dumb.
3. Should Psystar sue them for copying the Psystar systems commercial names (“Open Whatever”)?
Anyone remember that game Whack-A-Mole?
I wonder if Apple can get PsyStar and Open Tech to make that delightful squeak sound when they bludgeon them.
Hey, slow up, folks, the word ILLEGAL is a bit too harsh.
A EULA is a simple agreement between you and a software manufacturer, and the legality of EULA’s has not been definitively ruled on by the courts.
Violating a EULA is NOT breaking the law, there is no law against violating agreements.
The courts get involved in enforcing agreements between individuals and/or companies as a matter of civil tort, which is NOT like the criminal system at all. A violation of an agreement means that the court will rule as to the legal facts of the case, i.e., who did or did not violate the agreement. It will then issue an order granting the violated party relief according to the terms of the agreement, what ever they may be, based upon that finding of fact. There are NO criminal consequences, and the civil relief granted can range from cash payments to outright cancellation of the agreement, depending on the terms of that agreement.
The only place an illegality may come into play is in copyright law, and if these guys are not distributing altered copies of Mac OS X, I don’t see how Apple could do anything. The most is that Apple could force them to stop using Apple’s name or the name of Mac OS X in their advertising. Those names ARE copyrighted, and may not be used without permission.
@ Rahrens:
Great point about legalities and applicability in civil litigation. However, does illegality come into question when allowing other individuals to break copyrights, such as end users? Is Open Tech breaking copyright law by exposing work-arounds for end users to utilize?
My short answer would be no. Recent example remains those individuals who jailbroke (not unlocked) their iPhones: such practices were a direct violation of the EULA by end-users, but not so by the developer of the software (in Open Tech’s case, the “kit”). Apple merely refused to service or repair such iPhones, but never had a legal leg to actively pursue the developers of the jailbreak software.
@ rwr:
An EULA is applicable to any person or company who purchases the software with the exemption of authorized resellers. Being that Psystar was actively installing OSX without the distinction of authorized reseller makes them an “end user.”
Apple does provide recourse for individuals who purchased hardware with OSX preinstalled that violates the terms of the EULA (said hardware must be returned to manufacturer). Unfortunately, it looks as though Open Tech may have found a loophole, unless an argument can be made regarding copyright infringement.
Mac OS X is licensed not owned, thew only thing you own when purchasing OS X is the physical CD\DVD you can at your discretion us it as a Frisbee if you like. Apple may not be able to go after them for enticing users to break there EULA but they do own the Triad Mark for Mac OS X and so the fact that this company is using Apple Triad Mark to sell there products is something Apple’s legal team can hunt them down for.
They don’t even have a real website! They have it hosted on freewebs.com! Wow! Let me go out and buy one right away from such a legit looking company!
I did, however, just think of something. Open Tech must have a computer they have tested their “kit” on, which would place them in violation of the EULA by not only modifying the code of their own computer, but allowing others to do so as well.
At such a point, they are liable for any damages (i.e. Macs not sold as a result of Open Tech sales) as well as punitive damages. Booya!