Second unauthorized ‘Mac cloner’ offers ‘Mac OS X-ready PCs’

“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quad-core Open Tech XT, that are effectively just custom-built Intel systems based on commonly available — and somewhat outdated — parts,” Aidan Malley reports for AppleInsider.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]

49 Comments

  1. 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.

  2. 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?

  3. @ 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.

Add Your Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.