“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quad-core Open Tech XT, that are effectively just custom-built Intel systems based on commonly available — and somewhat outdated — parts,” Aidan Malley reports for AppleInsider.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]
@E-Dub:
Heh…put down the crack pipe. By your logic, Apple would have recourse against anyone who jailbreaks their phone and loads Apps, because it decreases demand for Apps provided solely through the iTunes store. Apple would also have had recourse against iToner and iPhoneRingtoneMaker for lost ringtone revenues.
Trust me on this…such litigation will never see the light of day. The courts, time and again, have proved unpredictable to lenient when dealing with how consumers use things they’ve purchased in ways undesired by the MFR.
My guess is that Open Tech is very much in the legal clear so long as they do not distribute OSX with their products. My bet is they provide public torrents to the Hacked OSX bits and a CD with non Apple proprietary, e.g., EFI hacks.
Seriously, pursuing such companies is not worth Apple’s time because the tiniest fraction of people want a computer that exists without support.
That said, the Libertarian in me says more power to such maverick individuals. They buy the hardware, they buy Windows, and OSX. They Download Linux. They get all three working and keep them working.
I don’t think companies should have the ability to dictate how you use their products so long as its for individual use and not resale.
People should not be protected from making stupid decisions that only affect themselves…and you can quote me on that
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”grin” style=”border:0;” />
I built my own Windows Vista machine right when it came out. What a stupid decision…now I use a Mac. Good Decision…see…self correcting.
These cloners will always be out in the cold with Apple OS’s frequent updates.
MDN, they’re not breaking that agreement because they aren’t giving you copies.
A few points-
The EULA states:
“…or to enable others to do so.”
If this new company doesn’t buy Mac OS X, they are not subject to the EULA. They can’t be subject to a license agreement for a product they did not license!
As far as copyright violations, it isn’t. The worst they would be guilty of is helping others violate a license agreement. Kind of like how Toast “helps you violate a license agreement” by allowing you to make copies of original software media. Supplying information or tools that can be used to violate a civil agreement is not a violation of copyright. Especially if these tools (computers) can run other OS’s, which I assume that they can. They’re selling a bare box, and it’s up to the purchaser to install an OS on it, and therefore the purchaser would be the person violating any EULA’s.
As far as warranties, if this company warranties their product, how would a customer be at risk of violating a warranty? Granted, Apple would not (and at this point, anyway, SHOULD not) support installations of it’s OS that are in violation of it’s EULA, but the last time I checked, Apple’s warranty pretty much secifically claimed that the software is not warranted for any particular usage, and Apple are not responsible for any problems caused by it’s software. Which is pretty much the same as any other software publisher says about they’re software. Anyone who thinks Apple would warranty this company’s hardware is a moron, and deserves what they get.
I still just don’t understand all the vehement hatred in this forum about anyone who wants to do anything with a product that they paid for that is in any way not intended by the manufacturer.
I’m starting to agree with some of the posters that many folks who post here are just Apple Fanboi’s, and if the same situation came up for, say, Dell, or Microsoft, these folks would be the first in line voicing their support for the people who hack their products or do anything that goes against the “norm”.
There’s a small market that Apple doesn’t server- if that market can cobble together a way to get a great OS running on the hardware that best fits their need, more power to them! It doesn’t hurt Apple, as Apple made the choice to not sell to that market. There aren’t any lost sales- so why all the hulabaloo?
The is a side of me that wants these cloners to win – the same side that tells me it is OK to Handbrake a movie that I legitimately purchased.
My other side worries that if they succeed, then Apple will raise the price of MacOS X or introduce serial number installations or more encrypted code.
OpenTech may not breaking EULA contract, when they sell the computers, but how about when they test their computer for OSX compatibility? If they tested the computer with OSX, they have broken the contract. If they did not test the computer, then claiming OSX compatibility will be a false advertising.
Should Open Tech have tested their method out, I bet that computer has long since been disassembled. Then so without that concrete evidence it’d be hard for Apple to prove it.
So I guess with Open Tech it’s a case of watch this space. I have a strong feeling that as mentioned above this is akin to the iPhone unlocking issue. So Open Tech might survive where Psystar did not.
You’ll just see notices placed around particular busy parts of every Apple retail store that would state something like: ‘Any third party (or non Apple branded) computing device which is running any version of OSX will not be supported or serviced at this store’. Of course being placed in every store makes it mean every store by default.
Likewise online notices in forums or a preamble with any AppleCare agent over the phone or a pre-recorded notice prior to connection.
@HolyMackerel
I’m guessing one way or another Snow Leopard will leave more than a few Mac cloners out in the cold. (God that Snow/Cold pun is never going to get old for me!)
Apple has no one else to blame but themselves for these series of “clones”
You need a OS/hardware tie-in or suffer numerous lawsuits which will drive up the cost of the real Apple hardware and then MICROSOFT WINS!!!
Come on Apple, get with it. You bonded with the devil Intel, now you reap the whirlwind.
@ s
One thing to think about in law are those disclaimers. That can also void any issue over false advertising, certainly were a clause expressly states E&OE;, or similar. That is Errors And Omissions Exempt.
Therefore Open Tech, Inc indemnify themselves.
Open Tech, Inc, if I were them, would have a disclaimer that using their kit is at the end users own risk and that Open Tech, Inc are not responsible for any damage caused by using their kit and that the purchasing of said kit is an agreement by the end user to indemnify Open Tech, Inc. Apple, Inc, do this as does nearly every software vendor.
Open Tech is not selling OSX to their customers and so that voids any issue over their corporate liability for their customers in terms of the EULA.
So, if you’re a real tinkerer you might decide to take the risk that should it your efforts not work, you cannot blame anyone else but yourself.
Could end up costing more by buying testing out and failing different hardware mixes than buying an Apple branded computer in turn if that is the case, could work in Apple, Inc’s favor.
However someone will publish their hardware mix that works and then Apple posts an update, hidden in a security patch, which then causes an Open Tech kit computer to stop working and then off again.
Sure there are people out there that have the time and money to keep doing that.
Who knows maybe just maybe Apple does what is now deemed unprecedented and permit their technology partner Acer to make ‘clones’. Think about it, Apple using Intel chipsets was once thought as a ‘never going to happen’ thing?
Markets change, Apple, Inc doesn’t sit still, it’s a business and like any business it exists to make money!
@Raving MacHead
The devil (Intel) is no longer the greatest threat to salvation, due to last weeks discovery of the Super Devil.
The super devil is at least six inches taller, he has a flying motorcycle, and a jar of marmalade that we believe forces you to commit adultery.
“effectively just custom-built Intel systems based on commonly available — and somewhat outdated — parts”
So they’re following Apple’s system design strategy.
“It appears to me that by Open Tech advertising and providing the kit, the company is breaching the EULA, too.”
You can’t breach an agreement you’re not a party to. The EULA is between Apple and the customer.
If you could make an agreement binding without the other party agreeing to anything people would just write up contracts like “If my neighbor drives out of his driveway this morning, I will own his house”, and when he does claiming they have an enforceable deal with them.
If the cloner’s hands don’t touch the software then there’s no harm, no foul under the EULA. Apple might try to make some of the other claims stick.
Since a Mac is basically a standard PC with EFI Bios, there’s no way Apple can keep it closed long term without designing in some proprietary part which would be illegal to clone.
If this company is not going to sell OS X themselves, Apple shouldn’t worry about them. Seriously, what is the real market for empty PCs on which you have to separately purchase and install the operating system? 95%+ of the market wants their computers to work straight out of the box. Only Linux nerds and box-builders are happy installing the OS themselves, and they wouldn’t be interested in this product.
——RM
Anyone know the legal definition of “non-Apple-labeled computer” ?
@Buster:
I could’nt say it better.
I suspect that this new company is run buy the same people who run Psystar.
This sort of thing happens all the time in the UK, a company cons customers out of their money then they close down and afew weeks later the same people setup a new company selling the same products but under a different company name.
This is a major loophole in England law and is exploited every day blatantly.
if apple really wants to stop this kind of thing they should make a son $600 mac
It seems a little coincidental, this new company rising just days after the lawsuit against Psystar. I wonder if some big bucks are backing both of these companies so they can file a class-action lawsuit against Apple.
You can all wake up now. There will be no Midtower Mac. What do you think Apple is? Dell?
What is the legal definition of “Apple labeled”? Interestingly, Apple includes official Apple logo stickers with the Leopard retail package. If I slap one of those on an Open Tech or Psystar computer does that make it “Apple labeled”?
After all, it’s an official Apple logo sticker conveniently supplied by Apple Inc. with the retail copy of the Leopard OS that I purchased.
Exactly what is “Apple labeled” anyway? AFAIK they don’t define the term in the EULA.
NOOBS!!!!!! YOU ARE ALL NOOBS!!!!!
Just because a company says a thing, does not automatically make it a law. That’s why Apple has to pursue it’s grievance against Psystar in court rather than just being able to pick up the phone and call the police – No law has actually been broken until the court makes one, and then decides that the defendant has broken it. With the exception of the initial purchase, every specific point of an EULA constitutes an assumption of agreement to the terms specifically listed in the EULA, and each specific requirement is arguable and defensible in a court of law.
Just a thought, EULA is for end users to follow not for manufacturers to abide. I mean, if I make a PC that can run OSX, Windows, Linux — sell it and advertise it to be compatible with OSX will that be a violation of the EULA? I mean manufacturers didn’t buy the software they just provided the hardware, so it’s really the end users — the pc buyers — who are at stake of getting sued.