Psystar makes Mac clones, sues Apple for violating antitrust laws

[heartburnkid]

http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2008/04/mac_clone_maker.html

This could be very interesting, and has the potential to set a ton of legal precedent re: openness of computing platforms. All I have to say is: go Psystar.

[scramasax]

http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2008/04/mac_clone_maker.html

This could be very interesting, and has the potential to set a ton of legal precedent re: openness of computing platforms. All I have to say is: go Psystar.

I'd have thought Psystar might be on fairly strong ground and could win in court. And sure one could argue that if you've bought the software, you can put it on what you like (and possibly even get a third-party such as Psystar to do it for you).

However, what you can't do is do that and then complain to the software vendor if the software doesn't work too well. I'm not sure that Psystar's offering wouldn't be a poisoned chalice to most people. To those who like hacking their stuff and don't mind dealing with problems, it's interesting. To others it might not be such a tempting bargain. Don't forget to get and retain its dominant position in software Microsoft has to bust a gut trying to ensure its stuff runs on everything. Sometimes, of course, it runs only indifferently well. Alan Kay famously said:


People who are really serious about software should make their own hardware.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Alan_Kay

Bill Gates never took that view -- MS couldn't dominate the market just by selling software on that basis.

Part of the attraction of an Apple machine is that you can be pretty sure that it runs well on the hardware, because Apple only has to look to a limited range of hardware. And even then it doesn't always get it right -- there's an ongoing brouhaha over flickering screens on Apple laptops.

All Pystar can do is use hardware that seems currently OK and hope that it continues to be when updates roll out -- as it realizes:


Some company is — or at least was — selling white-box PCs with hacked versions of Leopard, under the name “OpenMac”. Love this section from their FAQ:


Can I run updates on my OpenMac?

The answer is yes and no. No because there are some updates that are decidedly non-safe. Yes because most updates are not non-safe. It’s best to check on InsanelyMac for this information but when in doubt don’t update it. You may have to reinstall your OS X if it is a non-safe update.

“Not non-safe” — that’s good.

http://daringfireball.net/linked/2008/april#mon-14-openmac

[asmith3006]

According to Engadget they're nottakeing Apple to court . Apparently the boss of the company said he's got no idea where people are getting this idea from.


I'm torn between wanting them to and not... I think I'd be happy if Apple released a mid/low priced upgradeable tower. I want mirrored hard drives without spending £1700!

[Bungo Pony]

Apple clones: the plague that's been following Apple since the Apple II.

I knew a guy who wanted to sell me an Apple II clone years ago. The monitor and keyboard were housed in a wooden box. He apparently built it from a kit. Unfortunately, it had no floppy drives. A couple years later, I had the offer to take it away for free. I probably should have since it was the stupidest looking computer I ever saw. Kinda like how people build their own boxes on pickup trucks.

[Glaxed]

I thought that it was called the OpenComputer because it's natively compatible with multiple OSs. It even offers to ship preinstalled Hardy for free.
I asked my dad if we could buy the thing before Apple sues Pystar for the clone, and kills that thing.
For $400, that is a great deal...

[3rdalbum]

If Psystar went to court and won, can you imagine how rich they would become overnight? Heck, they could become fairly wealthy even before going to court!

[LaRoza]

If Psystar went to court and won, can you imagine how rich they would become overnight? Heck, they could become fairly wealthy even before going to court!

I think Apple would move with it.

IF the courts found that the Apple restriction is unlawful (which I don't think it is), they would allow OS X to be OEM installed on other computers, and probably actively promote it.

[scramasax]

I think Apple would move with it.

IF the courts found that the Apple restriction is unlawful (which I don't think it is), they would allow OS X to be OEM installed on other computers, and probably actively promote it.

Some legal experts, including an ex-Apple patent lawyer are saying there may not be much Apple can do legally:


And while Psystar may be violating Apple's end user license agreement, or EULA, by doing this, legally there's not much Apple can do about it, says Raj Abhyanker, a patent lawyer who used to write patents for Apple.

http://www.wired.com/gadgets/mac/news/2008/04/apple_psystar

However, the same article points out:


While Apple could likely tie Psystar up in litigation by filing patent or copyright lawsuits, the better choice may be technical -- issuing OS X firmware updates.

Hence, one imagines, Psystar's prevarication over whether it would safe for buyers to apply an OS update or not. It's not as if updates can't sometimes go awry anyway. And what kind of support is anyone likely to get from Psystar? If they've cut their margins very close, in order to undercut Apple, they won't be able to afford to offer very much -- not that there's any evidence that they've got any infrastructure in place for that anyway:

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/04/15/so_exactly_who_or_what_is_psystar_we_dig_a_little. html

I'm not sure Psystar done anything really wrong. On the other hand, painting themselves as victims of a monopoly is a bit rich, too:


Debate the aesthetics all you want, but I'd argue that Windows and Linux are, for the purposes of personal computing, close substitutes to Mac OS X. They can run a personal computer. They can connect you to the Internet. They can run a basic suite of productivity applications.

You may prefer Mac OS X for a variety of reasons, but Apple's requirement that you can only run Mac OS X on Apple hardware doesn't prevent you from using a personal computer. If the only other substitutes were Palm OS phones or AIX servers, maybe you would have.

http://www.news.com/8301-13579_3-9919432-37.html

I just don't think Psystar's buyers are going to get a particularly good deal. And whatever one's views on the rights and wrongs of this I don't see it as particularly constructive, because Psystar could have offered Linux. I'm not saying that to be a "Linux fanboy" or something -- I enjoy my Mac as much as my Linux machine -- just from the point of view that they are permitted to do that by the licence, so all parties would be happy.

I also doubt that Apple would licence OS X. It's not as if they haven't been asked to by other OEMs:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/06/16/dell_eyes_apple/

Their business model is just not the same as MS's. They sell you integrated solutions hardware + software. To do well out of just software, they'd have to sell a heck of a lot of it; they'd have to grab most of the market, and they can't while MS is sitting there as the incumbent even if they wanted to.

[dgoodma]

The new Pystar computers that are getting a lot of press with the load of MAC Leopard, also come with Ubuntu 8.04 as a no cost alternative. There $399.00 computer looks very well equiped.
http://www.psystar.com/index.php?&page=shop.product_details&flypage=flypage_images.tpl&product_id=1&category_id=3&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=72

[Black Mage]

How are they going to sell it with Ubuntu 8.04 when is still being developed?

Another thing is even though it has the ability to run Leopard, you will get no support for it because Apple on supports Apple Software ran on Mac Hardware. Its in the EULA's.

[jespdj]

Open Computer: The Apple Alternative (http://www.psystar.com/open_computer_the_apple_alternative.html)

Their store seems to be down right now because they have some problem with processing credit card payments.

I wonder how they can sell a non-Apple computer with OS X and get away with it. Apple will not be happy with this and will most likely shut them down very soon.

More: Apple Hopes To Kill Psystar's $399 Mac (http://www.dailytech.com/Apple+Kills+Psystars+399+Mac/article11495.htm)

[Erik Trybom]

Can they?

If you think about it, an EULA is really an absurd legal document. It states what you can do or cannot do with the software you've bought. This raises some questions.

For instance, can you put anything into an EULA? Like, say, "this software may not be used for developing products competing with [software vendor]"? Or, "the license can be recalled at any time by [software vendor] for any reason"?

I don't think the license agreement should have anything to say about how I may use the software that I bought, unless it gives me more rights than the law allows (i.e. sharing of source code). If I want to use the CD:s as bookmarks or frisbees I should be able to, no matter what the EULA says.

So it seems to me a judge would have to choose between three uncomfortable decisions:

1) End user license agreements have no legal value whatsoever
2) End user license agreements are legally binding no matter how ridiculous the terms
3) End user license agreements are legally binding but can only control certain rights

Anyway, it will be fun to see what will happen if it gets to court.

[zmjjmz]

Am I the only one who is thinking "Ohey, a $400 computer with Ubuntu!"

[bilal.17]

i created a thread about this just yesterday when i first heard about it ... so to any moderators does this thread need to be merged with the one i created yesterday which is about the same thing

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=756286

[Sporkman]

Can they?

If you think about it, an EULA is really an absurd legal document. It states what you can do or cannot do with the software you've bought. This raises some questions.

For instance, can you put anything into an EULA? Like, say, "this software may not be used for developing products competing with [software vendor]"? Or, "the license can be recalled at any time by [software vendor] for any reason"?


Sure, as long as it's made clear to you & you agree to it before you buy. It's like a business contract. The seller has the right to propose any sort of deal he/she wants, and the buyer has the right to accept or reject the terms.

[solitaire]

Unfortunately with Software the EULA is INSIDE the Box so you do not have the ability to review it before buying it.

and virtually NO retailer will accept a return of software if the outer wrapping is broken.

And if you return it to the makers then they can decide how much to reimburse you.

So effectively the EULA is worthless if you cant review it BEFORE buying the product.

[mips]

Can they?

If you think about it, an EULA is really an absurd legal document. It states what you can do or cannot do with the software you've bought. This raises some questions.

For instance, can you put anything into an EULA? Like, say, "this software may not be used for developing products competing with [software vendor]"? Or, "the license can be recalled at any time by [software vendor] for any reason"?

I don't think the license agreement should have anything to say about how I may use the software that I bought, unless it gives me more rights than the law allows (i.e. sharing of source code). If I want to use the CD:s as bookmarks or frisbees I should be able to, no matter what the EULA says.

So it seems to me a judge would have to choose between three uncomfortable decisions:

1) End user license agreements have no legal value whatsoever
2) End user license agreements are legally binding no matter how ridiculous the terms
3) End user license agreements are legally binding but can only control certain rights

Anyway, it will be fun to see what will happen if it gets to court.

There are lots things out there that once put before a court would become illegal in them selves. Not all contracts, laws etc are legal, as society we just accept the bluff, roll over and play dead without contesting any of it.

[riven0]

It's a hoax, don't believe it!

Suspicions soar about Mac clone maker PsyStar (http://computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9078198&intsrc=hm_list)

[solitaire]

Hm...

The address givin in the article is slightly diffrent from the address on the Website.
Also the Store is up and running as far as i can tell..

The site has been sluggish since it was Slashdot'ed...

You knever know! it may be Legit but didn't expect the demand or attention...

[riven0]

Hm...

The address givin in the article is slightly diffrent from the address on the Website.
Also the Store is up and running as far as i can tell..

The site has been sluggish since it was Slashdot'ed...

You knever know! it may be Legit but didn't expect the demand or attention...

It's possible. I notice the website is back up, too. But it's a huge chance to take. Once I see Psystar in the court with Apple, then I'll believe it.

[misfitpierce]

It could be legitimate they might just have changed their location and such because they are scared of what apple may say or do. Who knows.

[solitaire]

Well i'm gonna wait a bit too. Not that I'm gonna buy one (I Like my Linux a bit too much)
But I like the idea of Apple getting the M$ treatment :D

[scramasax]

Well i'm gonna wait a bit too. Not that I'm gonna buy one (I Like my Linux a bit too much)
But I like the idea of Apple getting the M$ treatment :D

The MS treatment? Hardly.

MS want third-parties to ship equipment with their OS on. Getting it on everyone's hardware, and, where possible, stopping anyone else from getting on the hardware that's around is what they do. That's the whole point of what they do.

And they have ways of punishing an OEM if it doesn't:


Microsoft's entire pricing, contract, and licensing structure is designed with the primary aim of preventing any other operating-system vendor from getting a foothold on the desktop. They achieve this by making the opportunity cost of pre-installing a non-Windows operating system prohibitively high for any vendor who also needs to ship Windows. ...

Linux is not the first target of Microsoft's vendor lock-in. Back in 1991 Microsoft used Windows error messages to undermine DR-DOS. Dirty tricks have been the norm ever since. ...

In 1999 BeOS offered its operating system free to any OEM that would preinstall it. When Hitachi took them up on it and offered a machine that would dual boot between Windows and BeOS, Microsoft forced Hitachi to remove all mention of BeOS from the bootloader. So Hitachi shipped a BeOS partition on their machines, but with no way to boot into it. ...

Microsoft will literally put an OEM out of business before it lets them help a competitor. This is why big OEMs like Dell keep introducing Linux support and then pulling it again when Microsoft flexes its muscles. ...

... and so on. Here's the link:

http://catb.org/~esr/writings/world-domination/world-domination-201.html#msoft


I find it difficult to conceive how people can so misunderstand the position.

As one Slashdotter commented just today Dell now sells pre-installed Linux on consumer desktops -- but hardly obviously:


In the basement, in a disused lavatory, with a sign that says beware of the leopard.

http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=525116&cid=23097182



But, of course, in markets where MS does sell hardware, you're not going to running their software on alternative hardware. Zune? Xbox360?


As for Psystar it's beginning to look like a phishing scam. they've moved "their address" yet again. it's not clear they've ever been at any of these addresses. The principles are being listed as being officers or agents for a large number of companies most of which aren't active. Besides that:


a bunch of links are just links to an automatic download of an executable file. Phishing? Watch out.

http://gizmodo.com/380488/psystar-exposed-looks-like-a-hoax

You give them your money, if you want ...

If you must run OS X on commodity hardware, do it yourself:

http://www.osx86project.org/

But, really, a Mac mini isn't going to burn a vast hole in your pocket. But if that's too much spring for an eeePC:


http://eeepc.asus.com/global/

You can even get Windows on it now if, as appears by your eagerness to defend the Borg here, you're so fond of Microsoft. It won't run as fast as the standard Linux-based operating system most eeePCs ship with, but, hey, a man like you has to make some sacrifices.

[Peter6218]

Now I found this fascinating??

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/JD19Dj02.html

[Sef]

But according to Apple's license what they are doing is illegal.

[Peter6218]

But according to Apple's license what they are doing is illegal.

Apparently, according to the article, there is some question whether Apples licence is legal.

[K.Mandla]

Now I found this fascinating??

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/JD19Dj02.html
Equally interesting is this:

http://gizmodo.com/380488/psystar-exposed-looks-like-a-hoax

P.S.: Moved to OSX Discussions.

[Peter6218]

Equally interesting is this:

http://gizmodo.com/380488/psystar-exposed-looks-like-a-hoax

P.S.: Moved to OSX Discussions.

Yup looks more and more like a hoax or scam. But if so why is Apple so upset?? Didn't they do due diligence before suing?

Then there is this:

For customers who have already placed orders: if you received a confirmation e-mail then your item is in queue to be built and shipped.

[Jammy4041]

The open computer is for people who can't afford mac os X - people know they are NOT buying the real Mcoy- it's an imitation!!!!!!

[Jammy4041]

But, really, a Mac mini isn't going to burn a vast hole in your pocket.


Base Cost of Mac Mini: £500

Cost of Monitor: £200

Cost of other accessories: £100

Total Cost: £800

£800 is roughly $1600

Is it any wonder why people are buying an £400 PC?

The people, in my opinion know that they are buying an imitation. So it isn't going to kill off Apple. (YET)

The idea isn't new, remember, Emachines tried, without success, to copy the iMac G3 in the 90s.

However if Pystar wins against Apple, that would pave they way for companies like Dell, HP, Sony etc to put Mac OS X on their hardware.

(This would kill off Apple as a hardware vendor)

PS- I would go for an eeepc but it would fit the needs for me.

That's my "two cents"

[cprofitt]

But according to Apple's license what they are doing is illegal.

According to Apple's license Apple itself violated their EULA when they install Safari on people's computers via an 'update' to QuickTime or iTunes. The same EULA they would use against this company is in Safari.

I guess if Steve Jobs wins he can report to jail himself for each and every install of Safari on a non-apple branded computer.

Apple Business Leaders = Morons for that one.

[riven0]

My goodness! Psystar is shipping out the computers!:


A Miami system integrator that's selling an unauthorized Mac clone has begun shipping orders, according to the company's Web site on Monday.

"Orders placed the week of April 7th are currently being shipped," Psystar said in a note posted on its site.

Mac Clone Maker Psystar Starts Shipping Computers (http://www.informationweek.com/news/hardware/desktop/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=207401062)

Looks like my intuition could be wrong; they may not be a scam, after all! We'll have to wait until somebody gets their comp. In the meanwhile, my apologies to Psystar.

[CraigPaleo]

I came across an ad for a Mac clone by Psystar. http://store.psystar.com/ does indeed seem to be selling its own hardware pre-loaded with Mac OSX. They claim Apples EULA violates anti-trust laws.

__________________
Raw Paleo Diet Group (http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/rawpaleodiet/)

[tvtech]

have you been hiding under a rock? or do you just not read the news. they are currently being sued by apple, they have had multiple injunctions filed against them, and they have filed against apple. this has been in the news well over a year.

Yes these are psystar hardware with OSX the cost savings is more than significant thus apples anger they're loosing a but load of money over this especially if it becomes widely adopted

p.s. they are also offering support and upgrade support for these installs all of while violates apples Eula!

[Skripka]

p.s. they are also offering support and upgrade support for these installs all of while violates apples Eula!

Apple's EULA is a bunch of BS anyway. The only thing that stops OSX from being installed on any machine is a firmware chip on the main board...which can be patched relatively easily on the software end-from what I gather.


I'm rooting for Psystar on this one.

[handy]

It is possible that the whole thing is a set up, in an effort to get new law(s) enacted which would be detrimental to FOSS.

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080903082827766&query=psystar

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080829184018767

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080831104451947&query=psystar

[Demio]

Apple's EULA is a bunch of BS anyway. The only thing that stops OSX from being installed on any machine is a firmware chip on the main board...which can be patched relatively easily on the software end-from what I gather.


I'm rooting for Psystar on this one.

It seems the courts think otherwise: http://www.engadget.com/2008/11/18/psystars-antitrust-claims-against-apple-dismissed/ :)

I hope Psystar crashes and burns. :KS

[Skripka]

It seems the courts think otherwise: http://www.engadget.com/2008/11/18/psystars-antitrust-claims-against-apple-dismissed/ :)

I hope Psystar crashes and burns. :KS

Considering that someone ought to reign in these "EULA" agreements, I'd rather it be the result of Psystar.

The entire practice of EULA has run amok. No one reads the damn things, as a function of the amount of BS contained in any EULA, and to actuallly have a clue what a EULA actually means usually requires about 1 week of study, and a good IP lawyer. What is the point of having an EULA that no one reads-and that no one can reasonabley understand? Hmmmmm?

Call it the OSS person in me-but when I buy software I want to buy it, not buy an extremely limited permission to use it. Apple's EULA is more ridiculous than most--the EULA saying that users of OSX have permission to only use it on "Apple branded hardware". Bunch of BS. They can only claim "branded" as they don't actually make any of their own, like everyone else now-they outsource.

Almost all average computer users "buy a piece of software", they don't think that they are "buying an extremely limited license granting permission to use this software", they just "buy software".

[handy]

EULA's have been challenged & beaten, most people as you say just click & get on with doing what they want to do.

Here is an example:

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080831104451947&query=psystar

[RealG187]

http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2008/04/mac_clone_maker.html

This could be very interesting, and has the potential to set a ton of legal precedent re: openness of computing platforms. All I have to say is: go Psystar.

I agree. Apple is trying to make a Monopoly!

By locking Mac OS to their brand they are trying to eliminate the competitions. After all the new Macs are PCs, so if they can run Windows, then PCs should be able to run Mac OS as Mac OS is now written for x86!

[init1]

Apple's EULA is a bunch of BS anyway. The only thing that stops OSX from being installed on any machine is a firmware chip on the main board...which can be patched relatively easily on the software end-from what I gather.


I'm rooting for Psystar on this one.
That's like saying that I can drive as fast as I want because traffic laws are a bunch of BS. If you don't like the EULA, don't agree to it.

[Skripka]

That's like saying that I can drive as fast as I want because traffic laws are a bunch of BS. If you don't like the EULA, don't agree to it.

No. It isn't.

Most people, at least at one point-know the drivers manual-and know what the laws are regarding operation of a vehicle on the roads.

The number of people I know that actually pay attention to the contents of EULAs I can count on a hand with no fingers.

The prime purpose of EULAs nowadays is CYA protection and stifling competition.

[init1]

No. It isn't.

Most people, at least at one point-know the drivers manual-and know what the laws are regarding operation of a vehicle on the roads.

The number of people I know that actually pay attention to the contents of EULAs I can count on a hand with no fingers.

The prime purpose of EULAs nowadays is CYA protection and stifling competition.
Yeah well that's their fault. You shouldn't click "I Agree" if you don't know what you're agreeing to.

[Grant A.]

Yeah well that's their fault. You shouldn't click "I Agree" if you don't know what you're agreeing to.

And you shouldn't smoke cigarettes without all the ingredients on the side of the package (including carcinogens).

</topic>

[tiachopvutru]

Yeah well that's their fault. You shouldn't click "I Agree" if you don't know what you're agreeing to.

You are being rather impractical...

[RealG187]

Yeah well that's their fault. You shouldn't click "I Agree" if you don't know what you're agreeing to.

Then I don't think anyone would click agree.

[cardinals_fan]

No. It isn't.

Most people, at least at one point-know the drivers manual-and know what the laws are regarding operation of a vehicle on the roads.

The number of people I know that actually pay attention to the contents of EULAs I can count on a hand with no fingers.

The prime purpose of EULAs nowadays is CYA protection and stifling competition.
If EULAs are so evil, don't agree to them. Problem solved.

You are being rather impractical...
Here's some practicality: if you don't want to read an agreement, don't agree to it. People who agree to an EULA out of their own free will have no right to complain about it. If you don't want to agree, don't.

[Grant A.]

If EULAs are so evil, don't agree to them. Problem solved.

Here's some practicality: if you don't want to read an agreement, don't agree to it. People who agree to an EULA out of their own free will have no right to complain about it. If you don't want to agree, don't.

Keep in mind 80% of Linux users don't read the GPL their first time. Congratulations on just removing 50% of Ubuntu's user base. Hell, I have been using Linux for 3 years and haven't read the damn GPL yet.

[SunnyRabbiera]

I too root for pystar on this one, come on its about time someone brought down a big company to its knees

[Grant A.]

I too root for pystar on this one, come on its about time someone brought down a big company to its knees

I just hope they get OS X unlocked for PCs. I have been waiting for this moment for years.

Time to kick back, relax, wait 5+ years for the suit to finalize, another 3+ for it to go out of recess, and 2+ years for a verdict. :popcorn:

[RealG187]

I never read the GLP or Any EULA!

And it should be unlocked.

After I said goodbye to windows I installed Mac OS from an ISO off thepiratebay and it took 5 hours to install. Nothing worked, no sound, no network (Wlan or Ehternet). After that I installed Ubuntu 8.04 which installed in under an hour (maybe under half and hour, I left and the screen was black when I came back, I thought it froze, but the power saver turned it off).

[cardinals_fan]

I never read the GLP or Any EULA!

That's fine, but you still agreed to them.

[RealG187]

That's fine, but you still agreed to them.

That sucks.

I have done somethings that they said not to do because I don't care, but for things like Windows calling home I can't stop. But I think that's only for XP home, I use pro. I had Vista Home Premium before I left Ubuntu.

[Skripka]

That's fine, but you still agreed to them.

Is an agreement an "agreement" if one of the parties is completely ignorant of the contents of the "agreement"? Is a EULA legal in such a case legal simply because all EULAs have clauses that preclude any excuse on the grounds of ignorance of the contents of said EULA?

[RealG187]

I wonder, does Psystar make Macbook clones?

[lykwydchykyn]

Is an agreement an "agreement" if one of the parties is completely ignorant of the contents of the "agreement"? Is a EULA legal in such a case legal simply because all EULAs have clauses that preclude any excuse on the grounds of ignorance of the contents of said EULA?

Um, if you're presented with a contract and sign it, you're bound to it. If you didn't bother to read it, that's your fault. If parts of it were hidden or misrepresented to you in some way, that's a potential out; but I fail to see how willfull ignorance of a contract fails to render you free of obligation.

That said, you don't sign a EULA, you click "ok" on it. And the binding nature of EULAs has never been tested in court, IIRC.

[mrgnash]

Hahahaha good! I'm behind anything that creates trouble for Apple. Apple make Microsoft look like a humanitarian organization by comparison.

[mrgnash]

I never read the GLP or Any EULA!

And it should be unlocked.

After I said goodbye to windows I installed Mac OS from an ISO off thepiratebay and it took 5 hours to install. Nothing worked, no sound, no network (Wlan or Ehternet). After that I installed Ubuntu 8.04 which installed in under an hour (maybe under half and hour, I left and the screen was black when I came back, I thought it froze, but the power saver turned it off).

Is that Emcee Escher (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypw_t6a269g) in your avatar?

[cardinals_fan]

Is an agreement an "agreement" if one of the parties is completely ignorant of the contents of the "agreement"? Is a EULA legal in such a case legal simply because all EULAs have clauses that preclude any excuse on the grounds of ignorance of the contents of said EULA?
I would say yes, and I also feel that that is right. If you truly don't want to read it, you shouldn't agree to it.

[Skripka]

That said, you don't sign a EULA, you click "ok" on it. And the binding nature of EULAs has never been tested in court, IIRC.

Well it isn't even that simple. Apple is using the EULA as a means to lock OSX to their own hardware in the eyes of the law. APple wants to be the sole puveryor of OSX and all its bits and pieces, and rake in the dough from every nitch they can. I disagree with the court, that is anti-competitive.

And regardless that stinks. I dislike EULAs for what they are used for, in addition to the fact that they are somehow considered binding--when a massive majority of the populace never bothers reading them.

[lykwydchykyn]

Well it isn't even that simple. Apple is using the EULA as a means to lock OSX to their own hardware in the eyes of the law. APple wants to be the sole puveryor of OSX and all its bits and pieces, and rake in the dough from every nitch they can. I disagree with the court, that is anti-competitive.

And regardless that stinks. I dislike EULAs for what they are used for, in addition to the fact that they are somehow considered binding--when a massive majority of the populace never bothers reading them.

IANAL, but I don't know of a clear set of laws or even any precedent as far as the limitations of what can be set in a EULA. Ideally, you ought to be able to put whatever crazy limitations you want in a EULA (within limits of safety and basic human rights), and market forces would keep you in check. Of course in the real world people don't seem to care much, so they don't read the license and don't worry about what it says. Sometimes I think our problem isn't a lack of ethical companies, but a lack of ethical consumers willing to vote with their dollars.

In any case, I fail to see how people not reading EULAs makes them any less binding.