or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › German clone maker "not afraid" of Apple
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

German clone maker "not afraid" of Apple

post #1 of 114
Thread Starter 
The makers of the PearC brand of Mac clones say they're standing on solid legal ground in Germany and will withstand legal action from Apple.

A spokesman for HyperMegaNet UG, which sells the Intel-powered towers under the PearC brand with a copy of Mac OS X installed, said while the company hasn't heard from Apple Legal yet it is "awaiting some soon."

"First, we try to settle with Apple out of court," Dirk Bloessl told Computerworld in an e-mail. "But if necessary, we are not afraid of going to court with Apple."

On PearC's website, the FAQ section includes the question "Is the PearC legal?" The answer reads, "Yes. According to european laws Apples EULA is void."

The saber-rattling from HyperMegaNet comes while Apple and Florida-based cloner Psystar are engaged in a similar dispute over copyright and competition, but according to the German company, PearC does not violate Apple's copyright or EULA there.

"The German law says explicit[ly], that restrictions made after buying a product are not valid," Bloessl said. "So, because Apple's EULA can [only] be first read after buying and starting the setup, they are invalid in Germany."

That is, since the system has already been paid for and turned on before the End User License Agreement ever appears, Apple can't make "restrictions" on the use of the operating system, HyperMegaNet argues.

According to the clone maker's website, the PearC Starter "combines good performance with an appropriate power drain" for 599 euros, or roughly $773. The base configuration ships with a 2.5GHz Intel Pentium Dual Core, 250GB hard drive, 2GB of 1066MHz DDR2 memory, a 256MB GeForce 7200GS graphics card from NVIDIA, three FireWire 400 ports, and ten USB 2.0 ports.

Meanwhile, the PearC Advanced (799 euros or $1030) is the "allround computer" that ships with a 3.0GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 500GB hard drive, 4GB of memory, a 512MB NVIDIA GeForce 8400GS graphics card, and wireless. Available upgrade options include a Core 2 Quad processor, 1TB hard drive, 8GB of memory, a 1024GB NVIDIA GeForce 9800GTX Plus, a second hard drive up to 1TB that can be preinstalled with Vista Home Premium, XP Professional, or Vista Ultimate, and a writable Blu-Ray drive.

The site offers to ship to Germany, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Greece, Ireland, Luxembourg, Italy, the Netherlands, Austria, Poland, Portugal, Sweden, Spain, and the U.K.

Back in the United States, a case that began in July recently took a few steps forward with Psystar's filing of an amended complaint late last week.

However, the trial isn't expected to start for another nine months.
post #2 of 114
Apple should withdraw ALL retail sales of OSX and do an online upgrade option whereby Mac owners can purchase the OSX upgrade by supplying a valid serial number. This will sort out all of the wanna be Apple clone makers.
post #3 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

That is, since the system has already been paid for and turned on before the End User License Agreement ever appears, Apple can't make "restrictions" on the use of the operating system, HyperMegaNet argues

Isn't there a notice of the EULA on the box with a url to read the EULA before purchase?
post #4 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guartho View Post

Isn't there a notice of the EULA on the box with a url to read the EULA before purchase?

That would be my question. If that's the essence of their argument, it seems logically flimsy.
post #5 of 114
All EULA's are available on Apple's website:

http://www.apple.com/legal/sla/

There's nothing on the outside of my Leopard retail box that says anything about going to their website to access the EULA.

Mac Mini (Mid 2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5

120 GB SSD/500 GB HD/8 GB RAM

AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256 MB

Reply

Mac Mini (Mid 2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5

120 GB SSD/500 GB HD/8 GB RAM

AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256 MB

Reply
post #6 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by irnchriz View Post

Apple should withdraw ALL retail sales of OSX and do an online upgrade option whereby Mac owners can purchase the OSX upgrade by supplying a valid serial number. This will sort out all of the wanna be Apple clone makers.

Which would be cracked in about a week. Have we learned nothing from Microsoft??? And whats not to stop me from sharing my copy of OS X on a torrent site. Or hacking it so it runs on non-Apple Macs and then sharing it on a torrent site. All an online upgrade would do is create a HUGE headache for both Apple and customers trying to upgrade.

The only way to stop it...go back to PPC processors and make Mac OS X a PPC only OS again. Of course we all know that isn't gonna happen!

Mac Mini (Mid 2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5

120 GB SSD/500 GB HD/8 GB RAM

AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256 MB

Reply

Mac Mini (Mid 2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5

120 GB SSD/500 GB HD/8 GB RAM

AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256 MB

Reply
post #7 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by macxpress View Post

Which would be cracked in about a week. Have we learned nothing from Microsoft??? And whats not to stop me from sharing my copy of OS X on a torrent site. Or hacking it so it runs on non-Apple Macs and then sharing it on a torrent site. All an online upgrade would do is create a HUGE headache for both Apple and customers trying to upgrade.

The only way to stop it...go back to PPC processors and make Mac OS X a PPC only OS again. Of course we all know that isn't gonna happen!

You miss the point. People will always pirate stuff but these clone makers wouldn't be able to release PC's with OSX on it. They would no longer be able to buy hundreds of legal copies of the OS to stick on their systems. If they were to continue they would have to use illegal software and they would get screwed for it.
post #8 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by irnchriz View Post

You miss the point. People will always pirate stuff but these clone makers wouldn't be able to release PC's with OSX on it. They would no longer be able to buy hundreds of legal copies of the OS to stick on their systems. If they were to continue they would have to use illegal software and they would get screwed for it.

They would find a way around it. Trust me! There's ALWAYS a way around a system. Like I said, this would only create headaches for Apple and its customers. A lot of people like to go into a store and buy software so they can take it home and install it that day. People like to use the Apple Stores as meeting places for special events like a new OS being released. Apple would miss out on a lot of sales by going online only. Its just a bad idea!

Going to PPC processors would stop it. You can't get a PPC logicboard around every street corner like you can a Core 2 Duo or Core 2 Quad motherboard. They would have to develop their own board and have it produced. There goes all of the profits thus, there's no reason to even attempt it. This doesn't mean I want Apple to go back to PPC processors. I'm just saying its the easiest way to stop it.

Mac Mini (Mid 2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5

120 GB SSD/500 GB HD/8 GB RAM

AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256 MB

Reply

Mac Mini (Mid 2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5

120 GB SSD/500 GB HD/8 GB RAM

AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256 MB

Reply
post #9 of 114
Doesn't the box say something about being only for installation on Apple branded computers along with the minimum system requirements? If so, then that would be pretty clearly stated before the purchase and would not even involve the EULA.
post #10 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quevar View Post

Doesn't the box say something about being only for installation on Apple branded computers along with the minimum system requirements? If so, then that would be pretty clearly stated before the purchase and would not even involve the EULA.

No, it just says Mac computer with Intel, PPC G5, or PPC G4 processor (867 MHz or faster). It doesn't specifically say Apple branded computer and you can't just assume Mac computer means Apple branded. Assumptions don't hold up in court!

Mac Mini (Mid 2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5

120 GB SSD/500 GB HD/8 GB RAM

AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256 MB

Reply

Mac Mini (Mid 2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5

120 GB SSD/500 GB HD/8 GB RAM

AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256 MB

Reply
post #11 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by macxpress View Post

They would find a way around it. Trust me! There's ALWAYS a way around a system. Like I said, this would only create headaches for Apple and its customers. A lot of people like to go into a store and buy software so they can take it home and install it that day. People like to use the Apple Stores as meeting places for special events like a new OS being released. Apple would miss out on a lot of sales by going online only. Its just a bad idea!

Going to PPC processors would stop it. You can't get a PPC logicboard around every street corner like you can a Core 2 Duo or Core 2 Quad motherboard. They would have to develop their own board and have it produced. There goes all of the profits thus, there's no reason to even attempt it. This doesn't mean I want Apple to go back to PPC processors. I'm just saying its the easiest way to stop it.

There is no way around requiring a serial number registration and verification. If there was then we would have seen it with Apple Up-To-Date and similar service. Apple make all the hardware and they have records of all the serial numbers. This will stop the clones in their tracks and the only way they can sell clones is to steal serial numbers, buy used copies, or use illegal pirated copies of Mac OS, which is illegal everywhere. This might not be the best for Apple or customers but believe me Apple would do it if they have to.
post #12 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by macxpress View Post

They would find a way around it. Trust me! There's ALWAYS a way around a system. ...

There is not always a legal way around a legal requirement though, and that's the point.

I agree that this system would be onerous, and we have Psystar and all the other selfish clone rip-off artist to thank for that.

There are less onerous ways to accomplish the same thing however and we should definitely expect Apple to take one of those options with Snow Leopard, thus shutting down the cloners. I don't see as they have any other option (other than licensing) myself.

For instance a simple label on the box that said: "This product is an upgrade for use only on computer systems purchased from Apple." (or something similar) would make the German company's actions illegal in one swoop.

I think we can expect some kind of online digital download for most upgrades in the future also, with the retail box still making an appearance albeit with giant labels on the outside defining it's use.
In Windows, a window can be a document, it can be an application, or it can be a window that contains other documents or applications. Theres just no consistency. Its just a big grab bag of monkey...
Reply
In Windows, a window can be a document, it can be an application, or it can be a window that contains other documents or applications. Theres just no consistency. Its just a big grab bag of monkey...
Reply
post #13 of 114
Quote:
Apple should withdraw ALL retail sales of OSX and do an online upgrade option whereby Mac owners can purchase the OSX upgrade by supplying a valid serial number. This will sort out all of the wanna be Apple clone makers.

Yup, Im with ya!!! This is getting wayyy out of hand and complicated. Apple should just find a better way to distribute Snow Leopard. And not to mention Im sick of this people whom are making money off people product without their authority. Sheesh.
Apple is a hardware company, dont believe me? Read this Article!. For those who understand my message, help me spread this info to those who dont get it.
Reply
Apple is a hardware company, dont believe me? Read this Article!. For those who understand my message, help me spread this info to those who dont get it.
Reply
post #14 of 114
Perhaps if they made the OS X software cost $1000 and the hardware starting at 1$ (Hardware only available bundled) ?

As for upgrades, that would then have to be via online updates or via a voucher for an upgrade in the hardware box.
post #15 of 114
If I were Apple, and I actually lost this case I think I'd pull all my products from the German market. I could actually see Apple of all companies doing this
post #16 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by belunos View Post

If I were Apple, and I actually lost this case I think I'd pull all my products from the German market. I could actually see Apple of all companies doing this

Pardon? Apple created this situation all on their own. Just because they insist on their "each version of OS X is just 129" marketing dance, they refuse to print "Upgrade" on the retail box. This one word alone would solve the problem in the US and Germany, once and for all. Any OEM reselling an upgrade as a full version could be stopped in 24 hours (and it would not cost Apple a penny). Offer a full version for 2,000 USD and the upgrade for 129 USD, and watch these idiots go away. And if somebody should ever buy the "full version" for 2,000... so what?
post #17 of 114
This is a very interesting situation developing. Apple are claiming a breach of their EULA, but just how sound a legal basis does the EULA actually have? What legal right does the seller have over a product that they have sold? Software companies say 'we're not selling software, we're licensing it', but if you go into a store, give them some money and take a product home you have bought it surely? At least a court may well see it that way, which is why software companies have avoided a head-on court case over the legality of EULAs, because they fear they might lose, so for now they are happier sitting in this legal half-light. Companies like Psystar (or at least whoever it is that's funding them) appear to be looking to force this issue, probably because they are confident that a court would rule in their favour, and HyperMegaNet, based in the EU where consumer rights are more developed than the US even more so.

As we know, Apple has a large legal department, and they will be aware of the tenuousness of their legal argument, and have presumably told the board that they might be trying to defend the indefensible. If this is the case, Apple, being a very smart company will certainly have a contingency in place. Which brings us back to the PASemi acquisition. If Apple cannot prevent third parties buying OS X and sticking it on a clone, how about putting an in-house proprietary chip on the logic board, not to 'lock out' the OS (and possible litigation down the line) but to provide some additional functionality that enhances the OS. Sure you could go and buy a $500 clone (of which $129 would go to Apple for no effort on their part) but to get the full 'enhanced' OS X experience you would have to buy the machine it was designed to run on.
Believe nothing, no matter where you heard it, not even if I have said it, if it does not agree with your own reason and your own common sense.
Buddha
Reply
Believe nothing, no matter where you heard it, not even if I have said it, if it does not agree with your own reason and your own common sense.
Buddha
Reply
post #18 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post

There is no way around requiring a serial number registration and verification. If there was then we would have seen it with Apple Up-To-Date and similar service. Apple make all the hardware and they have records of all the serial numbers. This will stop the clones in their tracks and the only way they can sell clones is to steal serial numbers, buy used copies, or use illegal pirated copies of Mac OS, which is illegal everywhere. This might not be the best for Apple or customers but believe me Apple would do it if they have to.

Never say never! People aren't stupid in this world!

Mac Mini (Mid 2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5

120 GB SSD/500 GB HD/8 GB RAM

AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256 MB

Reply

Mac Mini (Mid 2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5

120 GB SSD/500 GB HD/8 GB RAM

AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256 MB

Reply
post #19 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by macxpress View Post

No, it just says Mac computer with Intel, PPC G5, or PPC G4 processor (867 MHz or faster). It doesn't specifically say Apple branded computer and you can't just assume Mac computer means Apple branded. Assumptions don't hold up in court!

A Mac is an Apple branded computer. There are no assumptions to be made here.
post #20 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banitsa View Post

Perhaps if they made the OS X software cost $1000 and the hardware starting at 1$ (Hardware only available bundled) ?

As for upgrades, that would then have to be via online updates or via a voucher for an upgrade in the hardware box.

That is a brilliant idea. Or even a "Free Mac with every copy of OS X!" Just adjust the cost of the version of OS X to each Mac type :lol. Then all updates are specifically updates that won't install without either seeing a previous version that is legitimate or checking with Apple on line.

Hey, I'd hate the M$ mentality this would create but if Apple's financial future were at risk I would be happy enough to submit to far greater checking rather than see these thieves make money by reselling OS X and damage Apple.
Enjoying the new Mac Pro ... it's smokin'
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini.
Reply
Enjoying the new Mac Pro ... it's smokin'
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini.
Reply
post #21 of 114
Screw serials and crap. Has everyone went nuts here?

If they are not afraid of Apple, I will quote Yoda. "You will be. You will be."
Hard-Core.
Reply
Hard-Core.
Reply
post #22 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by dreyfus2 View Post

Pardon? Apple created this situation all on their own. Just because they insist on their "each version of OS X is just 129" marketing dance, they refuse to print "Upgrade" on the retail box. This one word alone would solve the problem in the US and Germany, once and for all. Any OEM reselling an upgrade as a full version could be stopped in 24 hours (and it would not cost Apple a penny). Offer a full version for 2,000 USD and the upgrade for 129 USD, and watch these idiots go away. And if somebody should ever buy the "full version" for 2,000... so what?

You probably miss the part where Jobs said that there is only one version of Mac OSX Leopard which costs $129.
post #23 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by aplnub View Post

Screw serials and crap. Has everyone went nuts here?

If they are not afraid of Apple, I will quote Yoda. "You will be. You will be."

I hope so

('went' nuts?)
Enjoying the new Mac Pro ... it's smokin'
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini.
Reply
Enjoying the new Mac Pro ... it's smokin'
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini.
Reply
post #24 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by allblue View Post

This is a very interesting situation developing. Apple are claiming a breach of their EULA, but just how sound a legal basis does the EULA actually have?

It is not really a very interesting situation. Software EULA's are known as among the most unfair, anti-consumer contracts in the whole field of contract law. When you crack open the box or break some seal, you are "signing" this contract as-is. You have no chance to reject or request an amendment of some of the terms. In reality, you don't have a chance to read it before you've accepted it (technically, there is a process to do so, but it is onerous enough to be impractical.)

I've always wondered what happens when a minor buys and installs software. Minors can't enter into contracts, so does that make the EULA null and void for that installation?

Nevertheless, to a court the EULA appears to be a legally binding agreement entered into freely by both parties, even if it is tilted one-sidedly in favor of one of the parties. Unless the judge is willing to "legislate from the bench," consumers (and Psystar) are going to lose every time.

Until consumers rise up and demand that Congress pass laws to protect consumers from unfair EULA's, we are just going to have to suck it up and accept the consequences of our collective inaction.

Quote:
What legal right does the seller have over a product that they have sold?

If they are guaranteeing or warrantying the product, they have plenty of rights concerning the product they have sold. Millions of products contain terms that specify that certain things limit or void warranties or can forfeit your right to return them.
post #25 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rokken View Post

You probably miss the part where Jobs said that there is only one version of Mac OSX Leopard which costs $129.

??? I did not "miss it" - actually I called it a "marketing dance", you even quoted it.

And, btw, there has never been only one version. There are versions shipping with Macs (full versions), there are drop-in versions (during free upgrade eligibility periods), there are retail versions (single and family pack, both are actually upgrades, as this is what the EULA says) and there are server versions. There are many versions of Mac OS X Leopard there is only one for $129, and that's only an upgrade. If they would name it an upgrade, lawyers, Psystar and PearC would loose, Apple and it's shareholders would not.
post #26 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by macFanDave View Post

It is not really a very interesting situation. Software EULA's are known as among the most unfair, anti-consumer contracts in the whole field of contract law. When you crack open the box or break some seal, you are "signing" this contract as-is. You have no chance to reject or request an amendment of some of the terms. In reality, you don't have a chance to read it before you've accepted it (technically, there is a process to do so, but it is onerous enough to be impractical.)

Legally you can reject the EULA and return the product for a refund. In case of Mac OS the EULA gives buyers the right to reject the EULA and return the product for a refund. It is written in the first paragraph of the EULA.

Did anyone one notice that Mac OS X DVD that come with the new unibody MB and MBP cannot be installed on other Macs?!
post #27 of 114
Am I missing something here? In order to run on generic PC's, doesn't OS X have to be heavily modified to boot on EFI, including modifying the kernel? Doesn't that involve Psystar and their ilk distributing a derivative work, thus violating Apple's copyright?

I don't get the argument that they're taking the shrink-wrapped copy of OS X and installing on their hardware. If understand correctly, that's *not* what they're doing at all. And if they are doing that, they still need to distribute Apple's updates, which would have to be modified, thus distributing a derivative work.

I have no idea why Psystar's case hasn't been treated like the open and shut case that it is. Perhaps the judge is non-technical, and needs expert witnesses to spell out the above?
post #28 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by allblue View Post

This is a very interesting situation developing. Apple are claiming a breach of their EULA, but just how sound a legal basis does the EULA actually have?

Well, in Germany Apple's chances are low, close to zero actually. No consumer has to review the EULA on a Web page (and, in theory, how would he/she get there without an OS), conditions hidden in the box have never been declared valid by a court, and no consumer has to "know" what Apple means by "Mac" in the system requirements either (if I install OS X on my Lenovo X200, it will say "About this Mac" right there in the Apple menu; and to my mother a "Mac" is a burger). Actually, if a consumer would sue Apple for hiding the "Upgrade only" condition inside the box, he/she would have a pretty strong case, as it can easily be seen as deceit.

I assume Apple will silently change the retail (and maybe protection) concept for 10.6, and all of these trials will be meaningless by the time they take place.
post #29 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by dreyfus2 View Post

... And, btw, there has never been only one version. There are versions shipping with Macs (full versions), there are drop-in versions (during free upgrade eligibility periods), there are retail versions ...

I'm not disagreeing with the main thrust of your argument, but this statement seems a bit backwards to me.

It used to be that there was only one version. It's only with the advent of the intel machines that the grey install/restore discs on individual purchases started to not work on another machine. I don't know about the distant, distant past, but up until that point, a techie could have a single disc of the OS that worked for all machines.

It was really frustrating when they started to change that and it will be more frustrating when they start to tie the OS to the machine even more. All because a bunch of a-hole, thieving opportunists are trying to make a buck off of someone else's work.

What I find ironic is that the kind of folks that are setting themselves up as clone dealers are actually the same folks that would have peed all over Apple in the past (and probably did). They talk a line about advocating freedom of choice and that they just want to get the people what they want and so forth, but they are obviously not even slightly concerned with truth, justice, freedom etc. Capitalism brings out the scum-bag in us all I guess.
In Windows, a window can be a document, it can be an application, or it can be a window that contains other documents or applications. Theres just no consistency. Its just a big grab bag of monkey...
Reply
In Windows, a window can be a document, it can be an application, or it can be a window that contains other documents or applications. Theres just no consistency. Its just a big grab bag of monkey...
Reply
post #30 of 114
They are offering 9800 NVidia, is there even drivers for this in OSX ?

Very attempting in the light of how slow the new iMAC and Mac Pro are coming to market. Apple get your finger out, where's the new iMAC with quad core ?
post #31 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by belunos View Post

If I were Apple, and I actually lost this case I think I'd pull all my products from the German market. I could actually see Apple of all companies doing this

*lol*, revenge isn't a successful business strategy... That's the stupidest thing I've heard in a while.
post #32 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by macxpress View Post

No, it just says Mac computer with Intel, PPC G5, or PPC G4 processor (867 MHz or faster). It doesn't specifically say Apple branded computer and you can't just assume Mac computer means Apple branded. Assumptions don't hold up in court!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Londor View Post

A Mac is an Apple branded computer. There are no assumptions to be made here.

Yup, same discussion we had last week regarding Psystar. The box, and the web site, clearly state the Leopard requires a Mac. Only Apple makes Macs. The EULA only provides additional details about the restriction the buyer should have been aware of prior to their purchase.

Quote:
Originally Posted by macFanDave View Post

It is not really a very interesting situation. Software EULA's are known as among the most unfair, anti-consumer contracts in the whole field of contract law. When you crack open the box or break some seal, you are "signing" this contract as-is. You have no chance to reject or request an amendment of some of the terms. In reality, you don't have a chance to read it before you've accepted it (technically, there is a process to do so, but it is onerous enough to be impractical.)

I've always wondered what happens when a minor buys and installs software. Minors can't enter into contracts, so does that make the EULA null and void for that installation?

Nevertheless, to a court the EULA appears to be a legally binding agreement entered into freely by both parties, even if it is tilted one-sidedly in favor of one of the parties. Unless the judge is willing to "legislate from the bench," consumers (and Psystar) are going to lose every time.

Until consumers rise up and demand that Congress pass laws to protect consumers from unfair EULA's, we are just going to have to suck it up and accept the consequences of our collective inaction.


If they are guaranteeing or warrantying the product, they have plenty of rights concerning the product they have sold. Millions of products contain terms that specify that certain things limit or void warranties or can forfeit your right to return them.

I'm going to perhaps walk a fine line here... I agree there are serious problems with EULA, but there are only parts of them that I most strongly have issues with. I believe companies have the right to protect their intellectual property and support their intended business model, which is the root of this particular issue. These clone makers should not be able to take advantage of technicalities like this which take unfair (in my opinion) advantage of Apple making installing OS X easy for their legitamate customers (ie, those who have purchase Macs).

Apple could make things more difficult, and more clearly illegal, for the cloners; but they don't in order to make things better for the end customers. Apple seems willing to turn a blind eye from the hobbiest hackintoshes, but these attempts to make a commercial business out of it will only end up making things more difficult for Apple's customers (and the small number of hobbiests). How is that in any sense better for anyone?

The part of EULAs that I have the biggest issue with is where the vendors are able to disavow all responsibility for bugs in their software, security issues their software casues, damage which it may do to our systems, and promised features that don't work as advertised. Is there any other industry that gets to put out crap and not be responsible for the damage it does or for not delivering what they said it would? Imagine if I produced a car part that damaged your engine or didn't perform the function I said it did. It would get recalled in a heartbeat.
post #33 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2 View Post

I'm not disagreeing with the main thrust of your argument, but this statement seems a bit backwards to me.
...
What I find ironic is that the kind of folks that are setting themselves up as clone dealers are actually the same folks that would have peed all over Apple in the past (and probably did). They talk a line about advocating freedom of choice and that they just want to get the people what they want and so forth, but they are obviously not even slightly concerned with truth, justice, freedom etc. Capitalism brings out the scum-bag in us all I guess.

Well, backwards maybe... just, it remains a fact that Apple is mislabeling upgrades. Every legit Mac user knows that, and has no reason to be concerned about it if you own any Apple computer, you are eligible. Easy. Unfortunately the very same thing opens the door for these vultures without any need. Would Apple customers not buy their Leopard Upgrade for $129, if it said "upgrade" on the box? Very unlikely, IMHO.

It is more natural than ironic. The desktop PC market is shrinking, ASPs are going down, and people do pay more for computers running OS X, than they are willing to pay for Windows machines with similar specs (especially now that most people start delaying purchases until Windows 7 is available), and there is less/no competition... of course everybody wants this money. The sad thing is, that Apple with it's very limited line-up and dated entry-level systems is proactively putting fuel into that fire.
post #34 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by macFanDave View Post

It is not really a very interesting situation. Software EULA's are known as among the most unfair, anti-consumer contracts in the whole field of contract law. When you crack open the box or break some seal, you are "signing" this contract as-is. You have no chance to reject or request an amendment of some of the terms. In reality, you don't have a chance to read it before you've accepted it (technically, there is a process to do so, but it is onerous enough to be impractical.)

I've always wondered what happens when a minor buys and installs software. Minors can't enter into contracts, so does that make the EULA null and void for that installation?

Nevertheless, to a court the EULA appears to be a legally binding agreement entered into freely by both parties, even if it is tilted one-sidedly in favor of one of the parties. Unless the judge is willing to "legislate from the bench," consumers (and Psystar) are going to lose every time.

Until consumers rise up and demand that Congress pass laws to protect consumers from unfair EULA's, we are just going to have to suck it up and accept the consequences of our collective inaction.


If they are guaranteeing or warrantying the product, they have plenty of rights concerning the product they have sold. Millions of products contain terms that specify that certain things limit or void warranties or can forfeit your right to return them.


I think we are pretty much in agreement here. A EULA is a dictat from a private corporation that they try to pretend is 'the law', which is why they have avoided the headline test-case in the courts. I'm not sure about the US, but certainly in the UK a judge could rule against a EULA if they thought it contravened a consumer's legal rights. This is why this German company sound so confident. I presume they have checked EU consumer law and have found that a EULA has no legal standing, so if Apple sue they will lose and the whole EULA shebang would fall apart.

Excellent point about minors and contract law! Presumably all PsyStar would have to do is send a kid to buy the OS and no legal contract would be in place!

re sellers' post-sale control. Yes a warranty could be invalidated by the user failing to comply (as long as the demands of the warranty were not unreasonable and would stand up in court) but if say, you bought a zune and then smashed it up with a hammer you would probably have invalidated your warranty, but nonetheless you still have the legal right to smash it up if you so desire.
Believe nothing, no matter where you heard it, not even if I have said it, if it does not agree with your own reason and your own common sense.
Buddha
Reply
Believe nothing, no matter where you heard it, not even if I have said it, if it does not agree with your own reason and your own common sense.
Buddha
Reply
post #35 of 114
Of course Germans aren't afraid because Germans love David Hasselhoff.
post #36 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

"The German law says explicit[ly], that restrictions made after buying a product are not valid," Bloessl said. "So, because Apple's EULA can [only] be first read after buying and starting the setup, they are invalid in Germany."

So, I wonder how that would fly if a German citizen bought a BMW or Mercedes Benz car and then German law makers passed laws for drivers after the fact. Does that mean the driver can legally ignore any new driving law that they were unable to read before purchasing their new vehicle and thus simply ignore those laws or at the very least, beat in court, any moving violation ticket they receive?

Ten years ago, we had Steve Jobs, Bob Hope and Johnny Cash.  Today we have no Jobs, no Hope and no Cash.

Reply

Ten years ago, we had Steve Jobs, Bob Hope and Johnny Cash.  Today we have no Jobs, no Hope and no Cash.

Reply
post #37 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by dreyfus2 View Post

Well, in Germany Apple's chances are low, close to zero actually. No consumer has to review the EULA on a Web page (and, in theory, how would he/she get there without an OS), conditions hidden in the box have never been declared valid by a court, and no consumer has to "know" what Apple means by "Mac" in the system requirements either (if I install OS X on my Lenovo X200, it will say "About this Mac" right there in the Apple menu; and to my mother a "Mac" is a burger). Actually, if a consumer would sue Apple for hiding the "Upgrade only" condition inside the box, he/she would have a pretty strong case, as it can easily be seen as deceit.

I assume Apple will silently change the retail (and maybe protection) concept for 10.6, and all of these trials will be meaningless by the time they take place.

Agree there is some vaguess. So would printing "Upgrade for Apple Macintosh computers" on the box make the legal challenges go away? I suspsect Apple would still need to incorporate some addtional security. Windows Activiation hell, here we come!
post #38 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by allblue View Post

I think we are pretty much in agreement here. A EULA is a dictat from a private corporation that they try to pretend is 'the law', which is why they have avoided the headline test-case in the courts. I'm not sure about the US, but certainly in the UK a judge could rule against a EULA if they thought it contravened a consumer's legal rights. This is why this German company sound so confident. I presume they have checked EU consumer law and have found that a EULA has no legal standing, so if Apple sue they will lose and the whole EULA shebang would fall apart. ....

I think you are painting with too broad of a brush here.

A EULA is not worthless and not really a dictat. It's just a contract of questionable authority.

The Germans haven't found that a EULA "has no legal standing," they merely invalidated one of the most questionable aspects of the EULA (that it has to be agreed upon sight unseen). Putting the EULA on the outside of the box would make the EULA a legal contract again even in Germany.
In Windows, a window can be a document, it can be an application, or it can be a window that contains other documents or applications. Theres just no consistency. Its just a big grab bag of monkey...
Reply
In Windows, a window can be a document, it can be an application, or it can be a window that contains other documents or applications. Theres just no consistency. Its just a big grab bag of monkey...
Reply
post #39 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rot'nApple View Post

So, I wonder how that would fly if a German citizen bought a BMW or Mercedes Benz car and then German law makers passed laws for drivers after the fact.

A federal law applies to all people residing or staying in a country. An EULA hidden in the box is a contract that only one party has signed. EULA <> Law and Apple <> Federal Government. I think (hope) not even Apple is confusing this
post #40 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post

Legally you can reject the EULA and return the product for a refund. In case of Mac OS the EULA gives buyers the right to reject the EULA and return the product for a refund. It is written in the first paragraph of the EULA.

And how likely is this going to happen?

I have a Mac and look at the terms of Snow Leopard and don't like something. You are suggesting that I return Snow Leopard for a FULL refund and install FreeBSD or Linux on my Mac? Are you nucking futs?!

Your understanding of "rights" is high up in the academic ether. In the real world, the writers of the EULA's have us over a barrel. Happily for me, Apple's EULA doesn't offend me -- I believe that Apple's tight (some might say monopolistic) integration of hardware, software and OS is a valuable advantage in reliability, ease-of-use and consistency. I willingly buy into the monopoly. Anyone who wants to install OS X on non-Apple hardware is going to get screwed, one way or another. Barring the remote possibility of getting your illegal clone confiscated and being fined or jailed for that, the most realistic downside of using non-Apple software is your loss of support from Apple. For some go-it-alone self-reliant types, that's no big deal, but for most people, that would be a devastating loss.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Mac Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › German clone maker "not afraid" of Apple