Some of the posters here are working under the assumption that it's an either-or thing, either the contract is binding, or it is not. Things are not that simple. There are major differences in contract law between countries and between states within the US. Contracts may be enforceable as a whole, while some clauses may be unenforceable.
Contracts where my lawyer met your lawyer, they negotiated a contract, explained the implications to us and finally we both signed are mostly enforceable to the letter (unless I can prove fraud or a certain clause violates the law - If we contract for me to kill you wife, no court is going to enforce it)
Contracts where I was given the contract, read it, and signed it are usually enforceable, but depending on the jurisdiction, certain clauses may be deemed unfair if, for example, they are not the ordinary way of doing business and they were hidden in fine print or complex legalese. Usually this involves showing bad faith by one party.
Contracts where both parties are not present at the same time are basically the same, but it's harder to refute bad faith - you can't say that you pointed this out to the customer and explained what it means.
A EULA is at the bottom end of fairness, and nearly any clause that looks weird may be deemed in bad faith, because realistically you can't expect users to read it. It depends on the locality, but a court is likely to rule that the EULA is valid, but the clause that prohibits installation on non-Apple hardware is invalid because it's unfair, in bad faith, maybe even illegal in some countries.
Contract law is far from being clear cut, and the law regarding EULAs is still being written.
I must admit I'm in the mindless majority who doesn't read all that crap before I click on it; I'm not planning on doing anything seriously illegal, and if there's some curveball in there like: "not to be used on Thursday," oh well, I'm going to violate it. Call the software cops! Possibly in this forum, though, there must be someone who has inflicted the penance on themselves of actually reading the whole thing. Is there in fact a "separability clause" in there? Like when you sign a credit-card agreement for example, there'll be a clause that says something like: Acceptance of a check with language such as "Paid in Full" or "Accepted as Full Payment" in the memo area does not constitute acknowledgment on our part that the account is paid in full" Then lower down, there's a clause such as: "The finding that any of the clauses of this contract are invalid does not invalidate any of the others." That's because they know full well they were talking through their hat on the first one. Does this whole EULA stand or fall as a unit, or not?
They started out in violation of the copyright when they DLed and installed OSx86. No matter how many copies of OS X they bought they are still short by at least one. And it's this 'stolen' copy that is being installed on every single Psystar OpenComputer. This is even worse as they DLes new hacked copies that have new point releases included in the builds.
Why do you assume that when it is patently false. It is entirely possible to go into an Apple Store, buy a boxed copy of Leopard, and install it onto a non-Apple machine using some scripts. A simple search on some public web forums will take you step-by-step through the process.
Why do you assume that when it is patently false. It is entirely possible to go into an Apple Store, buy a boxed copy of Leopard, and install it onto a non-Apple machine using some scripts. A simple search on some public web forums will take you step-by-step through the process.
Could you supply some links to these "scripts" or links to instructions using these "scripts" that walk you through installing OS X on non-Apple HW?
That's because they know full well they were talking through their hat on the first one. Does this whole EULA stand or fall as a unit, or not?
Contracts usually do not stand and fall as a unit, unless they specify so. It's also up to the court to decide whether the contract is entirely breached (sorry, I don't know the English term here).
If we contract for me to work for you for less than minimum wage, that clause is invalid. You would need to pay me the minimum wage, and I would still need to do the work. If we contract for me to kill your wife for $10,000, I would not need to kill your wife, but that contract does fall as a unit - you would not have to pay me.
In the specific case of a EULA, it can't fail as a unit, because the contract is for using the software. If there's no contract, you can't use the software. So just because they put one clause that cannot stand, does not mean that the other clauses (that can stand) is invalidated.
In the specific case of a EULA, it can't fail as a unit, because the contract is for using the software. If there's no contract, you can't use the software. So just because they put one clause that cannot stand, does not mean that the other clauses (that can stand) is invalidated.
You don't need a license in order to use software. If the entire license falls, then you are bound by copyright law, which explicitly grants permission to perform whatever duplication is necessary to use the software (installation, loading into memory, etc.)
EULAs exist to take away rights that you would otherwise have. They don't grant you the right to do anything, even if they contain language implying otherwise. In the absence of a EULA, there is nothing that can possibly prevent you from using the software, in any way you see fit.
Apple makes some great hardware and there is no other competitor in the market with a sexier product. Why should the 2 million new iPhone users not be allowed to buy and install
Mac OSX on their PCs to gain better use of it. With new stiffer competition form Microsoft and Sony why shouldn't developers make money out of new hardware solutions that Apple does not want to take the risk on.
An example of Apple's dominance in the market can be found in it's sales of the Mac Tower Pro in markets outside of America were the unit will cost you up to $1000 more. With Apple using this money to help opening its own stores worldwide, I cannot see how this benefits anyone except Apple.
Anyway Jonthan Ives and Steve Jobs need to rethink the design of the Mac Tower Pro. Why make a box that will out last the planet let alone be outdated in 3 years. Where are the cheap upgrades? The amount of metal in the current box is far from environmental with lots of carbon used to make it let alone the amount of jet and shipping fuel used to get it from China.
Must admit I would be the first to build Mac Cones as I used to sell them before being put out of a job by Mr Jobs, but without this milestone Apple would not have got G3 technology which was developed by ex employees. They were more powerful and faster in Benchtests than the equivalent Apple product.
Although Psystar have seemed to be doing the wrong thing the court must keep in mind that the fast rise of Apple Corp and the history of the Asia PC clone market which help us change the world without big brother (IBM). There are 2 components here software (fuel) and hardware (car). Apple make a fantastic fuel but do not have a model for everyones needs.
You are always going to get purists, even more so in the Mac religion but I can say for sure that if I was given a licence to sell Mac OSX clones I would have some of these features:
Smaller than a Mac Tower Pro
Lighter so you can actually use one handle to lift it
Upgradable with supper cooling to out run similar built Mac
Blueray Burn and playback
Bluetooth, Wireless with external Aerial
4 USB ports minimum,2 Internal USB ports, 2 Fw800, 1 fw400
Minimum 4 Sata ports with On board Hardware RAID 1, 5
Better Graphics cards (Photoshop CS4 may use GPU's)
7" touch screen intergrated (Optional)
7.1 Dolby Stereo
Any Color you like
May also be first machine to market with USB 3.0
Veva de Revolution...sorry about the long post just think there are allot of sheep out there these days just to scared to do anything because the world is full of Corporate Dogs.
A new Mac-clone machine is on the horizon. The difference between Open Tech and Psystar is that that Open Tech is NOT installing any OS on the machine, just providing you with the HW that will work well with OSx86 and instructions for the rest. I could have sworn I mentioned something exactly like this earlier in this thread.
Apple makes some great hardware and there is no other competitor in the market with a sexier product. Why should the 2 million new iPhone users not be allowed to buy and install Mac OSX on their PCs to gain better use of it. With new stiffer competition form Microsoft and Sony why shouldn't developers make money out of new hardware solutions that Apple does not want to take the risk on.
Simple answer: Apple is a manufacturer in business to be profitable. They are not a charity seeking to improve the world at the expense of themselves.
If you want to spend hundreds of man-years developing a superior software solution, and give it away for everybody in the world, go right ahead. Nobody is stopping you. But to claim that everybody (or is it just Apple?) has a moral obligation to do this is just silly.
You and I may want something, but that doesn't automatically make that something a smart business decision.
I can understand why they have waited a long time, because they will need to prepare, there are certain things that microsoft did in the beginning that were illegal - yes they were solved by the law that ended in microsoft getting shares in Apple. But ultimately by doing what it did in the beginning it made a monopoly with their system, Apple are just protecting their space in the os world at the moment. Microsoft will not allow mac users to use hotmail on safari, and they stopped development of IE for mac - that makes me think of a monopoly there. The problem is that once one company complains it can bring in others so facts have to be got straight on both sides: Apple and Pystar. Although i like the idea of Pystar, it is ultimately wrong, the idea though has stirred up the apple world and a result things could quite possibly start getting cheaper from apple. But pystar did use cracks on the hardware to bypass MacOSX security and a result they were in the wrong from the beginning
Comments
Contracts where my lawyer met your lawyer, they negotiated a contract, explained the implications to us and finally we both signed are mostly enforceable to the letter (unless I can prove fraud or a certain clause violates the law - If we contract for me to kill you wife, no court is going to enforce it)
Contracts where I was given the contract, read it, and signed it are usually enforceable, but depending on the jurisdiction, certain clauses may be deemed unfair if, for example, they are not the ordinary way of doing business and they were hidden in fine print or complex legalese. Usually this involves showing bad faith by one party.
Contracts where both parties are not present at the same time are basically the same, but it's harder to refute bad faith - you can't say that you pointed this out to the customer and explained what it means.
A EULA is at the bottom end of fairness, and nearly any clause that looks weird may be deemed in bad faith, because realistically you can't expect users to read it. It depends on the locality, but a court is likely to rule that the EULA is valid, but the clause that prohibits installation on non-Apple hardware is invalid because it's unfair, in bad faith, maybe even illegal in some countries.
Contract law is far from being clear cut, and the law regarding EULAs is still being written.
They started out in violation of the copyright when they DLed and installed OSx86. No matter how many copies of OS X they bought they are still short by at least one. And it's this 'stolen' copy that is being installed on every single Psystar OpenComputer. This is even worse as they DLes new hacked copies that have new point releases included in the builds.
Why do you assume that when it is patently false. It is entirely possible to go into an Apple Store, buy a boxed copy of Leopard, and install it onto a non-Apple machine using some scripts. A simple search on some public web forums will take you step-by-step through the process.
Why do you assume that when it is patently false. It is entirely possible to go into an Apple Store, buy a boxed copy of Leopard, and install it onto a non-Apple machine using some scripts. A simple search on some public web forums will take you step-by-step through the process.
Could you supply some links to these "scripts" or links to instructions using these "scripts" that walk you through installing OS X on non-Apple HW?
That's because they know full well they were talking through their hat on the first one. Does this whole EULA stand or fall as a unit, or not?
Contracts usually do not stand and fall as a unit, unless they specify so. It's also up to the court to decide whether the contract is entirely breached (sorry, I don't know the English term here).
If we contract for me to work for you for less than minimum wage, that clause is invalid. You would need to pay me the minimum wage, and I would still need to do the work. If we contract for me to kill your wife for $10,000, I would not need to kill your wife, but that contract does fall as a unit - you would not have to pay me.
In the specific case of a EULA, it can't fail as a unit, because the contract is for using the software. If there's no contract, you can't use the software. So just because they put one clause that cannot stand, does not mean that the other clauses (that can stand) is invalidated.
In the specific case of a EULA, it can't fail as a unit, because the contract is for using the software. If there's no contract, you can't use the software. So just because they put one clause that cannot stand, does not mean that the other clauses (that can stand) is invalidated.
You don't need a license in order to use software. If the entire license falls, then you are bound by copyright law, which explicitly grants permission to perform whatever duplication is necessary to use the software (installation, loading into memory, etc.)
EULAs exist to take away rights that you would otherwise have. They don't grant you the right to do anything, even if they contain language implying otherwise. In the absence of a EULA, there is nothing that can possibly prevent you from using the software, in any way you see fit.
Mac OSX on their PCs to gain better use of it. With new stiffer competition form Microsoft and Sony why shouldn't developers make money out of new hardware solutions that Apple does not want to take the risk on.
An example of Apple's dominance in the market can be found in it's sales of the Mac Tower Pro in markets outside of America were the unit will cost you up to $1000 more. With Apple using this money to help opening its own stores worldwide, I cannot see how this benefits anyone except Apple.
Anyway Jonthan Ives and Steve Jobs need to rethink the design of the Mac Tower Pro. Why make a box that will out last the planet let alone be outdated in 3 years. Where are the cheap upgrades? The amount of metal in the current box is far from environmental with lots of carbon used to make it let alone the amount of jet and shipping fuel used to get it from China.
Must admit I would be the first to build Mac Cones as I used to sell them before being put out of a job by Mr Jobs, but without this milestone Apple would not have got G3 technology which was developed by ex employees. They were more powerful and faster in Benchtests than the equivalent Apple product.
Although Psystar have seemed to be doing the wrong thing the court must keep in mind that the fast rise of Apple Corp and the history of the Asia PC clone market which help us change the world without big brother (IBM). There are 2 components here software (fuel) and hardware (car). Apple make a fantastic fuel but do not have a model for everyones needs.
You are always going to get purists, even more so in the Mac religion but I can say for sure that if I was given a licence to sell Mac OSX clones I would have some of these features:
Smaller than a Mac Tower Pro
Lighter so you can actually use one handle to lift it
Upgradable with supper cooling to out run similar built Mac
Blueray Burn and playback
Bluetooth, Wireless with external Aerial
4 USB ports minimum,2 Internal USB ports, 2 Fw800, 1 fw400
Minimum 4 Sata ports with On board Hardware RAID 1, 5
Better Graphics cards (Photoshop CS4 may use GPU's)
7" touch screen intergrated (Optional)
7.1 Dolby Stereo
Any Color you like
May also be first machine to market with USB 3.0
Veva de Revolution...sorry about the long post just think there are allot of sheep out there these days just to scared to do anything because the world is full of Corporate Dogs.
Apple makes some great hardware and there is no other competitor in the market with a sexier product. Why should the 2 million new iPhone users not be allowed to buy and install Mac OSX on their PCs to gain better use of it. With new stiffer competition form Microsoft and Sony why shouldn't developers make money out of new hardware solutions that Apple does not want to take the risk on.
Simple answer: Apple is a manufacturer in business to be profitable. They are not a charity seeking to improve the world at the expense of themselves.
If you want to spend hundreds of man-years developing a superior software solution, and give it away for everybody in the world, go right ahead. Nobody is stopping you. But to claim that everybody (or is it just Apple?) has a moral obligation to do this is just silly.
You and I may want something, but that doesn't automatically make that something a smart business decision.