You will notice he says the same thing people keep saying over and over. He wants something more than a Mini, less than a Mac Pro but the iMac is out of the question so there's only the DIY option left.
You will notice he says the same thing people keep saying over and over. He wants something more than a Mini, less than a Mac Pro but the iMac is out of the question so there's only the DIY option left.
Would it be possible to put that chip into an older Mac and bring it up to date? I would like to use Leopard (Snow Leopard) on my 800 MHz G4. (You can tell that I am 'technically challenged'.)
If someone sold plans to build a Hackintosh using the EFI-X chip, would that be illegal?
What if they just put those plans on a blog and didn't get paid for it? Would that be illegal?
It shows an underlying desire by a larger and larger segment of the population to have the Apple experience without paying for Apple hardware. The halo works.
Eventually Apple may choose to reel them in with cheaper hardware options, license hardware production to a third party (like HP) or (highly-unlikely) license the OS to other OEMs.
The commodity players out there only have Windows?and it's clearly becoming less and less desirable as their market gets more and more hyper competitive. Netbooks have eaten everyone's lunch in year one ? what happens next year when things get more economically challenging?
All the balls really seem in Apple's court. Let's hope they capitalize on them.
The more combinations of hardware that Apple have to support, the worse will be the experience for all. Streamlined design is good for quality.
If someone sold plans to build a Hackintosh using the EFI-X chip, would that be illegal?
What if they just put those plans on a blog and didn't get paid for it? Would that be illegal?
Yes, if the plans included instructions on how to build the EFi-X dongle and if Apple wanted to pursue the matter, I'd suggest Apple would have very little difficulty arguing (successfully) in court to have the information taken down. Aiding and abetting in the commission of a crime is also a crime.
I love MacOS X. Windows and Linux can't touch it. Heck, they try to mimic it to no avail.
But Apple the computer? Whatever.
$700 Canadian gets me a low end MacMini with NO DVD burner and a bare minimum of a computer.
You need about $1300 for a decent Mac.
On the other hand, $500 can buy me a refurbished PC with a couple GBs of RAM, decent memory, DVD Lightscribe burner and a lot of goodies. I'd sacrifice my beloved MacOS X but I'd get a lot of bang for my buck.
If Apple wants to stop the clones, make a consumer friendly computer.
C'mon, a decent $500 Canadian iMac with DVD burner can't be that hard.
As for quality. I'm happy in a Chevy instead of a Mercedes. A lot of people are. If Apple takes that attitude with its computers, the clones will die down.
My nickel,
Frank D.
yes, agree but when Jobs said that Apple didn't know how to make a computer that costs $500 that isn't a heap of junk...
Just because there is a demand for something doesn't mean Apple is required to meet it.
You want a cheaper hardware solution? Go buy a PC and run Windows or Linux on it. The only business Apple needs is the premium end of the market. If you're not part of that demographic, that's just tough.
Much of the $400-Dell segment of the market would love to run OS X. That doesn't mean Apple has to make them happy. Standards are standards. Apple wants to make a net profit. Dealing at the low end of the market will not only dilute the Apple brand, it will also result in lower margins.
And the way to deal with these clone makers and copycats is to just keep litigating, and they can fight this war on several fronts at the same time. They're very good at that. And more power to them.
If Apple does decide to offer a netbook or midrange tower solution, be prepared to pay on the same scale as you would pay for any other product. Twice the price for twice the computing experience. As it should be.
Would it be possible to put that chip into an older Mac and bring it up to date? I would like to use Leopard (Snow Leopard) on my 800 MHz G4. (You can tell that I am 'technically challenged'.)
If someone sold plans to build a Hackintosh using the EFI-X chip, would that be illegal?
What if they just put those plans on a blog and didn't get paid for it? Would that be illegal?
The EFI-X chip and Hackintosh are not illegal to download or install. And posting the code is not illegal either, if so Apple would have wasted no time in serving a C&D like they've done before for cases which were illegal, Psystar.
Having said that, using the OS on a non-Apple box violates Apple's License Agreement with the user. You should only install such software for research and educational purposes and not for running your business. On the flip-side, these agreements can mean many things, for example, when Safari for Windows was released, according to the Agreement you can only install it on an Apple box running Apple's OS! Another example, according to Microsoft's license agreement, if you do not agree with the license you can return Windows for a full refund, yet no one is willing to take Windows back, checkout this website.
Apple could quash all of this simply, and heres how:
What are the would be cloners selling? they are selling reasonable, and somewhat expandable towers. Make a mac mini that is 2x the height, and uses desktop HDDs (2 slots), desktop ram, and PCI express x16 graphics and sell it for $800-1200.
If I want 2 24 inch displays for things like writing iphone apps, tasks that are real estate pigs, but not necessarily resource hogs:, don't make me buy an 8 core mac pro!
And heres another point, How dare Apple charge $3000+ for a "professional" product that fails to support SLI for the 2 high end video card options.
Set up a Mid-tower structure that hits the E8400, E8500 and E8600 Processors.
You could extend their viability for later products by moving future Mac minis to support those CPUs as the next series of Mid-tower systems moves up to the QuadCore:
People with pre-existing LCD Monitors will buy the Mid-tower while others will buy the iMac.
The Mac Pro market won't be compromised and the Mac mini will steadily improve while being enough for a lot of business users and not enough for gamers or professional users needing more beef.
The trick is to make sure that they stagger the CPU/motherboard structure to keep that consistency as Nehalem moves forward and gets replaced.
The Mid-towers will have the advantage of expandability and GPU options not open to the iMac and thus make them more attractive for that mid-tier user/gamer/developer/college student who isn't interested in a Laptop--or needs a desktop to compliment their portable needs.
I mean look at what you *just* wrote above. You say two things (Apple hardware is overpriced and not any better than any other hardware). Both of these can be easily refuted with the facts, i.e. - you are "wrong." (look it up if you don't know that word)
You also use extensive hyperbole, (get out the dictionary again) which is the mark of an amateur thinker. (Apple hardware is not just overpriced it's "ridiculously" overpriced, Apple hardware is not even "remotely" better quality.)
Success! This is hard-core dimwit talk.
Dimwit or not, he's got a point.
Design aside (and it is great design, but some people simply don't care), Macs are using same drives, memory modules, CPUs, graphics cards as other PCs. If info I've picked up somewhere is correct, motherboards for Macs are made by Foxcon, one of the biggest manufacturers of PC components. I wonder if Mac motherboards are at all different from same chipset motherboards Foxcon is making for PC brands.
Even if they have separate production line, with different design layout... question remains if quality is any different.
The EFI-X chip and Hackintosh are not illegal to download or install. And posting the code is not illegal either, if so Apple would have wasted no time in serving a C&D like they've done before for cases which were illegal, Psystar.
Are you an authority on the contents and intellectual property ownership of the code used in the EFi-X dongle and the EFI used in Apple's computers? I'll bet a fair smudgeon that Apple uses a custom EFI and that the installer on the Mac OS X DVD requires some specific characteristics of Apple's custom EFI.
As expressed in discussion groups such as this, some people thought Apple did waste time in striking back at Psystar, but choosing if and when to strike is entirely Apple's prerogative.
Quote:
Having said that, using the OS on a non-Apple box violates Apple's License Agreement with the user.
Put another way, installing/copying Mac OS X onto a non-Apple computer does not conform to the EULA. If the user doesn't have a different bona fide license to perform such an install, then it may be illegal and Apple could rightfully pursue and possibly win a legal action against them. Whether it would be worth Apple's while to pursue legal action is another question.
Quote:
You should only install such software for research and educational purposes and not for running your business.
An installation for such limited purposes as you describe might not be allowed under the law either, depending on the country you're in and how well you can shuck and jive. For instance, defensible "research and educational purposes" might only include studying how to use and support Mac OS X, not the use of Mac OS X as a platform for writing your term paper in English class.
Are you an authority on the contents and intellectual property ownership of the code used in the EFi-X dongle and the EFI used in Apple's computers? I'll bet a fair smudgeon that Apple uses a custom EFI and that the installer on the Mac OS X DVD requires some specific characteristics of Apple's custom EFI.
As expressed in discussion groups such as this, some people thought Apple did waste time in striking back at Psystar, but choosing if and when to strike is entirely Apple's prerogative.
Put another way, installing/copying Mac OS X onto a non-Apple computer does not conform to the EULA. If the user doesn't have a different bona fide license to perform such an install, then it may be illegal and Apple could rightfully pursue and possibly win a legal action against them. Whether it would be worth Apple's while to pursue legal action is another question.
An installation for such limited purposes as you describe might not be allowed under the law either, depending on the country you're in and how well you can shuck and jive. For instance, defensible "research and educational purposes" might only include studying how to use and support Mac OS X, not the use of Mac OS X as a platform for writing your term paper in English class.
I've worked on many hobby projects and bought many hobby kits and I'm familiar with the law when it comes to creating and sharing code. Apple does not have any authority in chasing after anyone that creates middleware such as EFi-X. The problem arises when someone does something like Psystar. You can create code or hardware that allows OS X to run on any hardware and Apple won't have a leg to stand on in court. However, if you modify the OS X code and sell the modified code for profit then you have a problem, or if you create a bundle and sell it as a Mac compatible hardware, thereby riding Apple's success, you'll also have a problem and Apple will hunt you down even if you don't have a registered company.
Look at the iPhone as the perfect example, hackers do not provide you with the modified code to install on your iPhone, that would be illegal. Instead they give you the software that modifies the code on your iPhone, and that software is completely legal although it was made to modify Apple's copyrighted code. You can post and use that code for experimentation and educational purposes but you can't legally use it for business.
You watch and see, Apple cannot argue the EFi-X and if they try to take this case to court they'll lose it. The best they can do is give them a big bag of money.
The first two lines of the link you supplied explains what I was saying exactly
Fair use is a doctrine in United States copyright law that allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders, such as use for scholarship or review.
I've worked on many hobby projects and bought many hobby kits and I'm familiar with the law when it comes to creating and sharing code. Apple does not have any authority in chasing after anyone that creates middleware such as EFi-X.
I was inquiring whether you were an authority on such topics as what the EFi-X dongle actually does, what the Mac OS X boot loader looks for in the EFI. For example, you've not addressed whether EFi-X violates any copyright.
Quote:
Look at the iPhone as the perfect example, hackers do not provide you with the modified code to install on your iPhone, that would be illegal. Instead they give you the software that modifies the code on your iPhone, and that software is completely legal although it was made to modify Apple's copyrighted code. You can post and use that code for experimentation and educational purposes but you can't legally use it for business.
It might be illegal to provide the jailbreak. The legality hasn't been tested.
As mentioned previously, "research and educational" purposes might only be defensible in so far as one is learning how to use and support iPhone technology. Any other use, such as personal use, would go beyond "fair use."
Quote:
The first two lines of the link you supplied explains what I was saying exactly
Fair use is a doctrine in United States copyright law that allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders, such as use for scholarship or review.
"Scholarship or review" doesn't seem to describe what the EFi-X proponents in this discussion seem to be clamoring for. And I believe courts have also upheld licensing restrictions that many people would characterize as limiting fair use.
I was inquiring whether you were an authority on such topics as what the EFi-X dongle actually does, what the Mac OS X boot loader looks for in the EFI. For example, you've not addressed whether EFi-X violates any copyright.
It might be illegal to provide the jailbreak. The legality hasn't been tested.
As mentioned previously, "research and educational" purposes might only be defensible in so far as one is learning how to use and support iPhone technology. Any other use, such as personal use, would go beyond "fair use."
Not illegal to provide a jailbreak because, it's the user's responsibility not the provider's.
Quote:
"Scholarship or review" doesn't seem to describe what the EFi-X proponents in this discussion seem to be clamoring for. And I believe courts have also upheld licensing restrictions that many people would characterize as limiting fair use.
Doesn't matter.
Give it up already, you lost, thanks to you!!
Anyway, wait and see. Apple may find a smart way for SL to cut-out EFi-X but it won't happen in a court room.
Not illegal to provide a jailbreak because, it's the user's responsibility not the provider's.
Doesn't matter.
You clearly wouldn't know if it mattered and jailbreaking an iPhone may not be so similar to the EFi-X issue as you'd like to think. For example, the question of what the dongle is and does has not been answered--at least not to my knowledge in this forum.
Quote:
Give it up already, you lost, thanks to you!!
Anyway, wait and see. Apple may find a smart way for SL to cut-out EFi-X but it won't happen in a court room.
Yes, Wikipedia is a highly cited reference in the field of law. Even more so than Black's dictionary.
Regardless, if you have even a modicum of patience, you might read section 7. "Common misunderstandings":
* Any use that seems fair is fair use.
* Noncommercial use is invariably fair.
* Strict adherence to fair use protects you from being sued.
* ...binding agreements such as contracts or license agreements may take precedence over fair use rights.
* If you're selling for profit, it's not fair use.
...a midrange tower and I *swear* I won't buy a competitor's hardware. I *like* your hardware. I just want something I can upgrade that doesn't cost a bazillion dollars.
Comments
http://www.engadget.com/2008/12/12/e...rt-mac-clones/
EFi-X has stopped, it would seem:
http://www.engadget.com/2008/12/12/e...rt-mac-clones/
Only the machines people thought were built as clones. The EFI-X will still be available, you just need to build your own machine like someone did:
http://www.engadget.com/2008/12/12/e...ents/16087893/
You will notice he says the same thing people keep saying over and over. He wants something more than a Mini, less than a Mac Pro but the iMac is out of the question so there's only the DIY option left.
Only the machines people thought were built as clones. The EFI-X will still be available, you just need to build your own machine like someone did:
http://www.engadget.com/2008/12/12/e...ents/16087893/
You will notice he says the same thing people keep saying over and over. He wants something more than a Mini, less than a Mac Pro but the iMac is out of the question so there's only the DIY option left.
Would it be possible to put that chip into an older Mac and bring it up to date? I would like to use Leopard (Snow Leopard) on my 800 MHz G4. (You can tell that I am 'technically challenged'.)
If someone sold plans to build a Hackintosh using the EFI-X chip, would that be illegal?
What if they just put those plans on a blog and didn't get paid for it? Would that be illegal?
It shows an underlying desire by a larger and larger segment of the population to have the Apple experience without paying for Apple hardware. The halo works.
Eventually Apple may choose to reel them in with cheaper hardware options, license hardware production to a third party (like HP) or (highly-unlikely) license the OS to other OEMs.
The commodity players out there only have Windows?and it's clearly becoming less and less desirable as their market gets more and more hyper competitive. Netbooks have eaten everyone's lunch in year one ? what happens next year when things get more economically challenging?
All the balls really seem in Apple's court. Let's hope they capitalize on them.
The more combinations of hardware that Apple have to support, the worse will be the experience for all. Streamlined design is good for quality.
If someone sold plans to build a Hackintosh using the EFI-X chip, would that be illegal?
What if they just put those plans on a blog and didn't get paid for it? Would that be illegal?
No, of course not. Selling plans would be stupid, though, as it's dead simple to build a computer that is Mac-compatible.
If someone sold plans to build a Hackintosh using the EFI-X chip, would that be illegal?
What if they just put those plans on a blog and didn't get paid for it? Would that be illegal?
Yes, if the plans included instructions on how to build the EFi-X dongle and if Apple wanted to pursue the matter, I'd suggest Apple would have very little difficulty arguing (successfully) in court to have the information taken down. Aiding and abetting in the commission of a crime is also a crime.
I love MacOS X. Windows and Linux can't touch it. Heck, they try to mimic it to no avail.
But Apple the computer? Whatever.
$700 Canadian gets me a low end MacMini with NO DVD burner and a bare minimum of a computer.
You need about $1300 for a decent Mac.
On the other hand, $500 can buy me a refurbished PC with a couple GBs of RAM, decent memory, DVD Lightscribe burner and a lot of goodies. I'd sacrifice my beloved MacOS X but I'd get a lot of bang for my buck.
If Apple wants to stop the clones, make a consumer friendly computer.
C'mon, a decent $500 Canadian iMac with DVD burner can't be that hard.
As for quality. I'm happy in a Chevy instead of a Mercedes. A lot of people are. If Apple takes that attitude with its computers, the clones will die down.
My nickel,
Frank D.
yes, agree but when Jobs said that Apple didn't know how to make a computer that costs $500 that isn't a heap of junk...
he missed a piece out....
the bit about Apple making $300 !
No, of course not. Selling plans would be stupid, though, as it's dead simple to build a computer that is Mac-compatible.
Not dead simple for someone who's "technically challenged". But I probably could do it with some direction.
What about my other question? Could an older G4 be updated using EFI-X?
You want a cheaper hardware solution? Go buy a PC and run Windows or Linux on it. The only business Apple needs is the premium end of the market. If you're not part of that demographic, that's just tough.
Much of the $400-Dell segment of the market would love to run OS X. That doesn't mean Apple has to make them happy. Standards are standards. Apple wants to make a net profit. Dealing at the low end of the market will not only dilute the Apple brand, it will also result in lower margins.
And the way to deal with these clone makers and copycats is to just keep litigating, and they can fight this war on several fronts at the same time. They're very good at that. And more power to them.
If Apple does decide to offer a netbook or midrange tower solution, be prepared to pay on the same scale as you would pay for any other product. Twice the price for twice the computing experience. As it should be.
Would it be possible to put that chip into an older Mac and bring it up to date? I would like to use Leopard (Snow Leopard) on my 800 MHz G4. (You can tell that I am 'technically challenged'.)
If someone sold plans to build a Hackintosh using the EFI-X chip, would that be illegal?
What if they just put those plans on a blog and didn't get paid for it? Would that be illegal?
The EFI-X chip and Hackintosh are not illegal to download or install. And posting the code is not illegal either, if so Apple would have wasted no time in serving a C&D like they've done before for cases which were illegal, Psystar.
Having said that, using the OS on a non-Apple box violates Apple's License Agreement with the user. You should only install such software for research and educational purposes and not for running your business. On the flip-side, these agreements can mean many things, for example, when Safari for Windows was released, according to the Agreement you can only install it on an Apple box running Apple's OS! Another example, according to Microsoft's license agreement, if you do not agree with the license you can return Windows for a full refund, yet no one is willing to take Windows back, checkout this website.
What are the would be cloners selling? they are selling reasonable, and somewhat expandable towers. Make a mac mini that is 2x the height, and uses desktop HDDs (2 slots), desktop ram, and PCI express x16 graphics and sell it for $800-1200.
If I want 2 24 inch displays for things like writing iphone apps, tasks that are real estate pigs, but not necessarily resource hogs:, don't make me buy an 8 core mac pro!
And heres another point, How dare Apple charge $3000+ for a "professional" product that fails to support SLI for the 2 high end video card options.
Make the Core i7 Xeon for their Mac Pro Line.
Make a Desktop from this column off Intel's product sheet:
http://www.intel.com/products/proces...e2duo+tab_spec
Set up a Mid-tower structure that hits the E8400, E8500 and E8600 Processors.
You could extend their viability for later products by moving future Mac minis to support those CPUs as the next series of Mid-tower systems moves up to the QuadCore:
http://www.intel.com/products/proces...ifications.htm
Then after that move the Mid-tower up to the Core i7 baseline:
http://www.intel.com/products/proces...ifications.htm
Set their price equal to the iMac lineup.
People with pre-existing LCD Monitors will buy the Mid-tower while others will buy the iMac.
The Mac Pro market won't be compromised and the Mac mini will steadily improve while being enough for a lot of business users and not enough for gamers or professional users needing more beef.
The trick is to make sure that they stagger the CPU/motherboard structure to keep that consistency as Nehalem moves forward and gets replaced.
The Mid-towers will have the advantage of expandability and GPU options not open to the iMac and thus make them more attractive for that mid-tier user/gamer/developer/college student who isn't interested in a Laptop--or needs a desktop to compliment their portable needs.
Okay, since you asked for it .. you are a dimwit.
I mean look at what you *just* wrote above. You say two things (Apple hardware is overpriced and not any better than any other hardware). Both of these can be easily refuted with the facts, i.e. - you are "wrong." (look it up if you don't know that word)
You also use extensive hyperbole, (get out the dictionary again) which is the mark of an amateur thinker. (Apple hardware is not just overpriced it's "ridiculously" overpriced, Apple hardware is not even "remotely" better quality.)
Success! This is hard-core dimwit talk.
Dimwit or not, he's got a point.
Design aside (and it is great design, but some people simply don't care), Macs are using same drives, memory modules, CPUs, graphics cards as other PCs. If info I've picked up somewhere is correct, motherboards for Macs are made by Foxcon, one of the biggest manufacturers of PC components. I wonder if Mac motherboards are at all different from same chipset motherboards Foxcon is making for PC brands.
Even if they have separate production line, with different design layout... question remains if quality is any different.
The EFI-X chip and Hackintosh are not illegal to download or install. And posting the code is not illegal either, if so Apple would have wasted no time in serving a C&D like they've done before for cases which were illegal, Psystar.
Are you an authority on the contents and intellectual property ownership of the code used in the EFi-X dongle and the EFI used in Apple's computers? I'll bet a fair smudgeon that Apple uses a custom EFI and that the installer on the Mac OS X DVD requires some specific characteristics of Apple's custom EFI.
As expressed in discussion groups such as this, some people thought Apple did waste time in striking back at Psystar, but choosing if and when to strike is entirely Apple's prerogative.
Having said that, using the OS on a non-Apple box violates Apple's License Agreement with the user.
Put another way, installing/copying Mac OS X onto a non-Apple computer does not conform to the EULA. If the user doesn't have a different bona fide license to perform such an install, then it may be illegal and Apple could rightfully pursue and possibly win a legal action against them. Whether it would be worth Apple's while to pursue legal action is another question.
You should only install such software for research and educational purposes and not for running your business.
An installation for such limited purposes as you describe might not be allowed under the law either, depending on the country you're in and how well you can shuck and jive. For instance, defensible "research and educational purposes" might only include studying how to use and support Mac OS X, not the use of Mac OS X as a platform for writing your term paper in English class.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
Not dead simple for someone who's "technically challenged". But I probably could do it with some direction.
What about my other question? Could an older G4 be updated using EFI-X?
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "updated," but the EFI-X dongle probably wouldn't do anything if you plugged it into a PPC Mac.
Are you an authority on the contents and intellectual property ownership of the code used in the EFi-X dongle and the EFI used in Apple's computers? I'll bet a fair smudgeon that Apple uses a custom EFI and that the installer on the Mac OS X DVD requires some specific characteristics of Apple's custom EFI.
As expressed in discussion groups such as this, some people thought Apple did waste time in striking back at Psystar, but choosing if and when to strike is entirely Apple's prerogative.
Put another way, installing/copying Mac OS X onto a non-Apple computer does not conform to the EULA. If the user doesn't have a different bona fide license to perform such an install, then it may be illegal and Apple could rightfully pursue and possibly win a legal action against them. Whether it would be worth Apple's while to pursue legal action is another question.
An installation for such limited purposes as you describe might not be allowed under the law either, depending on the country you're in and how well you can shuck and jive. For instance, defensible "research and educational purposes" might only include studying how to use and support Mac OS X, not the use of Mac OS X as a platform for writing your term paper in English class.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
I've worked on many hobby projects and bought many hobby kits and I'm familiar with the law when it comes to creating and sharing code. Apple does not have any authority in chasing after anyone that creates middleware such as EFi-X. The problem arises when someone does something like Psystar. You can create code or hardware that allows OS X to run on any hardware and Apple won't have a leg to stand on in court. However, if you modify the OS X code and sell the modified code for profit then you have a problem, or if you create a bundle and sell it as a Mac compatible hardware, thereby riding Apple's success, you'll also have a problem and Apple will hunt you down even if you don't have a registered company.
Look at the iPhone as the perfect example, hackers do not provide you with the modified code to install on your iPhone, that would be illegal. Instead they give you the software that modifies the code on your iPhone, and that software is completely legal although it was made to modify Apple's copyrighted code. You can post and use that code for experimentation and educational purposes but you can't legally use it for business.
You watch and see, Apple cannot argue the EFi-X and if they try to take this case to court they'll lose it. The best they can do is give them a big bag of money.
The first two lines of the link you supplied explains what I was saying exactly
Fair use is a doctrine in United States copyright law that allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders, such as use for scholarship or review.
I've worked on many hobby projects and bought many hobby kits and I'm familiar with the law when it comes to creating and sharing code. Apple does not have any authority in chasing after anyone that creates middleware such as EFi-X.
I was inquiring whether you were an authority on such topics as what the EFi-X dongle actually does, what the Mac OS X boot loader looks for in the EFI. For example, you've not addressed whether EFi-X violates any copyright.
Look at the iPhone as the perfect example, hackers do not provide you with the modified code to install on your iPhone, that would be illegal. Instead they give you the software that modifies the code on your iPhone, and that software is completely legal although it was made to modify Apple's copyrighted code. You can post and use that code for experimentation and educational purposes but you can't legally use it for business.
It might be illegal to provide the jailbreak. The legality hasn't been tested.
As mentioned previously, "research and educational" purposes might only be defensible in so far as one is learning how to use and support iPhone technology. Any other use, such as personal use, would go beyond "fair use."
The first two lines of the link you supplied explains what I was saying exactly
Fair use is a doctrine in United States copyright law that allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders, such as use for scholarship or review.
"Scholarship or review" doesn't seem to describe what the EFi-X proponents in this discussion seem to be clamoring for. And I believe courts have also upheld licensing restrictions that many people would characterize as limiting fair use.
I was inquiring whether you were an authority on such topics as what the EFi-X dongle actually does, what the Mac OS X boot loader looks for in the EFI. For example, you've not addressed whether EFi-X violates any copyright.
It might be illegal to provide the jailbreak. The legality hasn't been tested.
As mentioned previously, "research and educational" purposes might only be defensible in so far as one is learning how to use and support iPhone technology. Any other use, such as personal use, would go beyond "fair use."
Not illegal to provide a jailbreak because, it's the user's responsibility not the provider's.
"Scholarship or review" doesn't seem to describe what the EFi-X proponents in this discussion seem to be clamoring for. And I believe courts have also upheld licensing restrictions that many people would characterize as limiting fair use.
Doesn't matter.
Give it up already, you lost, thanks to you!!
Anyway, wait and see. Apple may find a smart way for SL to cut-out EFi-X but it won't happen in a court room.
Not illegal to provide a jailbreak because, it's the user's responsibility not the provider's.
Doesn't matter.
You clearly wouldn't know if it mattered and jailbreaking an iPhone may not be so similar to the EFi-X issue as you'd like to think. For example, the question of what the dongle is and does has not been answered--at least not to my knowledge in this forum.
Give it up already, you lost, thanks to you!!
Anyway, wait and see. Apple may find a smart way for SL to cut-out EFi-X but it won't happen in a court room.
Yes, Wikipedia is a highly cited reference in the field of law. Even more so than Black's dictionary.
Regardless, if you have even a modicum of patience, you might read section 7. "Common misunderstandings":
* Any use that seems fair is fair use.
* Noncommercial use is invariably fair.
* Strict adherence to fair use protects you from being sued.
* ...binding agreements such as contracts or license agreements may take precedence over fair use rights.
* If you're selling for profit, it's not fair use.
...a midrange tower and I *swear* I won't buy a competitor's hardware. I *like* your hardware. I just want something I can upgrade that doesn't cost a bazillion dollars.
I second this.