Russian clone maker the latest to take on Apple
RussianMac is the latest company to release a Mac clone and test Apple's resolve to stop companies from selling its operating system.
On its Web site, RussianMac says that a full version of Mac OS X Leopard comes pre-installed on its computers. The company also confirms that the operating system is able to receive automatic system updates from Apple once installed.
This is where Apple seems to have the clone makers over a barrel. Apple's Mac OS X End User License Agreement (EULA) clearly forbids anyone from installing the software on hardware not sold by Apple. This effectively closes the door on companies determined to make a Mac clone.
However, RussianMac maintains that it does not violate the terms of the EULA agreement because the operating system was purchased directly from Apple. That still doesn't get around the condition of installing it on an Apple-branded machine.
Legit or not, it is a popular argument. Germany-based PearC is using that defense to sell Mac clone computers in that country.
Of course, in the U.S., Psystar is the case everyone has heard about. The company first made headlines in April 2008 when it released its first Mac clone with Mac OS X pre-installed.
Apple filed a lawsuit against Psystar in July 2008, claiming the company was violating copyright and software licensing agreements.
The legal battle is ongoing between Psystar and Apple. The two are set to meet in court on November 9. Most legal experts expect Apple to ultimately prevail in the case.
Because the laws in each country are different, it's unclear whether Apple could be successful in Russia or Germany.
Jim Dalrymple has followed Apple and the Mac industry for the last 15 years, first as part of MacCentral and then in various positions at Macworld. A guitar player for 20 years, Jim also writes about the professional audio market, examining the best ways to write and record songs on a Macintosh with Logic Pro and Pro Tools. Jim is a member of the CNET Blog Network and is not an employee of CNET. 
How does this even effect the end user? If Apple is really better then Microsoft they can handle larger amount of system configurations.
If anything this benefits users with more affordable prices I find it absolutely amazing that Apple users are more about worried about making sure Apple makes most money possible rather then having competition and a fair price.
"Everyone seems to be trying to make a quick buck off of someone else's hard work."
Apple got paid for their hardwork these are legit paid for licenses. So your point is immediately invalidated.
Apple users are the only people I know who are more concerned about Apple making as much money possible then having competition and a more reasonable price.
"Everyone seems to be trying to make a quick buck off of someone else's hard work. Instead of cheating and stealing and violating contracts, why don't they put their energies towards something more productive?"
Apple gets paid the $129 for the OSX licenses so really they are being compensated. It isn't like the company is stealing Apple's cases they pay for the hardware that go in the machines in well. As far as I see this is all perfectly normal for healthy competition.
But no we will continue to attack Microsoft for requesting users to follow legit licensing agreements or input a serial once.
[CNET editors' note: Prohibited content deleted.]
I'll acknowledge they are their I haven't had the time to check them out yet.
@Perry
I'll acknowledge they are their I haven't had the time to check them out yet."
No problems friend. Have a great evening.
Mac OS X is based on NeXTSTEP and FreeBSD, not LInux.
@monkeyfun14
Violating the EULA is violating the EULA is violating the EULA. That's the facts. The end user agrees to that license the moment they pay for the software. That is the fact. If you do not see this, then you are more dense than I imagined and you are an unethical person by nature.
Not unless the EULA violates the law, which is what Psystar and PearC are alleging. EULAs cannot put undue restrictions on trade, for example.
Psystar argues that restrictive portions of Apple's EULA should be declared void by the courts.
It would help legitimacy if PearC and Psystar had made that claim before attempting to sell machines with OSX preinstalled and only making a claim after being taken to court. Apple put into the EULA these restrictions in a very clear manner. It's not something that would ever come as a surprise.
The lawsuits aren't about legality in this case, they're just a last ditch effort to make a buck.
Are you just angry because you weren't smart enough to buy a Mac?
@ the rest of you Apple hating gamers with no life other than the one you spend on your mom's smelly sofa in the basement: (from "Armageddon") "Russian spaceship, American spaceship, ALL PARTS are made in TAIWAN!" It's not the parts, its the quality and care that goes into putting them together. Apple simply wants to make sure that the operating system doesn't get blamed for problems that are caused by inferior craftsmanship (mass production). Not unreasonable by any stretch of the imagination.
@perry and kcoham. So, are you two employeed by apple or are you the president and vice president of the apple fanclub?"
I am an Apple stockholder and the primary reason I get an account to post on CNET was to counter the calumny posted here by trolls.
Neither. I'm a thinking person that doesn't like to see anyone's intellectual property leveraged for someone else's personal gain, especially when they have agreed not to that very thing.
I post on here for the same reason as Perry does, and have said so numerous times. The only difference is that I'm not a share holder of any company.
Personally I think it is a shame Apple is allowed to put such restrictions on its software. It is a separately sold product, if I'm paying for it I'll use it as I please.
Violating the EULA is just another way of stealing. It's that simple.
why doesn't apple make a less powered Mac ... less than 2Ghz processor with a mainstream graphics card ... common sense says they will make a huge profit in the long run!
Is it because Apple must keep its image as "We only make Higher end computers for the wealthy, we are too good to make anything less"
You think it would be a smart business move to compete with scores of cheap PC manufacturers for very marginal profits? It makes as much sense as BMW trying to compete with KIA in $10-12K range.
This tired old argument that Apple computers are only for the wealthy is simply not true. I know lots of people that are not, by any definition wealthy that chose Macintoshes. I, for one, have never been wealthy, ever, and I've owned Macintoshes since 1998.
They do use a mainstream graphics card as well. They've used ATI and NVIDIA cards for many years.
I'm sure the CFO of Apple has made a study of making a computer like you describe and found it not viable. Put aside your personal vendetta, jealousy, or whatever it is and think logically for a second. Besides, they may actually have something like that in the pipe. I sincerely doubt they will, the segment is too tight.
Considering how many people want to buy a mac (ya ya blah blah there is a lot = P ) why not make a SLIGHTLY cheaper than Macbook laptop, with SLIGHTLY weaker stats??
"" Intel Core 2 Duo 1.8GHz, Integrated Graphics card, Skip the Aluminum ..... for $799 ...... and call it .... here's the best part...... MACBOOK-JOE """
what!? no taker!? whatever = P
[CNET editors' note: Personal attack deleted.]
A KIA can out work a BMW in some of the harshest environments in the world. So i think it is relevant that BMW should compete with all not just the elite car manufacturers.
Well, it doesn't matter now.
Bill Gates himself suggested that Apple should license Mac OS and its ROM when the Mac was introduced in 1984. He knew Mac OS was not going to be a threat to Microsoft back then.
Apple finally allowed clones in 1995 (with Radius, Umax, Motorola, etc., all making legal Mac clones). To bad for them, Microsoft introduced Windows 95 later in the year which absolutely demolished the Macs.
Facing strong competition from Windows 95, Mac sales dropped by 50% by 1997. When System 8 came out in the summer of 1997, clone licensing effectively died with it.
When you price a product so that exactly ZERO of the world's manufacturers would license your product, that's BY DEFINITION is *not* "fair price".
You don't know what you are talking about. I was referring to a historical situation in which Apple was already licensing it's Mac OS to other companies that were making Macintosh clones. When the time came for the license to be renewed, the clone makers refused to pay a fair price for the license. Those very clone makers had damaged Apple's hardware business so much that they had caused a severe dip in the market. The clone makers were trying to get something for nothing (or next to nothing). Steve Jobs actually called the many times to see if they would reconsider, they refused ever time. Now, in 2009, you have manufacturers standing in line wanting to license Mac OS X. With what happened in the 1990s, it is no wonder that Apple (which has historically been a hardware company first) would be cautious about the prospect.
Windows 95 was a complete joke. It was a rip off of the Mac OS look and feel and was also a technological disaster. As an example, do you remember "plug and pray"? That was Windows 95.
Then why did Apple reject HP's and Dell's request to license OSX? It did not even consider licensing it.
Linux can run more hardware with no extra drivers needed than Windows can. That means it can handle more platforms than Windows before worrying about looking for and installing extra drivers. Now, use a distro like Ubuntu which will search for and install proprietary drivers as well and that's close to 100% of all hardware configurations without the need to search for and install a driver.
The problem has never been that Windows is trying to fit every hardware configuration out there, it's that Windows isn't trying to fit everyone, everyone's trying to fit Windows.
As for me, I'll run my copy of OS X in my toaster if I please, Cupertino be dammed.
Microsoft's model is to be a monopoly in computer operating system
Apple's is not !
Dell, HP and those folk will hop onboard the OS X train
that will make a dent in Apple
Why would you want to see Dell and HP (who can't make a decent machine if their collective lives depended on it) put a dent in Apple? Why would you want to see them kill the golden goose as it were?
Saying that you can go buy OS X off the shelf and install it on any computer you want is like saying you can go buy an upgrade version of Windows and install it on any computer you want, even if you don't have a license for a previous version of Windows. Should I be able to go get an upgrade version of Windows and install it on my Macbook? The answer is no because the license for the upgrade version says you have to have a previous version.
This applies to all software. Manufacturers sell upgrade versions to owners of previous versions to let the users get the latest version of the software while making a little more money in the process. Usually, manufacturers also sell the full version seperately. Apple has decided not to do this.
Why aren't people compaining that they can't buy Windows Mobile seperately? What if I want to try to install it on my iPhone (or any other device for that matter)? Microsoft doesn't make that available seperately but nobody complains about that (probably because nobody would want to install it on any other device).
I personally would like to install OS X on my Dell (legally), but I think it's my place to tell Apple how to sell their products just because that's what I want.
- by hawkeyeaz1 May 22, 2009 8:44 AM PDT
- It still isn't a violation of the EULA (End User License Agreement) when the EULA is agreed to (and intended for) the *end user (thus the 'EU in EULA)*. PearPC, RussinaMAC, Pystar are distributors, not the end user. The license is agreed to by the end user when they click "agree".
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(51 Comments)