KellyKelly Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 peoples are rude these days Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qbattersby Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 Perhaps seeking sponsorship from companies in the community in exchange for advertising time etc.? $1000 is nonsense essentially for purchasing a Mac for video editing, etc. This equation needs to be rethought, I think your post should have been how can I raise some money for some real machines. Hope that sparked an idea for you. I am in marketing/advertising if you need a few pointers on ways to make this happen send me a message and I will give you my email. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSn1™ Posted January 27, 2008 Share Posted January 27, 2008 I agree and not just that, you are using for a business which is worse than using a hackintosh for personal use. I agree. If it is for a business, better go for Mac Mini than for hackintosh pcs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martiniman Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 I think in Europe Apple won't get far in Court when: You put the hackintosh in an old Apple Case When you use an official Apple sticker to brand your mac You bought a legal copy of OS X You inform Nelie Smit Kroes of illegal market protection by Apple You inform the judge of rediculous holes in Apples product line You ask Angela Markel to tackle the environment-unfriendlyness of Apple's non-upgradable machines. Pick your option, one might be enough Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atka Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 Has a EULA ever held up in court even in the US? As far as I know they haven't because companies are afraid they wouldn't hold up and that would be the end. I mean a EULA is not the same as a contract there was no signing involved just opening up a package and installing the software, also you can't read the EULA before you purchase the software and once it is purchased you have to open the software to read it and then it can't be returned. I mean I know this isn't a good idea for a company and Apple would rattle the sabers for sure but do they really have a leg to stand on if you legally purchased the software? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martiniman Posted February 13, 2008 Share Posted February 13, 2008 Has there Überhaupt been any case in court (preferably in Europe) where someone lost because of violating an Eula? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azurael Posted February 13, 2008 Share Posted February 13, 2008 Well, if your a television company. Surely you must have some sort of legal aid within the nearby. Ask them if running an illegal OS is legal. I mean, it seems pretty obvious to me that having a hacked OS that is designed solely to run on specific Apple signed hardware, run on a rigged PC of sorts doesn't seem legal. Then deploying them for use within a business seems even more less legal. I mean, you accept those EULAs and TOSs, and other licenses for a reason. Which doesn't include the fact that as a business you have to buy some many kinds of licenses for your business. Anyone who has ever used Windows should know all about that. Even think about the entire business strategy of Apple and Microsoft. Apple doesn't make the majority of their money from their software. They make it from the immense profits of hardware. Which of course allows their OS and general software to be sold for pretty cheap. Which of course is the exact opposite of Microsoft, who take almost al (if not all) of their profits from software and very little from hardware. Hence why a copy of 2000 Pro, XP pro, and Vista ultimate and other versions are so massively expensive. Of course the homeish versions are expensive aswell when compared to Apples OS price. With all that in mind, it seems pretty obvious that running a hacked OSX on a unlicensed machine in a business environment would definitely be illegal. As for the comical comment about "apple labeled" things, I'll help clear things that in most License Agreements companies often will say their entire name in the begin and then afters say, "which shall be written as ..." or as Apple does, " ("Apple") which of course allows them to simply say Apple instead of Apple Inc everytime. Here is Some of the LA And My favourite part of the license. If you want to read the LA in its entirety and/or others go here http://www.apple.com/legal/sla/ Hope that answers any confusions. Well, actually, it doesn't. I don't believe that EULA would stand up in the courts of most European countries. I think the term requiring installation only on Apple labelled hardware would be deemed anticompetitive, and the term preventing reverse engineering means nothing in those countries where reverse engineering is legal for the purpose of allowing interoperability would get lauged out of court. I remember reading a whitepaper a few years back that stated that a large percentage of EULAs looked over in the study were utterly unworkable and never would have stood up if tested in a court of law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts