Yeah, right! If the EULA said that Apple reserves the right to sell PCs with OSX preinstalled, Rutigliano would have a case. But the EULA goes way beyond that.

Davide might want to read Apple's EULA just a wee bit more closely than he apprently has ...

"Apple's Software License Agreement for Mac OS X explicitly states: This License allows you to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time. You agree not to install, use or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-labeled computer, *** or to enable others to do so. ***"

I think he may fall afoul of the "enable others to do so" part as his device knowingly allows others to run OSX on non-Apple brnaded hardware.

@DaveyJJ

You seem to be confusing a license agreement with a law. If you aren't running MacOS X you aren't bound by its EULA.

Art Studios Entertainment Media is completely safe provided they don't have any copies of MacOS X in use. However, given their claims of compatibility it seems highly likely that at least one person there has tried to install MacOS X.

Very interesting article. However, the headline appears to have been written by an editor or someone else that was not the author of the article, since nowhere in the article does it say that it is legal to run OS X on PCs with EFI-X dongle. Saying that selling the EFI-X dongle is legal does NOT mean that it is legal to run OS X on PCs using it.

This is similar to the fact that it is legal to distribute, say, Mac the Ripper. But it is not legal to use Mac the Ripper to brute-force a password on a protected computer. Owning a tool is not at all equal to using a tool in an illegal manner, and that's important to understand. Whomever wrote the headline for this article does not understand this distinction.

Trevor

What a bad title and a bad conclusion. The device is legal. They are not selling a computer loaded with Mac OS X. The user will have to install Mac OS X himself and that breaks the EULA (the legality of EULA notwithstanding).


Davide himself already said:
“It is possible that we will go to court with Apple, but most likely *supporting* them, in case we ever find out that someone is selling PCs with our module installed. Selling a computer that can boot OSX is a unique right that only Apple has. And we enforce it.”

That means, they will help Apple to sue companies using their module in their computer so that it can be booted with Mac OS X. How can that be interpreted as running OS X on PCs with EFI-X dongle being legal? I suggest the author double check his conclusion with Apple legal, or is double checking facts passé now in journalism?

Doesn't the EULA only apply to purchases of the Mac OS X license? If these guys are not using Mac OS X, then I don't think they woudl be bound by the license. You can't be bound by a contract to which you are not a party.

Actually, you CAN be held responsible for a contract which you are not a party to. There's a legal concept called 'contributory infringement'. Under this concept, if you help someone to violate a contract, you can be found guilty - even though you never signed the contract. So if the EULA is a valid contract (I said 'if', so don't jump all over me), and you help people to break it, you're guilty, as well (Apple would have to prove that you knew about the contract, but since this guy has a big mouth, that's easy).

That, of course, begs the question of why in the world he thinks Apple is going to be happy about him selling a device which allows people to run OS X on PCs when Apple doesn't allow it in the first place. His reasoning is really bizarre.