All-in-One PCs

On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 19:53:06 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2016-02-25 03:46:41 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 18:14:39 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

But is it a EULA violation in spite of the Apple brand? You are
welcome to place bets but it is not within your competence to make a
binding decision.

there's no need to make a decision.

it's an eula violation if you run os x on a computer that's not
apple-branded, whose meaning is very, very clear.

Haw.

Wait until the lawyers get hold of it.

what for? it's clear as can be.

You really think I'm just being difficult, don't you?

looks that way.

how can anyone possibly claim that a computer cobbled together by a
third party is an apple-branded computer, particularly when hacks must
be done for mac os to even run?

The question is, is it Apple-branded or is it not? You want to claim
that it is not but, if you are right, what is the meaning of the
factory embossed logo on the case which holds it all together?

The damn case with the Apple logo prominent is obviously an Apple
branded CASE. That is all it is. It is by no stretch of the imagination
an 'Apple branded computer'.

Another bloody lawyer. :-(

Now will you two, or is it three or four, just cut this crap and kill
this never ending thread.

It will end. Just kill it if in the mean time you don't like it.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 23:48:54 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

But is it a EULA violation in spite of the Apple brand? You are
welcome to place bets but it is not within your competence to make a
binding decision.

there's no need to make a decision.

it's an eula violation if you run os x on a computer that's not
apple-branded, whose meaning is very, very clear.

Haw.

Wait until the lawyers get hold of it.

what for? it's clear as can be.

You really think I'm just being difficult, don't you?

looks that way.

how can anyone possibly claim that a computer cobbled together by a
third party is an apple-branded computer, particularly when hacks must
be done for mac os to even run?

The question is, is it Apple-branded or is it not?

the answer is without question, no.

You want to claim
that it is not but, if you are right, what is the meaning of the
factory embossed logo on the case which holds it all together?

it means that the *case* was made by apple. that's all.

stuffing a pc logic board inside an apple case is without question, not
an apple-branded computer. not even close.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 25 Feb 2016 06:24:37 GMT, Sandman wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

Eric Stevens:
I'm not so foolish or so inexperienced as to
pretend that it absolutely wouldn't stand a chance in a
court of law.

Sandman:
Yet here you are, arguing a definition that only has
relevancy in a legal context.

Eric Stevens:
Me? I'm not arguing a definition.

Sandman:
Incorrect:

"Nowhere that I can see does the license prevent anyone from
running Windows. The terms of the license apply only if one
chooses to run Apple software. If he chooses to run Apple
software (Hackintosh) he *will* be running it on an
"Apple-branded computer"."
/ Eric Stevens- 02/19/2016

So. As again you have to lie by misquoting what I said to put
yourself in an apparent position of proving me wrong. Note that: I
am calling you a liar.

I didn't just write the simple denial "Me? I'm not arguing a
definition" which is all that you have quoted (above). I actually

You did write exactly what I quoted above. The fact that you wrote even more
doesn't mean the quote is "misquoted" nor that I am a liar.

Tell the truth, **the whole truth**, and nothing but the truth. The
English courts had experience of people like you a l o n g time ago.

Indeed, it makes
*you* a liar for making in incorrect and explicit statement about my actions.

Eric Steven lie #1:
"again you have to lie"

Haw. That's a lie?

Eric Steven lie #2:
"...by misquoting"

That's not a lie either.

Your reputation precedes you.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 23:48:55 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

I would be more concerned about the nature of the branding carried by
Apple mother boards. Are they branded? Are they all branded?

apple doesn't sell logic boards separately so there's no branding as
would be with a computer, but they do have the apple logo and copyright
on them.

So they are branded.

If you understood the question and what I have previously written you
could have just answered 'yes'.

some of the chips on the logic board are apple-branded too. so what?

the branding of the individual parts isn't what matters. it's the
*final* *product*.

And where is the final product branded?

apple.

That's a 'where'?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 23:48:53 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

I would be more concerned about the nature of the branding carried by
Apple mother boards. Are they branded? Are they all branded?

apple doesn't sell logic boards separately so there's no branding as
would be with a computer, but they do have the apple logo and copyright
on them.

Well, there's a nospamism if there ever was one!

What do you think "branding" is?

Something that is "branded" is a product that is identifiable as
having been produced by a particular company.

that's why there's a logo on the logic board.

once again, you fail to read.

i didn't say there was no branding at all.

Yes you did. Right above.

nope.

i said "as would be with a computer". in other words, there is branding
but it's different.

I love to watch you wriggle around! What "other words" mean branding
is not branding?

i didn't say branding is not branding.

you're the wriggly one trying to twist things.

A computer is branded to show that it is made by a particular company.
A logic board is branded to show that is made by a particular company.
It's exactly the same.

nobody said otherwise.

What do you think the difference is? Smaller letters? Different
font?

whoosh

i said the branding of the
parts is not the same as that of a completed computer with regards to
the eula, which is what this is about.

You didn't say anything about the EULA.

the entire discussion has been about the eula, which clearly states
that mac os x is licensed for use only on an apple-branded computer.

eric is trying to claim that stuffing a pc logic board into a mac case
qualifies as an apple-branded computer. it does not.

No you didn't. You're adding that now as a means to twist away.

nope.

Only in your imagination.

nope. it's reality.

the eula specifies an apple-branded computer, not apple-branded parts.

What makes up an Apple-branded computer?

Are you saying that the Apple EULA permits the replacement of
Apple-branded parts with non-Apple parts?

replacing memory or the hard drive doesn't change the branding.

replacing the logic board with a pc logic board absolutely, without
question, does change the branding. it is no longer an apple-branded
computer.

It is no longer an Apple-branded Apple computer, but the EULA does not
require that it is.

it's now a hackintosh, although usually they're in generic pc
enclosures, not an apple case.


the branding of the parts does not matter. there are non-apple parts in
there too, including intel, nvidia, samsung and others.

Oh, so branded parts are not important? So if you order a logic board
for your Mac, but it's not branded as an Apple product, you wouldn't
care?

you can't order a logic board for a mac because apple doesn't sell them
to end users.

Now you've introduced a new "in other words": Apple selling direct to
end users.

http://www.welovemacs.com/aplobo.html
http://www.dvwarehouse.com/Mac-Pro-L...ds-c-5188.html

that's not apple selling them.

go to the apple store and as if you can buy just a logic board. they'll
tell you 'no'.

a lot of those places part out old computers. those are not necessarily
coming from apple.

not that it matters because that does not matter as far as the eula is
concerned.

logic boards are copyrightable and have a © with the year the board was
designed.

OK, I was wrong there.

yes you were.

Now you admit you are wrong about the rest.

nope, because i'm not wrong.

i am 100% correct that a hackintosh is not an apple-branded computer,
even if it's in an apple branded box. therefore it's an eula violation.

Neither is a Dell an Apple-branded computer. But, that's not what's
being discussed in this part of the thread.

actually it is what's being discussed.

Then go away into a corner and talk to yourself. We will all be much
happier.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2016-02-25 07:24:23 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 19:53:06 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2016-02-25 03:46:41 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 18:14:39 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

But is it a EULA violation in spite of the Apple brand? You are
welcome to place bets but it is not within your competence to make a
binding decision.

there's no need to make a decision.

it's an eula violation if you run os x on a computer that's not
apple-branded, whose meaning is very, very clear.

Haw.

Wait until the lawyers get hold of it.

what for? it's clear as can be.

You really think I'm just being difficult, don't you?

looks that way.

how can anyone possibly claim that a computer cobbled together by a
third party is an apple-branded computer, particularly when hacks must
be done for mac os to even run?

The question is, is it Apple-branded or is it not? You want to claim
that it is not but, if you are right, what is the meaning of the
factory embossed logo on the case which holds it all together?

The damn case with the Apple logo prominent is obviously an Apple
branded CASE. That is all it is. It is by no stretch of the imagination
an 'Apple branded computer'.

Another bloody lawyer. :-(

Now will you two, or is it three or four, just cut this crap and kill
this never ending thread.

It will end. Just kill it if in the mean time you don't like it.

Oh for crying out loud! Just take this Studebaker for a long ride.
https://cntryroses.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/img_3541.jpg

--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

I would be more concerned about the nature of the branding carried by
Apple mother boards. Are they branded? Are they all branded?

apple doesn't sell logic boards separately so there's no branding as
would be with a computer, but they do have the apple logo and copyright
on them.

So they are branded.

If you understood the question and what I have previously written you
could have just answered 'yes'.

some of the chips on the logic board are apple-branded too. so what?

the branding of the individual parts isn't what matters. it's the
*final* *product*.

And where is the final product branded?

apple.

That's a 'where'?

the 'where' is many places.

the fact that it's designed, manufactured and sold by apple is what
matters.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


What makes up an Apple-branded computer?

Are you saying that the Apple EULA permits the replacement of
Apple-branded parts with non-Apple parts?

replacing memory or the hard drive doesn't change the branding.

replacing the logic board with a pc logic board absolutely, without
question, does change the branding. it is no longer an apple-branded
computer.

It is no longer an Apple-branded Apple computer,

you finally have come to your senses.

but the EULA does not
require that it is.

yes it most certainly does require that.

you need not read more than the first few lines either:
http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/OSX1011.pdf
SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR OS X EL CAPITAN
For use on Apple-branded Systems

for the full details, refer to section 2, which specifically states os
x is licensed for apple-branded computers.

put simply: a hackintosh is an eula violation.

Whisky-dave wrote:
-hh wrote:
Whisky-dave wrote:
-hh wrote:
After reading many pages to see if there's anything actually
interesting being discussed,

I see that Eric Stevens wrote:
[...]
Me? ... All along I have been saying that
there is room for someone to argue a definition which conflicts with
the one that you nospam and Whisky-dave think should carry the day.
I'm not saying it's necessarily the right definition. But it's a
legitimate argument and it all hangs on the details of Apple's brand
practices.

If I understood correctly, the point of debate is if an
Apple case (or perhaps even more subsystems)

No the just the case as far as I know.

True enough, but I was purposefully painting with a broad brush.

No that's the blur tool, a broad brush is quite differnt ;-P

A broad's brush, is a brush owned or should we say branded as a brush
belonging to a north american women.

In the UK a broad's bush will be quite differnt. So beware of typo's

Humor attempt fail(s).


which contains
a clearly non-OEM third party PC motherboard could ... "could"
be potentially considered compliant with the EULA's notion of
what constitutes 'Apple branding' for compliance.

well it didn;t when he brought it, I'm not sure if it had a
logic board, HD or anything else.

Which again focusing on the pedantic minutia of these particular
specifics,

Whether or not it has a MAc PC or no mother board insiode a computer
case isn;t pedantic minutia, especailly if buying it.

Except for the part which was deliberate myopia, attempting to avoid the
broader points. Your motives are as transparent as a watercolor.


Well for instance if you're memory is 80ns (thinking of the
older macpluses I changed memeory for) and someone decided
that a cheaper PC moidule of 120ns will work and it doesn;t
is that Apples fault ?

Depends on who said a 120ns will work.

Of course..

If Apple's specs said
that a particular commodity spec 120ns stick meets their
requirements and it doesn't work, it is Apple's fault.

Depending on why the chip won't work of course not all 120ns will.
Thres parity enabled ECC non ECC and other variations of hardware.
Differtnt numbver of pins etc...

OTOH, if it was Joe Blow who said that you could ignore Apple's
specs for a 80ns part and use a 120ns instead, all consequences
are then Joe Blow's fault, not Apple's.

yes same as anything else.

Which illustrates that this was merely YA smokescreen attempt oo.


If Erics son want to put a acer board in a mac case that's up to him.
The Apple police won't turn up.

Your personal opinion, even though I happen to agree.


What if Apple decided to put code in ther which test the speed
and if it falls below 80 the chip is rejected ...

It is still "Documentation 101", regardless of what kind of
conceptual validation test it might be. Got any more rabbit holes
to try?

I'm not the one trying them.

I'll believe that when you start to actually discuss the topic broadly,
rather than to search out nuances which are beneath the general
legal / IP principles.


I don;t think Apple designed their cases to be non standard
so people couldn;t install PC parts. I thought they designed
it so their parts would fit in.

Probably so, but my main point was the pragmatism that some
old brain cells are niggling that their form factor might not
have been identical to that used by Windows PCs,

Well it isn't as far as I know.

Unless you've done an Intel motherboard swap in a late series PowerMac
to have knowledge, that claim is a useless one.


so its something
for the DIY'er to keep an eye out for ... ie, resist the
temptation to force it under a belief that it MUST fit.

Anfd even if they can get a PC motherboard into a Aple case it does not
make the resulting 'computer' an Apple computer or an Apple bramded computer.

Which merely means that you've _almost_ reached the starting point of the
'broad brush' topical conversation, even if you don't really know why.


-hh

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

Sandman:
You did write exactly what I quoted above. The fact that you wrote
even more doesn't mean the quote is "misquoted" nor that I am a
liar.

Tell the truth, **the whole truth**, and nothing but the truth. The
English courts had experience of people like you a l o n g time ago.

What I said above was the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Sandman:
Indeed, it makes *you* a liar for making in incorrect and explicit
statement about my actions.

"again you have to lie"

Haw. That's a lie?

Indeed.

Sandman:
"...by misquoting"

That's not a lie either.

Incorrect. I did no misquoting, and you claimed I did. It is true that you
could merely be mistaken, but you have lost the benefit of a doubt many years
ago.

--
Sandman