New Clones

[Timotheos]

Im suprised no one has meantioned this yet: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/st...ectid=10504244

[khehr]

it is going to be sued out of the water. If in fact they can sell the machines, the users CAN'T install any Mac OS on them as outlined in the EULA. This was tried before, and the same thing will happen.

[Qion]

They better get sued so far up shit creek they have to close doors...

[nixgeek]

Would it even be worth suing them? They might just end up obliterating themselves to bankruptcy if this is their only business model. OSx86 is hard enough to get installed and maintained from what I've heard, even if the hardware matches what is somewhat inside the Intel Macs. No way that someone like Joe User who might want to buy a Mac but can't because he can't afford it is going to take the time to run a Hackintosh. Seems like it was doomed to fail from its inception.

[CaribbeanOS-X]

Hackintosh --- lol --- sue them!

More clones might equal more cracked versions of 10.5(watch for the rise of 10.5 torrents); leading to more vulnerabilities, in turn subjecting the people to malevolence that respect and appreciate the value of the proprietary Apple system. (Little Windows gremlins are already bored with sabotaging Vista... is that it?)

[Qion]

More clones might equal more cracked versions of 10.5(watch for the rise of 10.5 torrents); leading to more vulnerabilities, in turn subjecting the people to malevolence that respect and appreciate the value of the proprietary Apple system. (Little Windows gremlins are already bored with sabotaging Vista... is that it?)

This is exactly my sentiment as well. It's not that I want Apple to "go through the effort" of suing them, it's that a danger to the brand is a danger to the brand.

[MisterMe]

Would it even be worth suing them? ...

Yes. A company has a legal obligation to take reasonable measures to protect its property. If Apple allows this company to violate its EULA, then it will substantially weaken any future claims against others.

[nixgeek]

Yes. A company has a legal obligation to take reasonable measures to protect its property. If Apple allows this company to violate its EULA, then it will substantially weaken any future claims against others.

I understand that and I agree that they should, but my question was regarding the viability for Apple. Yes, Apple should sue them. But I wonder if this company is going to do most of the work of putting themselves out of business before Apple puts any effort and money into suing them out of existence, you know what I mean?

From the looks of it, this is just a crackpot company (and I'm from Miami....I should know! ). They are already claiming that Apple is a monopoly because of their tight integration with their own hardware and software. Personally, I don't see it this way and I don't think the rest of the market does either. Apple is only affecting its users, not affecting ALL computer users in the way that MS does. And from the looks of it, Apple users are mostly content with Apple having control of the hardware and software. If not, then they can easily switch to a PC and continue doing what they want. So I have to wonder if since this company is already doomed to failure, why should Apple bother wasting time litigating when all that might need to be done is a cease and desist letter?