The Rise and Fall of OpenCore Computer: A Cautionary Tale of Copyright Law and Intellectual Property

On December 15, 2009, a California judge issued a permanent injunction that prohibited Psystar from selling their commercial Hackintoshes, also known as open computers that illegally sell with Apple's Mac OS X software. The incident was seen as a stark lesson in copyright law, highlighting the importance of respecting intellectual property rights. Unfortunately, this is not an isolated incident, and the story of OpenCore Computer serves as a warning to companies and individuals alike.

The concept of Hackintoshes began as a community-driven effort to run Apple's macOS system software on non-Apple hardware. The term "Hackintosh" is a portmanteau of "hack" and "Macintosh," referring to the creative ways in which users have found to make the software run on non-Apple devices. While selling Hackintoshes without permission from Apple may not be an issue for individuals, commercializing these systems can lead to legal trouble.

OpenCore Computer launched a commercial Hackintosh system that caught our attention. Their website claims to offer a unique solution for those seeking a more affordable alternative to traditional Macs. However, upon closer inspection, it becomes clear that the company has borrowed heavily from other sources. The name and logo of OpenCore Computer seem to have been taken straight from the OpenCore bootloader developers without permission. This blatant case of intellectual property theft is a red flag that warrants further investigation.

The OpenCore Computer website attempts to sell its idea behind the computer, but it's clear that they are trying to mislead potential customers. The site offers three models, with only the Velociraptor being available for purchase at the time of writing. However, the company's pricing strategy is suspiciously high, with the top-of-the-line model costing $4,819 if paid in full. While this might seem like a decent deal to some, it's clear that OpenCore Computer is trying to exploit customers.

The biggest concern, however, lies in the convoluted End User License Agreement (EULA) that OpenCore Computer requires users to sign. This agreement stipulates that users cannot redistribute, sell, or sub-license the software, which seems like a legitimate attempt to protect Apple's intellectual property rights. However, the fact that OpenCore Computer only accepts Bitcoin payments raises concerns about potential loopholes in the law.

The company's payment options are limited due to the EULA, and this lack of flexibility could lead to legal trouble. The question remains: how exactly does accepting Bitcoin as a payment method circumvent the law? This is an area where we need more clarification, and it would be wise for OpenCore Computer to seek professional advice on this matter.

Furthermore, the company's use of a pirated version of Photoshop is a glaring red flag. The local brightness and aspect ratio inconsistencies between the website images and the actual product suggest that the company may have made other questionable decisions regarding the authenticity of its products.

So why doesn't Apple simply allow other companies to install macOS on non-Apple hardware? This question has been posed countless times, but the answer lies in the history of Apple's past experiences. In the 1990s, Apple allowed third-party vendors to sell Mac-compatible computers that ran macOS software. However, due to financial struggles and competition from Windows, Apple realized that this approach was not viable.

The first official Mac clone launched on March 27, 1995, featuring a PowerPC 601 with a clock speed of up to 110 megahertz and 264 megabytes of RAM. While the idea seemed promising at the time, it ultimately proved to be a costly endeavor for Apple. The company lost money on each Mac clone sold, receiving only $50 per unit.

When Steve Jobs returned to Apple in 1997, he made significant changes to the company's approach. He visited clone vendors and made it clear that the days of licensed Mac clones were over. This marked a turning point in Apple's history, as the company refocused on creating its own products rather than relying on third-party vendors.

In conclusion, OpenCore Computer's story serves as a cautionary tale about the importance of respecting copyright law and intellectual property rights. While their intentions may have seemed good, their actions were ultimately misguided. As individuals and companies, it is crucial to understand the risks involved in exploiting these laws and to always prioritize transparency and authenticity when launching new products or services.

"WEBVTTKind: captionsLanguage: en- Today on December 15, 2009,a California judge issueda permanent injunction,which prohibits Psystar fromselling their commercialHackintoshes, AKA open computers,which illegally are sold withApple's Mac OS X software.Surely today is a greatlesson in copyright law,and we won't have to dealwith this issue ever again.It happened again.(intense techno music)Does nobody frickin' learn from history?Really?We're doing this again?Okay, let's just get it over with.Hey guys, how are you all doing?Really, that's just great.I'm doing pretty great today, too,because I get high off ofother people's stupidity.That's why I made that Lit Mobile episode,and don't worry.I still have some followupepisodes planned for that.So stay tuned.But today we're gonna betalking about another companythat just does not seem to get it.OpenCore Computer launcheda commercial Hackintosh.What's a Hackintosh?Quick lesson.A Hackintosh is a portmanteauof hack and Macintosh.Apples's macOS system softwareis made to only run on Macs.But the Hackintosh community created waysto run that softwareon non-Apple hardware.If you're not sellingthe systems, generally,you won't have any legal issues with this,but commercial Hackintosh iswhere we hit the big problems.That's what Psystar sold.They're defunct now.Anyway, back to OpenCore Computer,you can go to theirwebsite, opencore.computer,to build your configuration,but wait, hang on.Did they just steal the name and logofrom the OpenCore bootloader developers?Shameless.Well, anyway, let's look at their website.They have a single pagewhich tries to sell theidea behind the computer.At the bottom, you can configure a systemmacOS Catalina installed,using the OpenCore bootloader.Huh, they misspelled illegally, weird.There's three models,but only the Velociraptoris available on this day.If you ask me, thecompany's gonna get shutdown before the Megalodon even releases.Place your bets now.If you max everything out,it'll cost you $4,819,if you pay the full amount.By the way, their configwizard is tedious as (beeping).Now here's where I see the first red flag.Well, I saw a bunch already,but this is a real red flag.Because of the convoluted macOSend user license agreementagreement, our paymentprovider options are limited.Thus, we've chosen to only accepta Bitcoin payments currently.They even go on toimply this isn't a scam.Personally, I don't think this is a scam.Well, at least yet.That's not the main thingI'm concerned about.The main thing I'm concerned aboutis that they're violating copyright lawand stealing other company'sintellectual property.Pro tip, don't do that.Now I'm no legal expert,but the macOS EULA stipulatesyou cannot redistribute, sell,or sub-license this software.And it seems like OpenCore Computeris trying to get around thatby only accepting Bitcoin payments.I'm not exactly surehow that loophole works.So we'll see how long that actually lasts.Also taking a look at thehero images on the website,the computer case looks Photoshopped.Knowing this company, it was probablywith a pirated version of Photoshop.Anyway, the localbrightness and aspect ratiodoesn't match up between these two images.And in case you're wondering,the computer case they'reusing is a Lian Li TU-150.Now here's a question I havereceived a million times.Krazy Ken, why doesn't Applejust allow other peoplein companies to installmacOS on non-Apple hardware?It's a legit question.I get it.And we can go down a hugerabbit hole of reasons,but the best answer I can give is this.They already tried that and it sucked,financially.There was a time whereApple allowed other vendorsto sell their own computers,non-Apple computers,with Mac ROMs and macOS software,just like the SuperMac right here.And these computers werecollectively known as Mac Clones.With the success of Windows,Microsoft was gaining tons of users.This clearly demonstrated how successfultheir cross platform strategy was.- Because of the competitive pressures,Apple is doing more than justupgrading its Macintosh operating system.It has begun to license the macOSand authorize the manufactureand sale of Macintosh clones.- The first official Mac clonelaunched on March 27, 1995.It was a Radius System 100,and it featured a PowerPC601 with a clock speedof up to 110 megahertzand 264 megabytes of RAM.Over time, Apple actuallylost money doing this,and they weren't gainingany more market share.So it totally wasn't worth it.Apple received $50 foreach Mac clone sold.There might've been some otherfluctuations in that pricedepending on different agreements,but it was pretty much50 bucks per computer.And that was not enoughto keep this plan going.So some changes needed to be made.When Steve jobs cameback to Apple in 1997,he made a lot of changes with the company.And one of them had todo with the Mac clones.- I went to the clone vendors,and I said, \"Guys, we'regonna go broke doing this.\"And if we go down the (bleeping)\"the whole ecosystem willgo down the (bleeping)\"and you won't be here either.\"So we gotta fix this.\"We'd like to sell you our software,\"but you've gotta pay a fair price for it,\"not an exorbitant price,\"just a fair percentage of the costs.\"And we outlined what that was.We asked them to do that.I personally asked them to do this.And they basically toldme to go pound sand.Being a man of perseverance,I asked five times overthe next three weeks,each time we were told to go pound sand.We finally made thedecisions we had to make.- Ultimately, Steve Jobskilled the clone program.With the release of Mac OS 8no existing clone vendorscould sell computerswith the newer operating systembecause they were onlylicensed to sell computerswith system seven.Umax, however, obtained alicense to ship Mac OS 8.So they could still do this whole thing.But that license expired in 1998.After that, the Mac cloneprogram shriveled and died.Shout out to my buddy, Steve,from Mac84 for helping meresearch the Macintosh clones.He's actually working on amuch more in-depth video,which covers the clone history.Plus he covers many othertopics on his channel.So go check him out.And there were other Mac clonesbefore the officialMacintosh clone program.I actually showed one of theseand many other rare Appleprototypes in this video,which you can watch withThe Computer Clan YouTubechannel membership.So go check that out, too.So Apple already did try this,and we know history repeats itselfif you don't learn from it,and they don't wanna godown that road again.That's why they had to stop Psystar.And that's why they're gonnastop Open Computer as well.My bet is this is not gonnalast more than a few months.And I'm totally cool withthe Hackintosh community.Heck I can't wait to try someHackintosh stuff out myself.I think that'll be fun.And if you do that stuff, great,just don't sell those things.So let me know in the comments belowwhat you think about this whole mess,and if you wanna get some other goodiesfrom myself and from the computer clan,feel free to hit thejoin button down belowor use the link in the descriptionso you can get accessto all that cool stuff,and in doing so you will alsobe supporting the channel.So thank you very much.Also, if you liked thevideo, you know what to do.Thanks for sticking withme, catch the crazy,and pass it on.(upbeat techno music)\n"