Psystar claims Apple exec "unprepared" for testimony - Page 2

Listen, people can run their business as they see fit, if you don't like it, buy somebody else's product. As an example, there are plenty of Ferrari style chasis's that you can stick on an old VW bug...and thats totally cool....but if you brand it with the Ferrari logo thats a real big problem...you have now degraded the Ferrari brand name..not cool. So, once you install the Apple brand OS onto Pystar built hardware (which may be good) you have now degraded the Apple brand...why you may ask?...because, the first time someone has a bad experience, possibly due to hardware problems, the Apple OS experience is ruined...Apple has a right to protect that experience and their brand.

As far as Apple disclosing profit margins.....people have a right to privacy in this country....you may not have a problem telling your in-laws that you make 5 bucks an hour, but others have a right not to disclose such information.

So when you buy a dell laptop and windows crashes, you're supposed to call dell?

I've never called technical support a day in my life lol. I honestly didn't know it worked like that.

Easily. There is no way they are taking a loss when selling the OS at $129. The cost to produce and distribute is almost nothing for something as simple as a DVD, so the cost to make it is almost entirely the cost of the software team who write it.

Given Apples income statement shows their R&D costs (which the software development will be included in) were ~$1bn in their last full financial year, they would probably need to shift 10,000,000 copies per year to cover their entire R&D budget just on writing Mac OS sales. Of course their R&D budget will also have to cover hardware development, iPhone, iPod, iTunes etc. so in reality their breakeven will be much lower.

Just because Microsoft seriously exploit their customers, doesn't mean Apple are not making money because they sell at a lower price.

Psystar represents the leeches of the world. Psystar somehow believes that they should be able to take someone elses work and sell it.
Psystar needs a resellers license in order to sell computers with Mac OS X. They don't want to work with Apple just use it.

Psystar represents the mentality that says "I can do anything I want - legal or illegal. If you don't like it SUE ME" Well they have been sued.

It goes on to say that Apple's internal profit margin data is "closely guarded," and the risk of that information being leaked is not worth the lost profits it might be able to obtain from Psystar. As a result, Apple is no longer seeking those lost profits for recovery in the suit.


This does concern me, but as businessman, i understand that companies do not want to disclose their profit margins and how this is calculated. For MS guys, stop your whining, since MS are doing the same thing, but providing a inferior product for inferior machine.

Ask MS to disclose their profit model and you soon see all execs including "The Bald Turkey" Ballmer keep their mouth shut and call in lawyers.

P.S. I was going to Bald Eagle, but eagles have a lot of common sense, Ballmer maybe intelligent, but is common sense is lacking and always opens his mouth and sells more apple products for Apple. remember iphone prediction, say no more.

No. You are mixing Apples and Oranges again.

Intel sells hardware which is specifically intended, and sold under the understanding that it will be used in various ways in different machines that do various things. Software is more like a book or a painting. It's not a thing that you buy, but a work that you licence the right to reproduce. In this case it's also sold with the explicit understanding, (by way of the license you agree to when you buy it), that it won't be used in certain ways.

There is lots of vagueness here, that Apple should have cleared up a long time ago. Like the agreement should be on the outside of the box, not a click-through. It's also the case that it should be clearly labelled as an upgrade product instead of implying that it's the same as buying a box of Windows.

It's even a bit vague as to whether it would be legal as you say, to sell a computer with a copy of OS-X in the box and let the end user install it, as re-sales of anything *unchanged* are indeed perfectly legal. But in this case, Psystar is actually hacking into the product, altering it, and then installing it on hardware against the express wishes of the copyright holders. This is kind of like buying a movie and changing the titles on it, or some of the scenes and re-selling it as the same thing against the wishes of the studio that holds the copyright.

Even then, as long as they didn't re-sell it, it would be legal. Or if they changed a significant amount of it, and called it art or satire, "fair use" would kick in (at least in civilised countries), because it wouldn't be a rip-off so much as it would be a "commentary" on the original.

Sadly, Psystar is not only re-selling the product after changing it, they are re-selling it as "Mac OS-X" and implying that it is the same. To continue with my silly analogies, that's like taking a new car, changing the engine and re-selling it as the same brand of car.

Nothing Psystar is doing is wrong if you are an individual and you are not making money off it. Everything they are doing is wrong is you are doing it as a business.

I am waiting to see what will happens when Apple release Snow Leopard. I bet Apple will label the $29 version "Upgrade Version" while they include the full OS DVD. This case Psystar will either have to buy the set box $169 version or go step further in their violation and use the upgrade version providing Apple another amendment to the lawsuit

Profit??? What profit! They just came out of bankruptcy! I think Apple realized that even in the best case they would get absolutely zilch from Pystar so why complicate the issue!

KRR

I have to admit, I still disagree with you, but I do want to acknowledge that I think you make a very good argument.

Do you share with your coworkers all of your personal financial information? Salary, other income, how much you invest and where, your personal expenses, you annual bonus, etc? How about you post it all online for us to take a look at?

Psystar was asking for a much more detailed breakdown of Apple's finances that simple profit. And they would surely find a way to release that info into the public. Why would Apple want their competitors to have that info any more than you wanting your coworker to know how much you make. (BTW, in case you don't work in a typical office environment, salary is a very sensitive subject between coworkers who might be doing similary jobs but are getting paid differently.)

I am in agreement with you generally. I think Psystar is ballsy for standing up to Apple. A leech, perhaps but ballsy nonetheless.

But you could argue that when Psystar came into being they were part of a entrepreneurial culture that in part was formed as a reaction to the monolithic corporations, like Apple who had no interest cutting margins and producing computers attainable by the masses.

I am not saying that Psystar fights for anybody but Psystar. I am not saying that Apple has an obligation to sell its wares at a lower price or give up its intellectual properties in order to make the world a better place. Im just sayin'...

No, but I'm not a publicly traded company!

I actually agree with you though - Psystar seem to be asking for this for no good reason.

What outcry? From where? From people wanting to run OS X on the cheap on their fake macs? From people that want to play fast and loose with copyright/trademark holders' rights?

For the sake of argument, let's say that Apple decided to sell two versions of OS X. One version sells for $129 and is intended for upgrading an existing Apple branded computer. Another version sells for $250 and is intended to be installed on any brand computer that meets the hardware requirements. On the outside of the box, the upgrade version lists as requirements an Apple Macintosh computer and other specs (CPU, RAM, etc). The other version also lists the hardware requirements on the outside of the box, but doesn't specify that it be an Apple computer. And Apple doesn't put any painful licensing key/registration processes like Windows has, or any cryptic hardware verfication tests, because they want to make things easier for their customers.

Now, do we have the right to go buy the $129 copy and install it on a non-Apple computer, simply because the installer doesn't prevent me from doing it? Are we saying that Apple doesn't have the right to charge a different price for an Apple upgrade version vs a new, non-Apple hardware version?

If the answer is no, why would that answer change simply because Apple chooses to not make the $250 version available?

Further, just becuase some parts of some EULA are questionable, does that make the whole concept of EULA bad? Does that mean every term in an EULA is invalid just because some are? And because Apple chose to express it's rights in the EULA instead of enforcing them with registration processes or hardware validation, does that take away their rights? If I leave the door to my house open, does that mean it's OK to rob me just because I made it easy for you?

EDIT: BTW, I do agree with you that some terms of EULAs are bad. Examples are terms that allow a company to not be held responsible for software the damages systems, create security problems, etc. There would perhaps be fewer software problems if they were held to safety standards like other products are.

According to the paperwork that I get with OEM Windows licenses, yes.

Tech support is a last ditch thing for me too, I just do it all myself because telephone support is usually worthless anyway.

[QUOTE=Virgil-TB2;1468780]
Software is more like a book or a painting. It's not a thing that you buy, but a work that you licence the right to reproduce. In this case it's also sold with the explicit understanding, (by way of the license you agree to when you buy it), that it won't be used in certain ways.

/QUOTE]

Actually, it is both an explicit and implicit understanding. If you paint a painting or write a book - published or unpublished - your ownership and rights to that work are implied under copyright law. You don't even need to file with the US copyright office. You just have to prove that you are the creator of the work, should the issue ever arise.

There is no reasoned explanation as to why software is not protected in the exact manner that a book or a painting is. You cannot modify and then resell a book without expressed permission from the rights holder. The law is very simple and clear in that regard. It is the law that is creating confusion, and not Apple.

It's actually quite easy to hate them whether or not you love Apple. I'm a legal scholar, as are a few other of the posters on this forum, and Psystar represents, in my mind, the biggest problem with the world today: entitlement.

You have a company who has done absolutely nothing of any merit trying to rip off a company that has spent thirty years building a solid reputation. Psystar was a joke from the beginning: they don't understand copyright law at all, they are clearly violating tax procedures if their claims are true, & they have little, if any, respect for the real competition Apple provides the market.

Psystar is so obviously a bullshit little company run by a man who has, to say the least, extreme delusions of grandeur. But I guess the biggest problem in my mind is that you have plenty of people on this forum who seem to see Psystar less for what it is and more for what they want it to be: a crusader for justice. There are far too many people on AppleInsider who believe that anything they can see is theirs.

By the nature of what they are, businesses exist to make money, but just because they don't allow you to do absolutely anything you want with their product doesn't mean they're trying to stifle your freedom. You have choice: Mac, Windows, Linux. These systems each provide a distinctly different experience and that's because of the way that each operates. If you don't like the way one does it, choose one of the others. Don't complain just because one has certain stipulations that the others don't, especially when those are some of the very things its customers love about it.

Actually, I think yes, you would have the right to put the $129 version on non-Apple hardware. My position remains the same, once you own something, it should be pretty much your call what you do with it.


I have to admit, I'm not 100% sure where I stand on this. Without giving it much thought, I'd say I think EULAs are a bad thing as a concept, though I would say that if I gave it some thought I could come up with some areas that they serve a good purpose.

My position is that copyright laws should be strong enough to cover this sort of thing. The thing that I think it is important to stop is stealing, but that should be covered by statute law, and not require some incredibly complex EULA to do it.

I think my biggest problem with EULAs are the length and complexity of them. Honestly, it seems like I agree to a more extensive and complex legal document when I agree to the terms of a piece of softwares EULA, it seems more extensive than when I bought my house! Something seems to be wrong with a system when companies feel that:

a. They have to and
b. They are able to

implement rigorous legal limits on what people can do, purely because statute law is not good enough.

Are you always so completely profane? I mean seriously, you don't even try to explain your point, you just interject with these poorly educated anti-Apple rants. If you don't like Apple, that's fine, you can just avoid buying its products and move on with your life.

Apple has plenty of extremely legitimate reasons as to why it does not license its operating system out. If you can't understand how Apple's customers benefit from that, then you shouldn't be buying Apple products one way or another.

And I agree with many of the other posters: there are numerous professions that rely on copyright law to protect their investments. Technological communism is a dead end.

Your notions are irrelevant because you made no purchase, you acquired a license. Again, it says that in the first paragraph of the EULA of both Windows and OS X. There is a substantial difference between the two and you're clearly intelligent enough to know that. Apple didn't hand its source code over to you, it simply granted you the right to use OS X in conjunction with their hardware. The same is true of hardware: when HP sells you a desktop computer, you're purchasing the physical components that construct it, not the various patents, trademarks, etc, that went into its construction.

And how do you not see this as an issue of theft? Apple spends billions over decades in R&D and marketing to be side swiped by some piss ant little company who wouldn't buy a legit license to the system even if it could (It can't apparently even keep its books). OS X upgrades are subsidized by the price you pay for the software, which is why they don't cost $320 like the equivalent Windows version. If you bought an upgrade version of Windows Vista and hacked it to work as a standard install, you're just as guilty of software theft as you are with OS X.

I'm sorry, but no one wants to live in a world where you can spend all your cash, create something truly amazing, and then have the jerk next door reverse engineer or hack it and sell it as his own at a lower price (since he never had to do R&D) and put you out of business. Copyright law has to regulate alot more than just theft. After all, we live in the era of the Free Software Foundation, where any and all ideas get assimilated into the Borg. Copyright law is becoming more and more important by the day.

How do I see this not as theft? Because somebody legally purchased the software. I'm sorry, but I don't think it's right to say you are buying a license and not a product like anything else you buy. In both cases, MS and Apple are in my opinion attempting to re-write what has been effective legal precedent for years, i.e. you buy something, you own it, you can do pretty much what you like with it.

The bottom line is, we're not going to come to a meeting of minds here. I believe that EULA's are becoming way too restrictive, and moving far too much power towards giant corporations with expensive lawyers, and away from the little guy.

I'm actually less concerned about what Apple do with Psystar - in all honesty I suspect if they had ignored them, they would be out of business by now, but I am concerned about the creeping erosion of consumer rights.

Should have put this in my last post. On this point I entirely agree with you, but I believe that needs to be put right by statute.

Ok, we may need to agree to disagree here. But I would point out that the law makes a distinction between physical property and intellectual property. You can, in fact, do whatever you want with the physical property (DVD, box, etc) that came with OS X. You can break it, use it as a coaster, play frisbee, hang it on the wall as art. But the law treats intellectual property differently. You own the physical material, but you license the intellectual material it contains.

This is not new or unique to software. It also applies to books, CDs, paintings, photographs (you should see some of the photographic release forms I've had to read!), etc. The copyright holder is within their rights to set terms and conditions for use of their intellectual property. For software, these terms and conditions are set forth in the EULA.



Agreed, but it's a little more complex. I think copyright laws were not adequate when software rights first began to be an issue. For example, in order run software, you first had to copy it to your hard drive (ignoring Apple IIe days when everything ran off the floppy disk!). You then had to copy it again into memory to run it. These are probably covered by fair use, but it may have been unclear at the time (I believe copyright law has since been updated to cover this usage).

But what about installing it on multiple computers? Or what if you sold your computer but kept the installation disks, or vis versa? These types of questions probably led to the need for EULAs. Not to replace copyright laws, but to clarify the copyright holder's rights to control their copyrighted materials in a situation not contemplated by the law or previously determined by court rulings.

It's interesting to note that the RIAA as recently as a couple of years ago still had the stance the ripping your CD for your own personal use was not covered by fair use. How long have CDs been around? I was making cassette tape copies of my CDs to play in the car over 2 decades ago. Ripping CDs is the same concept, and yet there were still differing interpretations of what the copyright law allowed and didn't allow. So it's not surprising that there is still a lot of gray area as to how it applies to software.

Bottom line, the copyright law allows the copyright older to set conditions of sale on how their work is used (outside of those exceptions explicitly provided for such as fair use). So I consider it within their rights to state the OS X can only be installed on Apple computers. Because that right is expressed in the EULA vs on a separate form is irrelevant.



100% agree!!


A. Just good business sense. The option is to put in technical barriers that would get in the way or your legitimate customers, too. There are too many dishonest people out there that would take advantage if the didn't try to protect their rights (either via EULA or other measures).

B. They are able to not because the law is not good enough, but because the law specifically allows them to set those limits.


Good discussion!!

Ah, but you are assuming that every copy of OSX brings in $129 of revenue to the company. MS only gets around $40 per copy of Windows sold with a PC, from what I've read. Who knows what internal value Apple allocates to the value of the OS as a part of it's hardware revenue. But because not every copy of the OS "sells" for the same price, it's impossible to know if $129 is a loss or a profit.

Ok, it's in all likelihood a profit. But is the profit from the sale of the OS less than the profit from the sale of the combination of the hardware + OS? Probably. So every OS-only sale is a loss to Apple, in the form of lower profit. Apple is willing to sell the OS-only to previous Apple hardware customers, because it makes for happy customers to not have to buy new hardware every time. But selling OS-only copies to non-Apple hardware customers is of no benefit to Apple and results in lower profit.

On this we 100% agree. But recognizing Apple's rights as provided for in copyright law, I'd rather have them express their rights (ie, the conditions of sale of their copyrighted material) in the EULA than to waste time and money developing technical control mechanism to enforce those rights. Not only is that a waste of money, but potentially interferes with the ease of use when installing the software.

BTW: I've enjoyed the calm, rational discussion (such a rarity on message boards these days). But now it's time to go get me some dinner!

well yes. they do.

in point of fact, Psystar should only have been asking questions that actually relate to the proceedings. Asking about profit margins etc does not have a fig to do with hardware tying, copyright and patent filings or even the legality of an EULA. It's harassment plain and simple. And Apple would be in all rights to file for an injunction barring Psystar from deposing anyone else from Apple since really there's nothing any of these execs could say that is on point to the arguments Psystar has made (and lost in court already) and is trying to make.


nope, it doesn't and they don't. and in point of fact, details about harm are really more part of Apple's argument in getting anything out of Psystar which they have actually said they don't care about. they don't intend to punish anyone that actually bought a computer by forcing a recall, they aren't going to try to correct money they know they won't anyway cause the company is broke and everyone knows it. they just want the courts to say once in for all that there is NOTHING that allows a company to build and distribute a hackintosh computer. end of story.


no one is saying anything because it's standard form. no company has to give out such information. it is within the realm of trade secret.



hardly, they are liars and lazy gits that basically stole someone else's work.

this isn't David V Goliath. this is more you and the kid sitting at the next desk who cheated off your paper and is arguing with the teacher that he should get an A also even though he didn't do the work.

first off, they don't have any proof that they actually did purchase anything. those little boxes are pretty each to lift.
same for the hardware. they don't keep receipts they say. they lost some of them in a flood they say. the dog ate them they say (pick a day and the excuse is something new)

second, copyright law and the courts validation, says that Apple has every legal right to control what hardware and through what vendors you can get a machine that will run OSX. and to that end they created certain subsystems to verify you have the approved hardware. the DCMA says that any knowledge or technology or the use of such to circumvent such subsystems is illegal. Psystar violated the DCMA in order to make OSX load on their machines via a bootloader that causes the subsystem check to be skipped.

so even if you don't use the word 'thief' they are still bad guys. they still broke the law


that's not entirely true. money is not a factor in the right or wrongness.

it is only a factor in that the companies don't see the point in suing someone they know they can't get even legal fees off of cause few fan fic writers make any real money in their day jobs. so why bother risking some bad press over no reward.

Simply put... can't get blood from a turnip!

the courts currently say otherwise. they say the clickthrough is fine, particularly when you provide a copy elsewhere (like on Apple's website).


but it isn't an upgrade. an upgrade implies that every time I want to install Y, I must first install X. that isn't the case. When I bought my computer it had tiger on it. when leopard came out, I backed up my data, completely erased my drive and installed Leopard off the disk I bought. because it was a full product. with an upgrade I would have first had to reinstall Tiger.


if the product installs without the use of anything to 'break' built in copyright protections sure. but this is not the case with Psystar. even if they didn't install OSX they provided the means to break the protection system.


something that was actually tried by one of those militant parent groups and they were totally sued and totally lost.

wrong. even making a hackintosh for free for yourself or someone else is illegal. the only difference is that if you kept your mouth shut, no one would know and you wouldn't be caught.


again wrong (it's great having lawyers in the family). commentary doesn't count when it comes to changing software.

commentary is more akin to printing shots of software for a review or a text, printing a photograph or a a photo of a work of art for critical review or quoting the text of Hamlet for that term paper you wrote in the 12th grade.


now that you are correct about. they did indeed add unauthorized use of trademarked names and symbols to their issues.


lets say that Apple did see Psystar as some nerd in his basement, pissant, blah blah. a tiny little fire on some rocks that would run out of fuel and burn itself out. so they ignore them. let them do their thing.

Psystar would burn out and it's over right.

wrong.

by not doing anything the next company with a lot more resources figures that Apple doesn't care. So they go for it. They start building and selling Hackintosh machines. and they go huge. Now Apple has a problem. they have a bigger monster to kill. Maybe even more than one.

so they want to nip it in the bud. they tell Psystar to cut it out. only Psystar is too stupid to back down when the only possibility solid argument (anti-trust) is shot down by the courts saying there's no such thing as a Macintosh Market. the market is Personal Computer Systems and owing to Apple being but a tiny drop in the pond they can do whatever they want and it's not abusive or anti-trust. Psystar has bitten down on Apple's leg and is refusing to let go. and Apple has little choice but to fight back, in part because it could lead to invalidating every possible argument next, and perhaps bigger dog, might have tried to use.

I have to say I disagree with your point here. There is absolutely no accusation from Apple or anyone that they have physically stolen anything. Had they walked into the Apple store and just stolen a copy of Mac OS, I would be the first to say they need to be prosecuted - you can't just take physical property.

My problem is, I'm just not sure I'm willing to say they are bad guys. If I was being especially kind to them, I'd say they are being a champion of the people - trying to find a way that the masses can afford something that only the better off can these days. Much like Henry Ford did for example.....!

I'll acknowledge that maybe they have broken the law in that they are not following the exact terms of the EULA, but my point is I'm not comfortable with the idea that the EULA itself is legal!

Now, whilst we seem to have differences of opinions about copyright law, consumer rights and EULA's, that is something on which we can agree 100%!

I've thought it a shame that the internet, the ultimate communications tool which should have allowed discussion and debate to thrive, has instead been hijacked by the childish to just throw insults at people who disagree with them.

You've helped renew my faith in debate!

I just don't get your point on this one. Even putting the focus of the lawsuit aside, Psystar has clearly shown itself to be doing several other illegal/unethical things. First there was the lack of a physical address, then the flood where they supposedly lost critical documents, then the fact that they don't seem to keep legally required finances on the books, filing for bankruptcy to avoid court proceedings, and now harassing Apple employees (and yes, I believe that because it fits their character so far).

I honestly think Psystar is a company of morally backwards people led by a man with delusions of grandeur (they just released two new units under the "Rebel" name). I also honestly believe that Apple tying hardware and software together provides its customers with a better experience for many reasons I've outlined in other posts. If Apple weren't directly competing with other hardware manufacturers like Dell and HP, then I could understand your idea, but I don't get where the idea that just because Apple is the only company that can run OS X that it somehow lives in a bubble comes from.

I like that Apple does it because it forces both hardware vendors and Microsoft alike to change. Windows created a commodity market where everyone goes for the cheapest hardware possible and the market has trouble progressing as a result. Windows systems are still bulky, batteries are still shorter lifespan, and body construction is still low grade plastic. Dragging Apple down into the same muck won't help anyone.

That last part was a little off point, but I want you to understand where I'm coming from philosophically.

Troll much?

I do not feel I am a troll. Yes I am negative at times but eula's are a concern for everyone and there is a quite legitimate argument against them as they are currently used. I look at the almost obsessive worship of apple on this forum and so I choose to tweak some as to give people some thought and maybe allow other people to feel free to voice their criticisms of apple in a forum that practically worships apple no matter what they do.

No, it isn't. Why do you assume it is. I'm perfectly fine wth Apple's EULA, as are most users on this forum.

Your attempts to drum up support for your personal crusade are failing.



I'm sure that when Apple gives me (and others) an actual reason to criticize them, we will. In fact, if you visit the topic of Apple's response to the FCC, you'll find PLENTY of criticism there.

Your problems seem to be your own.

Leave it to the attorneys to screw your life up. Both sides know how to settle this issue, however attorneys make their fees by the hours and how many pages they dictated, typed and photocopied.

Attorneys are a bunch of a-holes. They will screw you until you're bankrupt. Let's see how long these bastards at Pystar will take it.

forget the flipping EULA issue. this is about their point blank violation of current copyright laws. the EULA argument is a smokescreen that is going to fail because even if the EULA is deemed invalid that doesn't make the copyright violation not a violation.

and have you actually read the EULA for Leopard. EULA in PDF. Examine it point for point and you will see a written affirmation of Apple's legal rights (as validated by the Courts during this whole Psystar nonsense) and a few caveats etc. Along with some acknowledgements for those non open source bits they have licensed such as the Adobe Color Profiles.

given this, what is there really to gripe about. only one thing. that they don't put all of this in a little booklet on the outside of the box for you to read before you open it. but honestly they will give you a refund if you find the agreement so distasteful so what's the big deal

Until you say something other than "GO PSYSTAR!" you are simply a troll because you're offering nothing of substance to the conversation. Also, understand that there is no idol worship of Apple on this forum, there are simply certain tenants of a company that make it what it is today. Apple making hardware and software together is at the core of the company's values and I agree with them strongly as do many others here. So, when you come along and tell people what they love about a company is bullshit, you have to expect a few of them are gonna tell you to go f*ck yourself.

I really couldn't care less what your intentions are, your actions say you're a troll.

OS X does not belong to you. It does not belong to me. It does not belong to Psystar.

Buying a retail copy of OS X, even hundreds of copies, does not mean it belongs to anyone.. other than ... it's creators.

While I do sometimes see some people that will try to explain away numskull decisions with fishy logic and selective memory, it hasn't happened so much in this thread. I've seen fishy logic and selective memory used in support of Windows/PCs too.

Can you please explain why Apple's profit information is relevant to the case? That has nothing to do with whether or not their EULA is enforceable, nothing to do with whether Psystar is violating Apple's trademark, and nothing to do with whether they're violating Apple's copyrights. Apple making a profit in itself isn't wrong and Apple isn't on trial here. Apple's profits wouldn't exonerate Psystar if Psystar is proven to be in violation of Apple's rights.

Nothing in this story mentions the EULA anyway. I'm not sure Apple is even suing over EULA violations, they didn't file suit until after Psystar hacked and redistributed Apple's service packs.