Right. So consider the following scenario: Let's say that Apple originally made only OS's and no hardware and sold to the Dells and HPs and Psystar, or made the OS's and hardware but also sold the OS to other hardware makers. Then they decided to pull it all in-house, change their EULA to say that it can only be run on their hardware. Would Psystar then have a case? Since they're still small compared to MS, would it be allowed?
Part of MS's problem is that the browser wasn't integrated, and then they wanted to integrate it. Had they originally designed Windows with a built-in browser, would they have had the problems that they had? They would have a monopoly, but it would always have been part of the OS, so no one would know any different.
Look, this is not rocket science. I'll try and break it down for you.
Fact#1 MS not only bundled IE with their OS, but they tried to lock out every other browser.
Fact#2 Apple does not lock out MS Windows, or other os systems ... it even includes Boot Camp to make it easy to run Windows
Fact#3 I have never heard of anyone being sued by Apple for building a "hackintosh" (Your hardware running their OS) .... just don't try to sell it for a profit!
It is not unreasonable for Apple to expect a company should not use Apple's IP to build their own company.
If I paid for their product, I can resell it in any condition I choose, bundled in any configuration I want, for any price I want. There is no legal restriction preventing such a transaction.
Try doing a copy and paste of a book, print multiple copies, give it a different title and then try selling thousands of copies in the marketplace. Let's see how far you get .... that's what Pystar was tying to do with Apple OS .... not only illegal but also immoral IMHO.
Why they think it's ok to run any operating system on any computer.
I think the reasoning behind this is because of MS's EULA, that allows you to run one copy on one computer, and it generally means 95% of all PC's. Microsoft's ubiquity and the common understanding that you can install it on just about any PC. It does not, however, carry over to other operating systems, and does not account for all other EULA's. People just have been used to being able to run Windows on any PC they choose, because MS allows it. Apple doesn't. They do, however, allow you to not run OS X on an Apple branded computer, if you so choose.
Apple's OS X agreement is different, and cannot be assumed to allow you to install it on any hardware you'd like. I understand why Psystar tried to refute the EULA, but it was found to be legal and binding, so the argument over Apple abusing its copyright is over. They don't, and what they have done with the EULA is perfectly legal.
Since it's now possible to place other operating systems on Apple's PC's and erase OS X completely, does it still make a Mac a Mac anymore?
Is a Apple branded PC with only Windows to boot into a "Mac"? It's not.
What makes a Mac is the combination of Apple branded PC and OS X.
Once you take OS X away, it's no longer a "Mac" because OS X is (at least) half of the user experience.
That was my point.
A Dell is a Dell ... An IBM is an IBM .... a HP is a HP and a Mac is a Mac ... They are all PCs (personal computers) but they are all different and unique. If you change the OS it is still the same hardware. To be technically correct, since you like to play with semantics, you probably should say, for example, I have a Mac running Windows ... or I have a Dell running OSX .... or I have a Mac running Apple's Snow Leopard. For the love of Mike, can you stop arguing just for the sake of arguing? Get a hobby.
I think the reasoning behind this is because of MS's EULA, that allows you to run one copy on one computer, and it generally means 95% of all PC's. Microsoft's ubiquity and the common understanding that you can install it on just about any PC. It does not, however, carry over to other operating systems, and does not account for all other EULA's. People just have been used to being able to run Windows on any PC they choose, because MS allows it. Apple doesn't. They do, however, allow you to not run OS X on an Apple branded computer, if you so choose.
Apple's OS X agreement is different, and cannot be assumed to allow you to install it on any hardware you'd like. I understand why Psystar tried to refute the EULA, but it was found to be legal and binding, so the argument over Apple abusing its copyright is over. They don't, and what they have done with the EULA is perfectly legal.
It's not different at all. Buy an HP or a Dell, and try to put their 'Windows Image' disk in another brand PC, and you'll get a message that you can't install it because it's not an HP, Dell, or whatever.
People just confuse MS with hardware vendors. It is to their benefit that it installs on as much hardware as possible, across many vendors. Apple however, just acts like a standard hardware vendor.
A Dell is a Dell ... An IBM is an IBM .... a HP is a HP and a Mac is a Mac ... They are all PCs (personal computers) but they are all different and unique. If you change the OS it is still the same hardware. To be technically correct, since you like to play with semantics, you probably should say, for example, I have a Mac running Windows ... or I have a Dell running OSX .... or I have a Mac running Apple's Snow Leopard. For the love of Mike, can you stop arguing just for the sake of arguing? Get a hobby.
Your contradicting yourself.
A Dell is a Dell, a IBM is a IBM, a HP is a HP and a ..... Apple is a Apple.
You see your using the companies name to describe the computer it comes from.
In fact Apple Computer used to use the slogan "Get a Apple" a long time ago.
If I paid for their product, I can resell it in any condition I choose, bundled in any configuration I want, for any price I want. There is no legal restriction preventing such a transaction.
You missed my point (probably because I didn't word it very well). The key words in my statement were "as your own product."
In other words you don't have the right to set up a business called "bsenka publishing," buy books from various publishers in bulk, put your own cover on them, and resell them as your own product. That's the close parallel in publishing to what Psystar is doing in computers.
This thread is going pretty much the way all threads on Psystar go, which is why I'm not commenting much, but to add another aspect that I haven't seen come up yet ...
A lot of folks seem to be arguing (Psystar among them), that the issue is that you *bought* the software so you should "own" it not be a "licensee" of it. What they forget is that software is ephemeral and different from concrete products as objects that can be bought and sold. That's the whole reason for software licensing.
If I "owned" a the software in the same way as I owned a physical object, then I can resell it over and over again, because it's just code. If it were not for software licensing, most of the computer revolution of the last 30 years or so would not have happened. We'd all still be using 386's and playing Oregon Trail if software licensing didn't exist. there would be no computer games, decent office software or anything like iTunes. Not only would Apple computer never have been able to survive, Microsoft might not either. Software licensing (as opposed to owning it), is the backbone of the industry.
Software licensing and the protection of IP is what allows the computer industry to exist at all. At least in the state it is now. The "free" world that Psystar (and half the idiots at the EEF), pines for would be a nightmare in reality.
Sure, copyright and IP laws are absolutely totally f*cked up right now and have been for a while, but the "I can do whatever the hell I want with the software I bought" point of view is not the answer. It's a childish, simplistic, stupid idea that solves no problems and creates a lot more in it's wake.
You missed my point (probably because I didn't word it very well). The key words in my statement were "as your own product."
In other words you don't have the right to set up a business called "bsenka publishing," buy books from various publishers in bulk, put your own cover on them, and resell them as your own product. That's the close parallel in publishing to what Psystar is doing in computers.
This thread is going pretty much the way all threads on Psystar go, which is why I'm not commenting much, but to add another aspect that I haven't seen come up yet ...
A lot of folks seem to be arguing (Psystar among them), that the issue is that you *bought* the software so you should "own" it not be a "licensee" of it. What they forget is that software is ephemeral and different from concrete products as objects that can be bought and sold. That's the whole reason for software licensing.
If I "owned" a the software in the same way as I owned a physical object, then I can resell it over and over again, because it's just code. If it were not for software licensing, most of the computer revolution of the last 30 years or so would not have happened. We'd all still be using 386's and playing Oregon Trail if software licensing didn't exist. there would be no computer games, decent office software or anything like iTunes. Not only would Apple computer never have been able to survive, Microsoft might not either. Software licensing (as opposed to owning it), is the backbone of the industry.
Software licensing and the protection of IP is what allows the computer industry to exist at all. At least in the state it is now. The "free" world that Psystar (and half the idiots at the EEF), pines for would be a nightmare in reality.
Sure, copyright and IP laws are absolutely totally f*cked up right now and have been for a while, but the "I can do whatever the hell I want with the software I bought" point of view is not the answer. It's a childish, simplistic, stupid idea that solves no problems and creates a lot more in it's wake.
Your absolutely right, unfortunately most of the world doesn't even know what capitalism is, much less a software license.
These Psystar fellows I suspect were recent immigrants, giving the wording of some of their material in broken English. Thus they were most likely acting upon the ideals of their original country.
They probably thought they hit a gold mine, putting OS X on generic PC's.
Your absolutely right, unfortunately most of the world doesn't even know what capitalism is, much less a software license.
These Psystar fellows I suspect were recent immigrants, giving the wording of some of their material in broken English. Thus they were most likely acting upon the ideals of their original country.
They probably thought they hit a gold mine, putting OS X on generic PC's.
The problem is that Psystar's public arguments have little to do with their legal arguments. My understanding is they purchased OS X, used code to make it run on a generic PC, then sold the whole product as one. They also infringed on Apple's trademarks (such as "Mac" and "OS X").
Their public argument implies they merely made hardware that worked with Mac OS X. If that were the case, they might have had a chance. Then, we'd be getting into what Apple can and can't do in terms of what you do with your software license. In other words, can Apple legally prevent you from building a machine that runs their product? Right now the answer seems to be "yes." But it would be an interesting case.
It was called an IBM Personal Computer and was marketed primarily to business.
Your right of course, as you well know over time the IBM Personal Computer and it's clones became known in a general sense as "PC's".
Mac's were different back then, hardware and software speaking, and called "Mac's" to differ them from "PC's", even though Mac's are personal computers too.
The problem is that Psystar's public arguments have little to do with their legal arguments. My understanding is they purchased OS X, used code to make it run on a generic PC, then sold the whole product as one. They also infringed on Apple's trademarks (such as "Mac" and "OS X").
Their public argument implies they merely made hardware that worked with Mac OS X. If that were the case, they might have had a chance. Then, we'd be getting into what Apple can and can't do in terms of what you do with your software license. In other words, can Apple legally prevent you from building a machine that runs their product? Right now the answer seems to be "yes." But it would be an interesting case.
It does seem they acted in a unknowing manner or based upon the ways things are done in their country, perhaps that's why Apple let them off so easily.
And they copied others people's work and passed it off as their own, so they weren't too bright.
What I want to know is who the heck is backing this company financially? Sometime ago there were rumors of industry backing, whatever that means is anyone's guess. It just seems so odd that this company keeps clawing back and appealing cases and making lawsuits and won't give up. Its not like they have even made any profits from this venture. Who is backing this and why are my two questions.
On the front page of its website, Psystar writes: "We respectfully disagree with courts notion that we are 'hardcore copyright infringers.' Psystar has never, and will never, condone software piracy. It's your software, you should be able to use it where you want to. If you purchase an off-the-shelf copy of OS X Snow Leopard, its your right to use that software.
"A publisher cannot forbid you from reading a book in the bathroom or listening to a music disc while riding your bicycle. There should be no difference in the software realm, no matter how much money Apple or anyone else throws at it. That is the real issue here and what we have always been fighting for."
Little problem here, Apple does not sell a stand alone version of their OS, never have. They have only ever sold upgrades.
I also have never understood where Psystar was coming from. If Microsoft can tie their OS to the xbox 360, Sony their OS to the PS3, Nintendo to the Wii and so on, why no OS X (or any other apple OS) to their own computers... after all today all gaming systems out really are just very limited computers
Little problem here, Apple does not sell a stand alone version of their OS, never have. They have only ever sold upgrades.
Well the OS disk sold by Apple can either upgrade the older OS or install a fresh version.
Windows can do that too, so I guess that makes it a hybrid of the two types.
If you so happen to buy a Mac right after a major OS update, Apple will usually supply a upgrade only disk, which can't be used to install the OS, just upgrade the older one.
Quote:
I also have never understood where Psystar was coming from. If Microsoft can tie their OS to the xbox 360, Sony their OS to the PS3, Nintendo to the Wii and so on, why no OS X (or any other apple OS) to their own computers... after all today all gaming systems out really are just very limited computers
Well the Xbox uses three PowerPC G5 processors and the PS3 a (up to) 9 core Cell processor.
These are totally different processor families than the x86 based generic PC's that companies like Dell, HP, Sony and Apple use.
So basically any x86 based OS's like Windows, Linux, Unix, OS X can run on each others PC hardware as they all use the same processor family.
Back before Apple switched to x86 Intel processors, they indeed did use PowerPC processors, so OS X was tailored to work with only that processor family and hardware. Giving it a hardware lock, just like the X-Box or the PS3.
What Psystar, and a lot of other cloners, want to do is use OS X on PC hardware made by others than Apple since Apple basically made their computers the same as generic PC's. Apple isn't allowing this as this would rob them of hardware sales, but people do it anyway in droves.
Either this was a fatal mistake or part of a carefully calculated plan.
It's my opinion Apple should have added something extra to their computers in hardware so that OS X couldn't run very easily or not at all on the x86 processor family. Thus avoiding this mess.
Comments
Right. So consider the following scenario: Let's say that Apple originally made only OS's and no hardware and sold to the Dells and HPs and Psystar, or made the OS's and hardware but also sold the OS to other hardware makers. Then they decided to pull it all in-house, change their EULA to say that it can only be run on their hardware. Would Psystar then have a case? Since they're still small compared to MS, would it be allowed?
Part of MS's problem is that the browser wasn't integrated, and then they wanted to integrate it. Had they originally designed Windows with a built-in browser, would they have had the problems that they had? They would have a monopoly, but it would always have been part of the OS, so no one would know any different.
Look, this is not rocket science. I'll try and break it down for you.
Fact#1 MS not only bundled IE with their OS, but they tried to lock out every other browser.
Fact#2 Apple does not lock out MS Windows, or other os systems ... it even includes Boot Camp to make it easy to run Windows
Fact#3 I have never heard of anyone being sued by Apple for building a "hackintosh" (Your hardware running their OS) .... just don't try to sell it for a profit!
It is not unreasonable for Apple to expect a company should not use Apple's IP to build their own company.
You really need to learn what a clone is. For instance, you are becoming a clone of Teckstud.
Finally.
http://news.cnet.com/2300-31021_3-10...%2Envr_38606_1
If I paid for their product, I can resell it in any condition I choose, bundled in any configuration I want, for any price I want. There is no legal restriction preventing such a transaction.
Try doing a copy and paste of a book, print multiple copies, give it a different title and then try selling thousands of copies in the marketplace. Let's see how far you get .... that's what Pystar was tying to do with Apple OS .... not only illegal but also immoral IMHO.
Why they think it's ok to run any operating system on any computer.
I think the reasoning behind this is because of MS's EULA, that allows you to run one copy on one computer, and it generally means 95% of all PC's. Microsoft's ubiquity and the common understanding that you can install it on just about any PC. It does not, however, carry over to other operating systems, and does not account for all other EULA's. People just have been used to being able to run Windows on any PC they choose, because MS allows it. Apple doesn't. They do, however, allow you to not run OS X on an Apple branded computer, if you so choose.
Apple's OS X agreement is different, and cannot be assumed to allow you to install it on any hardware you'd like. I understand why Psystar tried to refute the EULA, but it was found to be legal and binding, so the argument over Apple abusing its copyright is over. They don't, and what they have done with the EULA is perfectly legal.
Perhaps I should have worded that differently.
Since it's now possible to place other operating systems on Apple's PC's and erase OS X completely, does it still make a Mac a Mac anymore?
Is a Apple branded PC with only Windows to boot into a "Mac"? It's not.
What makes a Mac is the combination of Apple branded PC and OS X.
Once you take OS X away, it's no longer a "Mac" because OS X is (at least) half of the user experience.
That was my point.
A Dell is a Dell ... An IBM is an IBM .... a HP is a HP and a Mac is a Mac ... They are all PCs (personal computers) but they are all different and unique. If you change the OS it is still the same hardware. To be technically correct, since you like to play with semantics, you probably should say, for example, I have a Mac running Windows ... or I have a Dell running OSX .... or I have a Mac running Apple's Snow Leopard. For the love of Mike, can you stop arguing just for the sake of arguing? Get a hobby.
I think the reasoning behind this is because of MS's EULA, that allows you to run one copy on one computer, and it generally means 95% of all PC's. Microsoft's ubiquity and the common understanding that you can install it on just about any PC. It does not, however, carry over to other operating systems, and does not account for all other EULA's. People just have been used to being able to run Windows on any PC they choose, because MS allows it. Apple doesn't. They do, however, allow you to not run OS X on an Apple branded computer, if you so choose.
Apple's OS X agreement is different, and cannot be assumed to allow you to install it on any hardware you'd like. I understand why Psystar tried to refute the EULA, but it was found to be legal and binding, so the argument over Apple abusing its copyright is over. They don't, and what they have done with the EULA is perfectly legal.
It's not different at all. Buy an HP or a Dell, and try to put their 'Windows Image' disk in another brand PC, and you'll get a message that you can't install it because it's not an HP, Dell, or whatever.
People just confuse MS with hardware vendors. It is to their benefit that it installs on as much hardware as possible, across many vendors. Apple however, just acts like a standard hardware vendor.
Get a hobby.
A Dell is a Dell ... An IBM is an IBM .... a HP is a HP and a Mac is a Mac ... They are all PCs (personal computers) but they are all different and unique. If you change the OS it is still the same hardware. To be technically correct, since you like to play with semantics, you probably should say, for example, I have a Mac running Windows ... or I have a Dell running OSX .... or I have a Mac running Apple's Snow Leopard. For the love of Mike, can you stop arguing just for the sake of arguing? Get a hobby.
Your contradicting yourself.
A Dell is a Dell, a IBM is a IBM, a HP is a HP and a ..... Apple is a Apple.
You see your using the companies name to describe the computer it comes from.
In fact Apple Computer used to use the slogan "Get a Apple" a long time ago.
Psystar is not selling clones right now, but there are plenty of other companies selling Mac clones! See:
http://news.cnet.com/2300-31021_3-10...%2Envr_38606_1
And that doesn't include all the overseas companies doing the same thing in countries with little IP protection laws and enforcement.
If I paid for their product, I can resell it in any condition I choose, bundled in any configuration I want, for any price I want. There is no legal restriction preventing such a transaction.
You missed my point (probably because I didn't word it very well). The key words in my statement were "as your own product."
In other words you don't have the right to set up a business called "bsenka publishing," buy books from various publishers in bulk, put your own cover on them, and resell them as your own product. That's the close parallel in publishing to what Psystar is doing in computers.
This thread is going pretty much the way all threads on Psystar go, which is why I'm not commenting much, but to add another aspect that I haven't seen come up yet ...
A lot of folks seem to be arguing (Psystar among them), that the issue is that you *bought* the software so you should "own" it not be a "licensee" of it. What they forget is that software is ephemeral and different from concrete products as objects that can be bought and sold. That's the whole reason for software licensing.
If I "owned" a the software in the same way as I owned a physical object, then I can resell it over and over again, because it's just code. If it were not for software licensing, most of the computer revolution of the last 30 years or so would not have happened. We'd all still be using 386's and playing Oregon Trail if software licensing didn't exist. there would be no computer games, decent office software or anything like iTunes. Not only would Apple computer never have been able to survive, Microsoft might not either. Software licensing (as opposed to owning it), is the backbone of the industry.
Software licensing and the protection of IP is what allows the computer industry to exist at all. At least in the state it is now. The "free" world that Psystar (and half the idiots at the EEF), pines for would be a nightmare in reality.
Sure, copyright and IP laws are absolutely totally f*cked up right now and have been for a while, but the "I can do whatever the hell I want with the software I bought" point of view is not the answer. It's a childish, simplistic, stupid idea that solves no problems and creates a lot more in it's wake.
You missed my point (probably because I didn't word it very well). The key words in my statement were "as your own product."
In other words you don't have the right to set up a business called "bsenka publishing," buy books from various publishers in bulk, put your own cover on them, and resell them as your own product. That's the close parallel in publishing to what Psystar is doing in computers.
This thread is going pretty much the way all threads on Psystar go, which is why I'm not commenting much, but to add another aspect that I haven't seen come up yet ...
A lot of folks seem to be arguing (Psystar among them), that the issue is that you *bought* the software so you should "own" it not be a "licensee" of it. What they forget is that software is ephemeral and different from concrete products as objects that can be bought and sold. That's the whole reason for software licensing.
If I "owned" a the software in the same way as I owned a physical object, then I can resell it over and over again, because it's just code. If it were not for software licensing, most of the computer revolution of the last 30 years or so would not have happened. We'd all still be using 386's and playing Oregon Trail if software licensing didn't exist. there would be no computer games, decent office software or anything like iTunes. Not only would Apple computer never have been able to survive, Microsoft might not either. Software licensing (as opposed to owning it), is the backbone of the industry.
Software licensing and the protection of IP is what allows the computer industry to exist at all. At least in the state it is now. The "free" world that Psystar (and half the idiots at the EEF), pines for would be a nightmare in reality.
Sure, copyright and IP laws are absolutely totally f*cked up right now and have been for a while, but the "I can do whatever the hell I want with the software I bought" point of view is not the answer. It's a childish, simplistic, stupid idea that solves no problems and creates a lot more in it's wake.
Your absolutely right, unfortunately most of the world doesn't even know what capitalism is, much less a software license.
These Psystar fellows I suspect were recent immigrants, giving the wording of some of their material in broken English. Thus they were most likely acting upon the ideals of their original country.
They probably thought they hit a gold mine, putting OS X on generic PC's.
A PC is called a PC (by name) because of the IBM PC and it's clones, which IBM sued and failed to stop the cloners.
Mac's were called "Mac's" back then (or "Macintoshes") and not PC's (by name) although they fell in that general personal computer category.
I have to check, but I believe the name or reference "PC" didn't come around until IBM coined it.
It was called an IBM Personal Computer and was marketed primarily to business.
Your absolutely right, unfortunately most of the world doesn't even know what capitalism is, much less a software license.
These Psystar fellows I suspect were recent immigrants, giving the wording of some of their material in broken English. Thus they were most likely acting upon the ideals of their original country.
They probably thought they hit a gold mine, putting OS X on generic PC's.
The problem is that Psystar's public arguments have little to do with their legal arguments. My understanding is they purchased OS X, used code to make it run on a generic PC, then sold the whole product as one. They also infringed on Apple's trademarks (such as "Mac" and "OS X").
Their public argument implies they merely made hardware that worked with Mac OS X. If that were the case, they might have had a chance. Then, we'd be getting into what Apple can and can't do in terms of what you do with your software license. In other words, can Apple legally prevent you from building a machine that runs their product? Right now the answer seems to be "yes." But it would be an interesting case.
It was called an IBM Personal Computer and was marketed primarily to business.
Your right of course, as you well know over time the IBM Personal Computer and it's clones became known in a general sense as "PC's".
Mac's were different back then, hardware and software speaking, and called "Mac's" to differ them from "PC's", even though Mac's are personal computers too.
The problem is that Psystar's public arguments have little to do with their legal arguments. My understanding is they purchased OS X, used code to make it run on a generic PC, then sold the whole product as one. They also infringed on Apple's trademarks (such as "Mac" and "OS X").
Their public argument implies they merely made hardware that worked with Mac OS X. If that were the case, they might have had a chance. Then, we'd be getting into what Apple can and can't do in terms of what you do with your software license. In other words, can Apple legally prevent you from building a machine that runs their product? Right now the answer seems to be "yes." But it would be an interesting case.
It does seem they acted in a unknowing manner or based upon the ways things are done in their country, perhaps that's why Apple let them off so easily.
And they copied others people's work and passed it off as their own, so they weren't too bright.
On the front page of its website, Psystar writes: "We respectfully disagree with courts notion that we are 'hardcore copyright infringers.' Psystar has never, and will never, condone software piracy. It's your software, you should be able to use it where you want to. If you purchase an off-the-shelf copy of OS X Snow Leopard, its your right to use that software.
"A publisher cannot forbid you from reading a book in the bathroom or listening to a music disc while riding your bicycle. There should be no difference in the software realm, no matter how much money Apple or anyone else throws at it. That is the real issue here and what we have always been fighting for."
Little problem here, Apple does not sell a stand alone version of their OS, never have. They have only ever sold upgrades.
I also have never understood where Psystar was coming from. If Microsoft can tie their OS to the xbox 360, Sony their OS to the PS3, Nintendo to the Wii and so on, why no OS X (or any other apple OS) to their own computers... after all today all gaming systems out really are just very limited computers
Little problem here, Apple does not sell a stand alone version of their OS, never have. They have only ever sold upgrades.
Well the OS disk sold by Apple can either upgrade the older OS or install a fresh version.
Windows can do that too, so I guess that makes it a hybrid of the two types.
If you so happen to buy a Mac right after a major OS update, Apple will usually supply a upgrade only disk, which can't be used to install the OS, just upgrade the older one.
I also have never understood where Psystar was coming from. If Microsoft can tie their OS to the xbox 360, Sony their OS to the PS3, Nintendo to the Wii and so on, why no OS X (or any other apple OS) to their own computers... after all today all gaming systems out really are just very limited computers
Well the Xbox uses three PowerPC G5 processors and the PS3 a (up to) 9 core Cell processor.
These are totally different processor families than the x86 based generic PC's that companies like Dell, HP, Sony and Apple use.
So basically any x86 based OS's like Windows, Linux, Unix, OS X can run on each others PC hardware as they all use the same processor family.
Back before Apple switched to x86 Intel processors, they indeed did use PowerPC processors, so OS X was tailored to work with only that processor family and hardware. Giving it a hardware lock, just like the X-Box or the PS3.
What Psystar, and a lot of other cloners, want to do is use OS X on PC hardware made by others than Apple since Apple basically made their computers the same as generic PC's. Apple isn't allowing this as this would rob them of hardware sales, but people do it anyway in droves.
Either this was a fatal mistake or part of a carefully calculated plan.
It's my opinion Apple should have added something extra to their computers in hardware so that OS X couldn't run very easily or not at all on the x86 processor family. Thus avoiding this mess.