Who would buy one of these Mac clones anyway? You are just asking for trouble. You'll never be able to update with patches (well, you can try) and who knows what third party software issues will come up. Stay away, far away...
If Apple would bring back a built-to-order Mac Pro that could be configured with more desktop-oriented hardware (as opposed to $3000 workstation hardware) and sell them for as low as $1500 like they did in the past, there wouldn't be a market for Hackintoshes.
You're right.
The gap is really too big between a Mac mini and a MacPro (Thank you, i don't need a computer with integrated monitor)
Psystar could just as easily buy a license to sell Vista on their machines legally.
You are 100% right there, but if the machine vendor want Microsoft to provide support for the OS (as is the only option with OS X) then the vendor has to purchase a very expensive copy of Windows Vista, as opposed to the cheap ass OEM licenses.
Also of note, the OEM version of Windows costs close to the price of a boxed Mac OS X. And any company caught selling OEM versions of Windows without a machine is generally sued/fined for breach of copyright.
Actually the last time there were clones it showed Apple to be incompetent, slow, unable to compete, and that they were building expensive sh*t. The clones kept trumping Apple on each release and, in the case of Power Computing, built an innovative Internet shop to market them, which became the origins of the Apple Store after Apple bought them out.
But still, big powerful Psystar should stop picking on little ol' Apple because some Apple users are becoming extremely disturbed at the prospect of not being told what they should buy and use.
And Apple was also being led by an incompetent CEO at the time and was vastly over-stretching itself (the way MS is now). No one is complaining about being told what to use (must you be such a sarcastic shrill), the simple fact is that PsyStar is openly and knowingly breaking copyright law.
As Apple customers, part of the reason we buy from the company is because of the elimination of vendor issues resultant from dividing hardware and software support. We have every right to defend that position.
For software, the First Sale Doctrine is slightly more complicated then for a book because usually when you buy the software, you buy both the copy of the software on the disk (in which you can do what ever you want with (e.g. give it away)), but also a license to make an additional copy of that software for the non commercial purpose of installing it. That is why Apple requires you to buy a family pack if you plan on installing the OS on more then one family computer. You own the copy of the Disk, but you only have the right to copy that by installing it subject to the terms on the license. If you sell the disk after buying it you can't keep the copy of the OS you already installed.
Psystar is arguing that it legally purchased the software, and made one legal copy as authorized by the original license (claiming Apple's licensing term requiring the OS to be installed on only Macs is illegal). I think the argument is interesting, but weak because Psystar actually makes more then one copy of the OS. It first copies the OS, modifies it, and then copies it again when it installs it. Apple's license doesn't give permission to make more then one copy, and it doesn't give permission to modify the software.
Limited to a few exceptions, Copyright is a legal monopoly in which right holders have almost absolute control over their works. Copyright law would likely allow regular folks to make those modifications to allow it to install on a PC despite Apple's license because it wouldn't sufficiently rob Apple of revenue because the use is for personal use, not profit. Psystar is directly costing Apple sales, however, and would be a big No No.
Quote:
Originally Posted by technohermit
I guess two wrongs wouldn't make a right, but if Psystar argument is correct, then they shouldn't need to modify the code. This is the reason they are in court then, eh?
The way it reads to me is that if you bought a book, then wanted to sell it to someone when you were done reading it, the copyright owner of the book is telling you that they will sue you for doing so.
Perhaps the pro-Apple stance on this issue is because last time they let the incompetent build cheap sh*t and load OS on it, Apple almost went under. But at the time, Apple was spread thin making junk anyway. I think with their current ability to make money off of phones and media, that today's Apple could do better competing with other operating systems on systems they don't build. Let 'em have OS X, it will spread like wild fire. The more people at this point that have it the better. It is time for Apple to get huge and inconsiderate.
Actually the last time there were clones it showed Apple to be incompetent, slow, unable to compete, and that they were building expensive sh*t. The clones kept trumping Apple on each release and, in the case of Power Computing, built an innovative Internet shop to market them, which became the origins of the Apple Store after Apple bought them out.
But still, big powerful Psystar should stop picking on little ol' Apple because some Apple users are becoming extremely disturbed at the prospect of not being told what they should buy and use.
And more recently, after Jobs returned and eliminated the clones, Apple in less than 10 years (at one time or another) had a market cap larger than that of Sony, Dell, HP, Sun, Cisco, Intel, Oracle and IBM. Not bad for an incompetent company that wasn't suppose to survive past the century mark. And guess what, Apple stills sells expensive "sh*t".
But there's a difference between expensive and overprice. In 1984, you could have spent $45,000 for a new BMW. Or $4,500 for a new Yugo. The BMW was expensive. But, as it turned out, the Yugo was overpriced. BMW is still in business (and still selling expensive cars). Yugo, on the other hand, is no longer in business.
Another example. Three of the smallest auto company (Mercedes, BMW and Porsche) are in the business of selling some of the most expensive cars on the market. And will be in the foreseeable future. But it's three of the largest auto company (Ford, GM and Chrysler) that may soon be out of business. And they sell some of the cheapest cars on the market.
And more recently, after Jobs returned and eliminated the clones, Apple in less than 10 years (at one time or another) had a market cap larger than that of Sony, Dell, HP, Sun, Cisco, Intel, Oracle and IBM. Not bad for an incompetent company that wasn't suppose to survive past the century mark. And guess what, Apple stills sells expensive "sh*t".
But there's a difference between expensive and overprice. In 1984, you could have spent $45,000 for a new BMW. Or $4,500 for a new Yugo. The BMW was expensive. But, as it turned out, the Yugo was overpriced. BMW is still in business (and still selling expensive cars). Yugo, on the other hand, is no longer in business.
Another example. Three of the smallest auto company (Mercedes, BMW and Porsche) are in the business of selling some of the most expensive cars on the market. And will be in the foreseeable future. But it's three of the largest auto company (Ford, GM and Chrysler) that may soon be out of business. And they sell some of the cheapest cars on the market.
As much as I dislike the car analogies, they are often quite apt.
Just trying to use common sense and provide my 2 cents to an interesting discussion here.
To me it looks much more a question of "what is an OS" compared to "who has the right to install or sell it"?
My opinion is that Microsoft changed a paradygm (kudos for that) in the computer industry compared to all other industries involving electronics (at least the majority).
If I like a product, OS INCLUDED, then I buy that product, not some sort of copy-clone of it with a hacked version of the OS.
Here I am talking about legal sale of high volumes, not about enthusiasts who have the knowledge to modify these products.
I bet noone will legally be entitled to sell the following items with an OS different than the one provided by the original manufacturer:
- playstation 3
- wii
- blackberry
- TV set
- any car (BMW or AUDI or whatever)
- TomTom or Garmin GPS
Mac computers are no different than that. Apple was smart enough to let people buy DVD copies of their OS also in case of an upgrade, this is their choice, but it doesn't take away the fact that Mac computers and Apple OS are "ONE PRODUCT".
And this whether you like it or not. If you don't like it then feel free to purchase another product, or write a letter to the board of directors asking them to follow Microsoft's path.
Apple could use the same system used in all other products (like the iPhone) and just embed the OS in the device prior to sale and then only allow you to download the upgrades through their online store. But this is just a formality, in my opinion.
Personally I think the "different" approach here is the one used by Microsoft or Linux, not the one used by Apple. They "think different" because they fundamentally "think like every other consumer electronics manufacturer" and not like "the PC manufacturer".
I don't understand people talking about freedom and then absolutely wanting an OSX on a machine not intended for that. I know I will receive flaming comments about that.
My advice to manufacturers? Instead of funding Psystar (MAYBE) put money into developing your own OS. I will not get under Redmont's radar, but at least you will play with clear cards.
Psystar is so screwed. They're not reselling, they are shipping a HACKED version of OSX, which is the copyright violation.
No they are selling (reselling actually) a boxed OSX straight from Apple. You can then get from them or elsewhere on the Net, the software to let you install that on your PsyStar.
The part that you seem to object to I gather is the small piece of software that gets added to prevent OSX crashing on install with the Psystar computer. I guess they could argue that is for the protection and enhancement of their hardware.
They could also argue that it is no different than the haxies or drivers used by Apple's own 3rd party suppliers, who do the same to ensure their products work fine with Apple's.
People who submit to Apple's policies are rarely rewarded. Take for instance all those who went along with Apple's DRMed iTunes tracks, who are now sitting on damaged, old goods that they will be charged to replace.
Just trying to use common sense and provide my 2 cents to an interesting discussion here.
To me it looks much more a question of "what is an OS" compared to "who has the right to install or sell it"?
My opinion is that Microsoft changed a paradygm (kudos for that) in the computer industry compared to all other industries involving electronics (at least the majority).
If I like a product, OS INCLUDED, then I buy that product, not some sort of copy-clone of it with a hacked version of the OS.
Here I am talking about legal sale of high volumes, not about enthusiasts who have the knowledge to modify these products.
I bet noone will legally be entitled to sell the following items with an OS different than the one provided by the original manufacturer:
- playstation 3
- wii
- blackberry
- TV set
- any car (BMW or AUDI or whatever)
- TomTom or Garmin GPS
Mac computers are no different than that. Apple was smart enough to let people buy DVD copies of their OS also in case of an upgrade, this is their choice, but it doesn't take away the fact that Mac computers and Apple OS are "ONE PRODUCT".
And this whether you like it or not. If you don't like it then feel free to purchase another product, or write a letter to the board of directors asking them to follow Microsoft's path.
Apple could use the same system used in all other products (like the iPhone) and just embed the OS in the device prior to sale and then only allow you to download the upgrades through their online store. But this is just a formality, in my opinion.
Personally I think the "different" approach here is the one used by Microsoft or Linux, not the one used by Apple. They "think different" because they fundamentally "think like every other consumer electronics manufacturer" and not like "the PC manufacturer".
I don't understand people talking about freedom and then absolutely wanting an OSX on a machine not intended for that. I know I will receive flaming comments about that.
My advice to manufacturers? Instead of funding Psystar (MAYBE) put money into developing your own OS. I will not get under Redmont's radar, but at least you will play with clear cards.
Hmmmmm, I think the whole point of this is that people want to use OSX, not create a new OS. I'm sure they could have gone about creating a whole new OS a long time ago, but it's still not OSX!
The part that you seem to object to I gather is the small piece of software that gets added to prevent OSX crashing on install with the Psystar computer. I guess they could argue that is for the protection and enhancement of their hardware.
They aren't just keeping the kernel from crashing. The part everyone seems to ignore is that there are ENCRYPTED binaries in OS X, the only way to get them to function outside a real mac is to decrypt them beforehand, or use a kernel extension to change the way the OS works. There isn't any way around that, and the EFI compatibility code all these groups use to keep the kernel from crashing have nothing to do with the encrypted binaries.
The owner of any good may decide how he will use his own property. By granting a license to use Mac OS X, Apple is trying to dictate how the owner of a license will use Mac OS X, to restrict the rights of fair use defined by laws.
Apple is trying to restrict the use of a Mac OS X licence beyond the time of sale when property is transferred from Apple to the buyer. This attempt is clearly abusive and ought to be barred by the Courts.
You've contradicted yourself. People who purchase OS X do NOT own Mac OS X. They own a license to Mac OS X. As such, they are still bound by the terms of the license agreement. This means that if they violate the terms of the license agreement, the actual owner of the product (in this case, Apple) has every right to revoke that license.
It's like a passport. Your passport is not yours. It is the property of the government. And the government has the right to revoke a passport if you fail to meet the terms required to hold a passport. This usually doesn't happen, but when it does (in the case of something like treason), you can bet that the citizen in question will definitely have his passport revoked.
Can't Apple have PA Semi do them something prepriatery in the hardware, like a custom chip, that future version of Mac OS can't boot without?
They could, but that would be an issue for about 3 years since any olders Macs would not have this protection. That gives the hackers about 3 years to find a work around before this software could be distributed.
A simpler option may be to raise the price to male prohibitively expensive, then allow current Mac owners apply for a discount using their serial number.
What kind of person "knowingly" and "blatantly" puts money into a product/business whose primary objective is to:
1) COPY someone else's work and against their obvious intentions sell it as your own...
2) IGNORE their wishes for you to cease copying...
3) Spend lots of money and the valuable time of our justice system to perpetuate 1 and 2?
The top executives at Psystar obviously have their own motives for doing what they do. But the fact that there are employees and lawyers willing to contribute to this business is sad.
Who are the callous, unscrupulous rejects out there who think this is an admirable means of living? Even if you assuage yourself that this action is legal by the loosest interpretation; going to work everyday to perpetuate such disrespect on a mass-production scale is despicable.
You must remember that Apple will have to demonstrate exactly how it is being harmed. They are realizing the sale of the software, so their only harm is that they don't get a hardware sale out of it.
The harm to Apple is their reputation of a solid OS and stability. If people by this piece of crap computer from Pystar and run into problems with system crashes, etc., they will blame Apple for the problems since the OS is what runs the computer. That is mainly why Windows is so unstable because it is impossible to support thousands of different hardware configurations. Apple isn't worried about sales (they already have record sales now) because people buy a Mac for the quality of the computer and the OS.
Apple would then have to waste money on trying to make the OS run on multiple hardware platforms instead of developing better stuff.
Comments
(ups repeat)
Sell OS at a higher price (really high to discourage use) for non Apple computers and sell at current price for Apple computers.
Win Win solution.
Who would buy one of these Mac clones anyway? You are just asking for trouble. You'll never be able to update with patches (well, you can try) and who knows what third party software issues will come up. Stay away, far away...
If you really want one, just build it yourself.
Scooter
http://www.gadgetgrid.com
Those who don't want to pay $3000 for an upgradable mid-tower.
If Apple would bring back a built-to-order Mac Pro that could be configured with more desktop-oriented hardware (as opposed to $3000 workstation hardware) and sell them for as low as $1500 like they did in the past, there wouldn't be a market for Hackintoshes.
You're right.
The gap is really too big between a Mac mini and a MacPro (Thank you, i don't need a computer with integrated monitor)
Psystar could just as easily buy a license to sell Vista on their machines legally.
You are 100% right there, but if the machine vendor want Microsoft to provide support for the OS (as is the only option with OS X) then the vendor has to purchase a very expensive copy of Windows Vista, as opposed to the cheap ass OEM licenses.
Also of note, the OEM version of Windows costs close to the price of a boxed Mac OS X. And any company caught selling OEM versions of Windows without a machine is generally sued/fined for breach of copyright.
Actually the last time there were clones it showed Apple to be incompetent, slow, unable to compete, and that they were building expensive sh*t. The clones kept trumping Apple on each release and, in the case of Power Computing, built an innovative Internet shop to market them, which became the origins of the Apple Store after Apple bought them out.
But still, big powerful Psystar should stop picking on little ol' Apple because some Apple users are becoming extremely disturbed at the prospect of not being told what they should buy and use.
And Apple was also being led by an incompetent CEO at the time and was vastly over-stretching itself (the way MS is now). No one is complaining about being told what to use (must you be such a sarcastic shrill), the simple fact is that PsyStar is openly and knowingly breaking copyright law.
As Apple customers, part of the reason we buy from the company is because of the elimination of vendor issues resultant from dividing hardware and software support. We have every right to defend that position.
When I hear the word usurp I think Obama, not Apple.
Maybe you just need a good dictionary.
Psystar is arguing that it legally purchased the software, and made one legal copy as authorized by the original license (claiming Apple's licensing term requiring the OS to be installed on only Macs is illegal). I think the argument is interesting, but weak because Psystar actually makes more then one copy of the OS. It first copies the OS, modifies it, and then copies it again when it installs it. Apple's license doesn't give permission to make more then one copy, and it doesn't give permission to modify the software.
Limited to a few exceptions, Copyright is a legal monopoly in which right holders have almost absolute control over their works. Copyright law would likely allow regular folks to make those modifications to allow it to install on a PC despite Apple's license because it wouldn't sufficiently rob Apple of revenue because the use is for personal use, not profit. Psystar is directly costing Apple sales, however, and would be a big No No.
I guess two wrongs wouldn't make a right, but if Psystar argument is correct, then they shouldn't need to modify the code. This is the reason they are in court then, eh?
The way it reads to me is that if you bought a book, then wanted to sell it to someone when you were done reading it, the copyright owner of the book is telling you that they will sue you for doing so.
Perhaps the pro-Apple stance on this issue is because last time they let the incompetent build cheap sh*t and load OS on it, Apple almost went under. But at the time, Apple was spread thin making junk anyway. I think with their current ability to make money off of phones and media, that today's Apple could do better competing with other operating systems on systems they don't build. Let 'em have OS X, it will spread like wild fire. The more people at this point that have it the better. It is time for Apple to get huge and inconsiderate.
And how is this new filing any different than anything they have said before? They're not going to win a case by repeating themselves.
Well, let's be honest, from what we've seen of them, they're not going to win a case period.
Actually the last time there were clones it showed Apple to be incompetent, slow, unable to compete, and that they were building expensive sh*t. The clones kept trumping Apple on each release and, in the case of Power Computing, built an innovative Internet shop to market them, which became the origins of the Apple Store after Apple bought them out.
But still, big powerful Psystar should stop picking on little ol' Apple because some Apple users are becoming extremely disturbed at the prospect of not being told what they should buy and use.
And more recently, after Jobs returned and eliminated the clones, Apple in less than 10 years (at one time or another) had a market cap larger than that of Sony, Dell, HP, Sun, Cisco, Intel, Oracle and IBM. Not bad for an incompetent company that wasn't suppose to survive past the century mark. And guess what, Apple stills sells expensive "sh*t".
But there's a difference between expensive and overprice. In 1984, you could have spent $45,000 for a new BMW. Or $4,500 for a new Yugo. The BMW was expensive. But, as it turned out, the Yugo was overpriced. BMW is still in business (and still selling expensive cars). Yugo, on the other hand, is no longer in business.
Another example. Three of the smallest auto company (Mercedes, BMW and Porsche) are in the business of selling some of the most expensive cars on the market. And will be in the foreseeable future. But it's three of the largest auto company (Ford, GM and Chrysler) that may soon be out of business. And they sell some of the cheapest cars on the market.
And more recently, after Jobs returned and eliminated the clones, Apple in less than 10 years (at one time or another) had a market cap larger than that of Sony, Dell, HP, Sun, Cisco, Intel, Oracle and IBM. Not bad for an incompetent company that wasn't suppose to survive past the century mark. And guess what, Apple stills sells expensive "sh*t".
But there's a difference between expensive and overprice. In 1984, you could have spent $45,000 for a new BMW. Or $4,500 for a new Yugo. The BMW was expensive. But, as it turned out, the Yugo was overpriced. BMW is still in business (and still selling expensive cars). Yugo, on the other hand, is no longer in business.
Another example. Three of the smallest auto company (Mercedes, BMW and Porsche) are in the business of selling some of the most expensive cars on the market. And will be in the foreseeable future. But it's three of the largest auto company (Ford, GM and Chrysler) that may soon be out of business. And they sell some of the cheapest cars on the market.
As much as I dislike the car analogies, they are often quite apt.
Just trying to use common sense and provide my 2 cents to an interesting discussion here.
To me it looks much more a question of "what is an OS" compared to "who has the right to install or sell it"?
My opinion is that Microsoft changed a paradygm (kudos for that) in the computer industry compared to all other industries involving electronics (at least the majority).
If I like a product, OS INCLUDED, then I buy that product, not some sort of copy-clone of it with a hacked version of the OS.
Here I am talking about legal sale of high volumes, not about enthusiasts who have the knowledge to modify these products.
I bet noone will legally be entitled to sell the following items with an OS different than the one provided by the original manufacturer:
- playstation 3
- wii
- blackberry
- TV set
- any car (BMW or AUDI or whatever)
- TomTom or Garmin GPS
Mac computers are no different than that. Apple was smart enough to let people buy DVD copies of their OS also in case of an upgrade, this is their choice, but it doesn't take away the fact that Mac computers and Apple OS are "ONE PRODUCT".
And this whether you like it or not. If you don't like it then feel free to purchase another product, or write a letter to the board of directors asking them to follow Microsoft's path.
Apple could use the same system used in all other products (like the iPhone) and just embed the OS in the device prior to sale and then only allow you to download the upgrades through their online store. But this is just a formality, in my opinion.
Personally I think the "different" approach here is the one used by Microsoft or Linux, not the one used by Apple. They "think different" because they fundamentally "think like every other consumer electronics manufacturer" and not like "the PC manufacturer".
I don't understand people talking about freedom and then absolutely wanting an OSX on a machine not intended for that. I know I will receive flaming comments about that.
My advice to manufacturers? Instead of funding Psystar (MAYBE) put money into developing your own OS. I will not get under Redmont's radar, but at least you will play with clear cards.
Psystar is so screwed. They're not reselling, they are shipping a HACKED version of OSX, which is the copyright violation.
No they are selling (reselling actually) a boxed OSX straight from Apple. You can then get from them or elsewhere on the Net, the software to let you install that on your PsyStar.
The part that you seem to object to I gather is the small piece of software that gets added to prevent OSX crashing on install with the Psystar computer. I guess they could argue that is for the protection and enhancement of their hardware.
They could also argue that it is no different than the haxies or drivers used by Apple's own 3rd party suppliers, who do the same to ensure their products work fine with Apple's.
People who submit to Apple's policies are rarely rewarded. Take for instance all those who went along with Apple's DRMed iTunes tracks, who are now sitting on damaged, old goods that they will be charged to replace.
I am by no means a lawyer or something.
Just trying to use common sense and provide my 2 cents to an interesting discussion here.
To me it looks much more a question of "what is an OS" compared to "who has the right to install or sell it"?
My opinion is that Microsoft changed a paradygm (kudos for that) in the computer industry compared to all other industries involving electronics (at least the majority).
If I like a product, OS INCLUDED, then I buy that product, not some sort of copy-clone of it with a hacked version of the OS.
Here I am talking about legal sale of high volumes, not about enthusiasts who have the knowledge to modify these products.
I bet noone will legally be entitled to sell the following items with an OS different than the one provided by the original manufacturer:
- playstation 3
- wii
- blackberry
- TV set
- any car (BMW or AUDI or whatever)
- TomTom or Garmin GPS
Mac computers are no different than that. Apple was smart enough to let people buy DVD copies of their OS also in case of an upgrade, this is their choice, but it doesn't take away the fact that Mac computers and Apple OS are "ONE PRODUCT".
And this whether you like it or not. If you don't like it then feel free to purchase another product, or write a letter to the board of directors asking them to follow Microsoft's path.
Apple could use the same system used in all other products (like the iPhone) and just embed the OS in the device prior to sale and then only allow you to download the upgrades through their online store. But this is just a formality, in my opinion.
Personally I think the "different" approach here is the one used by Microsoft or Linux, not the one used by Apple. They "think different" because they fundamentally "think like every other consumer electronics manufacturer" and not like "the PC manufacturer".
I don't understand people talking about freedom and then absolutely wanting an OSX on a machine not intended for that. I know I will receive flaming comments about that.
My advice to manufacturers? Instead of funding Psystar (MAYBE) put money into developing your own OS. I will not get under Redmont's radar, but at least you will play with clear cards.
Hmmmmm, I think the whole point of this is that people want to use OSX, not create a new OS. I'm sure they could have gone about creating a whole new OS a long time ago, but it's still not OSX!
The part that you seem to object to I gather is the small piece of software that gets added to prevent OSX crashing on install with the Psystar computer. I guess they could argue that is for the protection and enhancement of their hardware.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...7&postcount=25
They aren't just keeping the kernel from crashing. The part everyone seems to ignore is that there are ENCRYPTED binaries in OS X, the only way to get them to function outside a real mac is to decrypt them beforehand, or use a kernel extension to change the way the OS works. There isn't any way around that, and the EFI compatibility code all these groups use to keep the kernel from crashing have nothing to do with the encrypted binaries.
The owner of any good may decide how he will use his own property. By granting a license to use Mac OS X, Apple is trying to dictate how the owner of a license will use Mac OS X, to restrict the rights of fair use defined by laws.
Apple is trying to restrict the use of a Mac OS X licence beyond the time of sale when property is transferred from Apple to the buyer. This attempt is clearly abusive and ought to be barred by the Courts.
You've contradicted yourself. People who purchase OS X do NOT own Mac OS X. They own a license to Mac OS X. As such, they are still bound by the terms of the license agreement. This means that if they violate the terms of the license agreement, the actual owner of the product (in this case, Apple) has every right to revoke that license.
It's like a passport. Your passport is not yours. It is the property of the government. And the government has the right to revoke a passport if you fail to meet the terms required to hold a passport. This usually doesn't happen, but when it does (in the case of something like treason), you can bet that the citizen in question will definitely have his passport revoked.
Dave
Can't Apple have PA Semi do them something prepriatery in the hardware, like a custom chip, that future version of Mac OS can't boot without?
They could, but that would be an issue for about 3 years since any olders Macs would not have this protection. That gives the hackers about 3 years to find a work around before this software could be distributed.
A simpler option may be to raise the price to male prohibitively expensive, then allow current Mac owners apply for a discount using their serial number.
1) COPY someone else's work and against their obvious intentions sell it as your own...
2) IGNORE their wishes for you to cease copying...
3) Spend lots of money and the valuable time of our justice system to perpetuate 1 and 2?
The top executives at Psystar obviously have their own motives for doing what they do. But the fact that there are employees and lawyers willing to contribute to this business is sad.
Who are the callous, unscrupulous rejects out there who think this is an admirable means of living? Even if you assuage yourself that this action is legal by the loosest interpretation; going to work everyday to perpetuate such disrespect on a mass-production scale is despicable.
You must remember that Apple will have to demonstrate exactly how it is being harmed. They are realizing the sale of the software, so their only harm is that they don't get a hardware sale out of it.
The harm to Apple is their reputation of a solid OS and stability. If people by this piece of crap computer from Pystar and run into problems with system crashes, etc., they will blame Apple for the problems since the OS is what runs the computer. That is mainly why Windows is so unstable because it is impossible to support thousands of different hardware configurations. Apple isn't worried about sales (they already have record sales now) because people buy a Mac for the quality of the computer and the OS.
Apple would then have to waste money on trying to make the OS run on multiple hardware platforms instead of developing better stuff.