Thanks for your opinion. Did you by any chance notice that there is a 64 bit key in a hardware chip that is required for MacOS X to decode several important files at boot time, which would have to be emulated by the boot loader, constituting a DMCA breach?
It's rather stupid when a company does A, B and C to say that you can't find anything illegal in A and B and therefore it must be all legal. Especially when a company just was ordered by a court to pay about two million dollars for exactly what you think is legal.
Judge Alsup's ruling is seriously flawed in a number of ways, starting with the fact that the DMCA explicitly does not authorize the creation of these types of "product monopolies" nor does enabling OS X circumvent any copyright protection per se.
It would be a travesty of justice if the ruling is not appealed since it's very foundation is shaky at best.
Let's look at an aspect of the ruling, "(3) adding non-apple kernel extensions" is now illegal and enforceable at apple's sole discretion.
This can be interpreted to mean that apple can now control who it accepts kernel extensions for software and hardware by suing those it wishes to prevent the hardware use based on this ruling so, if you purchased a HighPoint RocketRaid adapter card and apple decides they don't want you to use it, they sue HPT and will win based on this ruling because the card requires a non-apple kernel extension and by providing it to the consumer they are effectively promoting and authorizing illegal activity.
OS X client has no copy protection, nothing stops a Mac owner from duplicating or installing it on more than one computer.
A 64bit key in a hardware chip???
I've examined apple's open-source boot loader and found no such key, I've examined several of the currently used boot loader sources including the one used by Psystar and found no such 64bit key.
I think you are referring to the key/poem and a competent attorney can explain why this is not copyrighted material and the key/poem is encoded in the main-board's firmware (what is commonly referred by many as BIOS).
For example, lock-out codes are not copyrightable, that is obviously what the key/poem is, in fact, the idea of such a key/poem is even explicitly raised in the Lexmark case/ruling.
The key/poem has no other value, it certainly is not a legitimate literary work and hence not copyrightable.
Now, with the exception of an EFI based boot loader (bootldr.efi) the use of apple's own open-source boot loader (boot-132) is the foundation for most of the current boot loaders and was specifically developed to load the darwin kernel yet this detail seems to have escaped Psystar's defense team.
Not in Germany and not in the UK. I don't know anything about the laws of other countries.
BTW. You mean "bond" and not "bondage". "Bondage" doesn't mean what you think it means.
You are completely misunderstanding the role of the SLA. The contract between Apple and the customer is a _sales contract_. Apple offers for sale a box with the software and the right to install that software on one computer, but makes it clear that the sale is only legally effective if the customer accepts the SLA. As the customer, you have two choices: Don't accept the SLA, and return the software for a refund. Or accept the SLA, which means you can only do what it allows you to do.
If you don't the SLA, then there is no sale, and therefore you have no right to do anything. Whether the SLA is enforceable or not doesn't matter here at all because by not accepting it you lose all your rights to use the software.
The situation would be different if the SLA said "You may install on copy on a Macintosh, and any number of copies on Psystar computer, but you have to pay Apple $10,000 for each copy installed on a Psystar computer". If you then installed ten copies on ten Psystar computers and Apple asked you for $100,000, then we could discuss whether the SLA was binding (in that case you would probably say you never accepted the SLA, so we just have ten cases of copyright infringement).
apple's EULA is provided "after" the sale/purchase has occurred and at the P.O.S. there is no contract or agreement other than you cannot return the product if you open it (unless it is physically defective) and this is not disputable (but you can try).
It says on the box there is a EULA inside the box, you open it and it cannot be found in printed format, you run apple's boot loader and boot the DVD, select your language, pick your drive and then you are presented with the EULA, most people never read it and just click through it however, now, accepting the terms means you cannot install it on the computer because it is not apple branded and you can't return it because you opened the package and attempted to install it when you were presented with the EULA.
Your claim that this "after" sales contract tactic is legal and binding has little validity, that's like buying a ford truck, paying for it, receiving it, told that you are bound by their EULA and once you drive off the lot you can't return it, when you stop to add fuel inside the fuel door it stipulates you can only use Shell petroleum.
What about the "first sale doctrine" or the "interoperability clause", these were not offered in defense yet they are very valid.
Also note, there is a difference between enabling a functionality and bypassing or over-riding a functionality.
A kernel extensions that provides a decryption method to allow Mac OS X to run is circumventing the built-in decryption routines, an example of this is dsmos.kext, a kernel extension that enables the built-in decryption by making available non-copyrighted data is enabling it, an example of this is fakesmc.kext.
I do not dismiss that there are enforceable portions of the EULA, commercial 3rd party installation and redistribution clauses, these things Psystar did which do violate the terms of the EULA but to claim that the EULA is completely and unequivocally legally binding and enforceable is utter nonsense.
Mac OS X is in part based on the works of FreeBSD and other open-source operating systems and apple has never denied this, this does not prevent apple from selling the derivative work and there are many in the hacintosh community who have tried to benefit financially off of the work of others and some are never credited for the work they have contributed.
To think that the community would not benefited from the results of Psystars efforts is ludicrous, now, Psystar did not steal the works of others, claim it as their own and sell it, clearly from looking at it's source the bulk of the work was done by David Elliot (DFE) and there are several other individuals listed along with their contribution code yet you do not see them listed or named as codefendants.
Psystar spent time, probably provided equipment to aid in development and might have even paid some individuals a fee of some kind, to say that they can't sell it is not entirely correct, they don't have to sell the works, the source is/was freely available for download, they can sell the distribution package which is nothing less than what apple is doing with Mac OS X which is based on darwin and it is a free open-source OS.
apple's support obligation can be bound by any terms and conditions they choose and they are not required by law to support any specific hardware or provide drivers for hardware they don't wish to support, there are many competent individuals who are capable of creating drivers for hardware and if the hardware is mainstream it will most likely be supported.
Oh, and to claim that all PC's require a modified boot loader to run Mac OS X is also false.
In my preparation and research, I have seen an EFI enabled i5 based PC boot the install DVD without pre-loading any drivers or pre-booting any environment and I have seen other machines boot the install DVD without a swap disk while other computers can't because they have a lot of unsupported onboard hardware that prevents it from loading or operating properly.
It's a very complicated matter and everything is not as cut and dry as everyone would like it to be, a lot is based on interpretation and this is never considered by the majority of readers or those reporting it.
To claim that apple makes superior hardware is unfounded, their laptops are plagues with all kinds of hardware failures, even the new iMac has serious issues, many were exchanged, the second release still has video issues that are not entirely fixed with the offered BIOS update (apple's attempt to see what they can get away with without actually fixing it properly).
There is white-listing in the firmware to prevent a machine from starting up if you install better quality but non-apple branded components and is another control tactic that the consumer is never informed of.
