This information is all true and doesn't contradict what I was saying. The Autodesk case acknowledged several prior court decisions affirming that software is licensed, while still determining that for the purposes of the first sale doctrine the copy in the retail box was owned.
In the Psystar case, Apple is contending (per previous case law) that the copy on the DVD is licensed and not owned.
There are three main points in section 117 that require clarification by the courts. First is the issue above about whether the copy on the DVD is licensed or owned per copyright limitations. The second is whether the right of the consumer to install the software on "a" computer in order to "utilize" it applies to "any" computer or just a computer on which it was designed to be utilized. Third is whether the process required to install OS X on a non-Mac creates a derivative work.
If you are in the US, you are legally entitled to a refund if you do not agree to the license. Apple's license specifies this fact explicitly, so I assume it would apply most everywhere.
"If only they sold what I wanted at a price that I wanted, nobody would be forced to violate their licensing. I don't see why those greedy executives don't want the vast amounts of extra money that they would receive when the market share increases that I made up out of thin air occur. Sure, their margins would suffer, support would suffer, their brand would suffer, but higher market share! I mean, who could possibly lose as long as I get what I want?"
