That is what is getting them in trouble, since they are a CORPORATION charging people money to load their altered pirated OS onto their machines.
It's not "pirated". You could (barely) argue that it was "modified", but my point is said modification
should not be illegal.
They are altering the OS to defeat the protections Apple has in place and selling it.
No, they are "altering the OS" to support hardware Apple does not. I am fairly certain that Apple makes no direct attempts to tie OS X to Apple hardware.
Whether or not they're even "altering the OS" is up for some debate as well. From my basic understanding of getting OSX86 installed, none of OS X's code is "altered", there are just some .kexts that are added or replaced.
If you get a smoking deal on a cargo container of unusable Batman DVDs, go to Wal-mart and buy a Batman DVD, crack the DRM and start selling your pirated Batman DVD for $5 and tossing in the destroyed copy for $10 -- they are going to pin your ass to the wall for selling the hacked/pirated copy.
Once again, an invalid comparison. Psystar isn't taking a single copy of OS X then reselling it multiple times (as you continually try to assert). They are taking a single copy of OS X, making it run on a computer, then selling it (along with the computer) to another party.
Which is what Apple is going to do to Psystar. The EULA is secondary, the copyright violations and the trademark violations kill them quick even if Apple drops the licensing issue.
And, again, the fact it's even considered a "copyright violation" is an indication the law is wrong.
The earlier example about the company who was modifying people's DVDs on their behalf to remove objectionable material is also applicable. The fact that case even went to court is, alone, a gross indictment against copyright law. If I buy a DVD, edit out the scenes I don't like and then watch it, I've done nothing illegal (and certainly nothing wrong). I can conceive of no rational reason
why exactly the same scenario, only with a third party doing the editing on my behalf, should be any different.
Here's another one. Operating on behalf of people who cannot read, I take their music CDs and splice in a title announcement before each track begins, and charge them $5 for this service. In no way, shape, or form, should this be considered wrong, or illegal.
Edit: If you were a legit licensed OEM, there wouldn't be a need to charge an OS install fee. Don't think Daystar, Motorola, Power Computing etc. ever charged an OS install fee.
Are you seriously suggesting they were not factoring in the costs involved with installing, testing and support MacOS on their hardware into their prices ? That they were selling their machines for the raw cost of hardware+MacOS ?