I never mentionned precedent against individuals as no one goes against individuals for these breaches of EULAs. It's just not worthwhile. It is in the case of Psystar though, since they were trying to profit. Even if they weren't successful (700 or so sales), going after them serves as a deterrent for others that might have similar ideas.
This case has, as far as I understand it, nothing to do with the EULA.
Without the end-user license agreement, copyright law applies. Copyright law does not allow you to make copies. Hence, have the EULA declared invalid ? You have no more right to run the software as it requires to be copied from the hard drive to the system RAM to run.
Will the entire EULA be invalid if it turns out that it is perfectly legal to install a bought copy of OS X on a non-Apple branded computer? Wouldn't it make more sense that you could freely ignore that limitation?
If the entire EULA is declared invalid just because some limitations turns out not to be within Apple's power to impose that would lead to some truly ludicrous results, such as Apple suddenly being able to sue all their customers for copyright infraction.
What is there to argue here ? The court ruled as it has always ruled based on the laws in place. Why would anyone side with Psystar ?
I don't side with Psystar. I just don't think that the court case against Psystar makes it more clear what you legally can and cannot install OS X on as an individual.
The EULA simply wasn't addressed.