eula IS NOT dmca, et. al.
@ (Trygve Henriksen) @AC: Apple never had to do copyright protection on their OS before? I seem to remember something about Heath Computers putting out a Motorola 68K chip-based kit computer that Apple simply freaked out about. As I recall, that is what started the hardware copyright engineering of MAC OS. There are still things going on in the BIOS, and that is why Apple had to release BootCamp to allow MS OS to run on a "WinTel" machine...
@ (Chris P) Mac Cracking FAIL: What the BMW dealership says when the customer brings in a Ford, or a Chevy, or a Cooper; "Thank you sir, please sign here on the estimate, and we will have your car back to you in XX days for $$$. Please have a good day, and thank you for your business!"
@ (Jonathan 6) @ Go Psystar: You are absolutely, positively, 100% exactamundo right! If Psystar has to go against the DMCA, they are toast. Good thing this is not IP or copyright infringement, then, isn't it? The Digital Millenium COPYRIGHT Act does NOT APPLY in this case because Psystar is 1) NOT selling its machines as genuine Apple brand machines, 2) NOT selling unlicensed copies of Apple's MAC OS, and 3) NOT attempting to reproduce or distribute counterfeit or forged copies of Apple's copyrighted software. All "preinstalled" software from Apple appear to be legally purchased.
The problem here has nothing to do with copyright law, people. Sorry, sad fact, but true. An EULA (End User License Agreement) is a CONTRACT, and therefore does NOT gain any protection from DMCA or any other clause or statute about copyright, international or otherwise, even though Apple DOES copyright its EULA's (but that's another matter)...
Because of this, Apple needs to be suing under BREACH OF CONTRACT, and its current claims of "copyright infringement, inducement of copyright infringement, trademark infringement", etc. (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-9991779-56.html). In fact, Apple attorney, Mark A. Goldstein, compares this sale to the "Grokster ruling", which was about a company convicted of contribuatory copyright infringement through the sale of its software. How this relates to LEGALLY PURCHASED copies of its software...
Well, Apple claims that the LEGALLY PURCHASED copies of MAC OS Psystar must be using are upgrade versions only, and not valid (or available) for clean installs. Yet, this is shown to be false from here (http://www.apple.com/macosx/specs.html), where an installed MAC OS is not listed as a requirement; simply a "Mac computer with Intel processor". While it may be argued that Apple INTENDED to have it listed as "Mac computer with Intel processor [and existing copy of MAC OS]", IT DOES NOT, and that is what lawyers drool over and judges rule over. Likewise, while the page details upgrading from v10.5 and v10.4, it does not say that you CANNOT upgrade from any other version of MAC OS, or from anything at all.
As YOU CAN install MAC OS without having a previous version installed, then Apple's case falls apart (it must be what Apple intended, otherwise the software WOULD NOT DO IT). If they try to argue differenly, then the lie quickly comes to surface, and the "update EULA" shows to be a red herring. For notice, I have not found a MS CD of XP labeled "Upgrade" that would install WITHOUT a copy of Windows installed on a hard drive, or without having a valid MS Windows installation CD of previous versioning. That is, after all, what MS intends.
Now, if the install is predicated on something being in the computer to prevent "unintended or unauthorized" installation, THEN there is a case for DMCA, because that would be circumvention of a copyright enforcement mechanism (http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap12.html#1201). However, it is useful to point out that the Apple legal team do not appear to have that as part of the case... And it is also worth noting that it is not required, as "Michael C" points out above.
@ (Doc Spock) Buying vs. Licensing: Sorry, but in order for you analogy (as it stands) to be applicable, there must be a STATE MANDATED AND RUN licensing bureau, department or agency that will license you to operate a computer. However, you DO NOT need such a license to operate a computer. Your analogy would actually be "I buy a bus, it is mine. Yet I *cannot* drive it because _my driver's license_ doesn't allow me to run the ROM code in the bus' internal computer module that controls the fuel injection and timing", which is FALSE. Even without a CDL (Commerical Drivers License) Class C (or Chauffer's licence) you CAN get in, turn the key and run the engine, legally (at least in my state, and in TX from what TX BMV seems to say on the website) as long as you do not drive on PUBLIC roads or property. You can drive your bus all day long on closed tracks, private property, etc. There is still nothing about your driver's license to stop you from TAKING OUT that computer module, and putting it in ANOTHER BUS OF A DIFFERENT BRAND, which might be a closer analogy to what is actually happening here.
Of course, I am not a lawyer. Luckily, lawyers have no monopoly on common sense, or the ability to take the time to read a contract properly, or even to interpret law. That just means that I cannot (legally?) charge someone to give my advice to them on legal matters, and I cannot represent anyone other than myself in court without a legal instrument (power of attorney - ironic, isn't it?).