Software is still a bit difficult to classify. As just one example of its quirky nature is the fact that it's the only copyright protected work that needs to be copied AND modified to 'use'. The ambiguity surrounding what software 'is' has allowed companies to attempt to protect their software using every existing IP right in the book and then some (the ELUA).
For example, most software (with the exception of most console games) is sold protected by both copyright, and license restrictions on use. This is why I still had to purchase a Vista 64 disk despite already having a valid license for it. If this was taken to trial, it is highly likely that a Judge would see this as something a company should not be doing.
If Psystar gets what they're seeking though, it will drastically reduce the effectiveness of every ELUA that exists, and affect more than just Apple in ways I am unable to fully speculate without a cup of coffee.
@ Alexis Vallance
"If you don't think the terms are fair, you challenge them. You do not challenge them by ignoring the terms and make a profit as a result."
Um, that's EXACTLY how you challenge them.
Most companies just make their ELUAs as restrictive as possible and wait for them to be tested in court to see what sticks. But this sort of thing never goes to court unless someone is making/losing money due to to the ELUA being enforced/breached.
It's hard to prove 'damages' based on money you ~might~ have made if the ELUA restrictions were reasonable. And contrary to what the RIAA would like you to think, if you're not making any money, it's very hard for a software vendor to prove they're losing any, and they're not going to waste their time on you if they can't.
Apple did far worse when they used the iPhone trademark before they had the rights to it. It looks like everything worked out for them however, and to be fair Apple did start the whole i'Thing' branding trend (or did they?). I just wonder how much Cisco got for it.