In case you're willing to read it:

[gunug]

This was interesting to me, maybe some others:

http://www.sfweekly.com/content/printVersion/1744650

Excerpt:

QUOTE

So far, the court hasn't ruled. Indeed, in August the brothers countersued, charging the OS X maker was trying to illegally inhibit trade. As with Microsoft, which lost a multimillion-dollar antitrust decision in Europe in 2004, Apple is protecting an illegal monopoly, Psystar claims.  

Fred von Lohmann is the staff attorney for the San Francisco–based Electronic Frontier Foundation, a group that advocates for Internet free speech issues. He thinks the brothers just might prevail. "We've lived 100-plus years with the basic proposition that if you bought it, you own it," he says. "We don't let vendors reach into your living room and micromanage how you use a product. Why should Apple get away with it?"

*          *          *
Apple's suit against Psystar argues the Pedrazas violate copyright law by altering the operating system software. To the giant firm's lawyers, Psystar's crime is akin to illegally remixing a song and reselling it as one's own.

  But the Pedrazas contend an operating system is more like a CD than a song. Apple's attempt to dictate what kind of computer runs the software, they believe, would be akin to Def Jam insisting consumers play the latest Jay-Z only on Sony stereos.

  Psystar pays full price — $29 — for each copy of OS X that it installs on its computers. So once they pay for it, the Pedrazas ask, why can't they use it however they like? "It's like buying a book," Robert says. "Once I own it, I can tear pages out, underline sentences, even rewrite a whole section. And if I can find a buyer, I can resell that one copy however I please."

  On a larger scale, the Pedrazas' legal team pitches the case against Apple as a battle for the future soul of the computer world. If the brothers win, Apple might be forced to allow its programs to run on any computer on the market. "This isn't just about some Florida startup versus Apple," says Kiwi Camara of the Houston law firm Camara & Sibley, which represents Psystar. "It's about recognizing a future where anything can be connected to anything else."

  Apple's attorneys, of course, see things differently. Filings clearly lay out their reasoning. Whenever people buy copies of Mac OS X, they assent to a licensing agreement that pops up when the program is installed. Users promise not to alter the software or run it on anything but Apple hardware. Psystar clearly violated both promises, the lawyers contend.

[Paddy]

If you manage to wade through the puff piece, Engadget has posted a list of the inaccuracies in the article (there are a number):

http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/11/psystar...osh-scene-is-a/

What Psystar is doing is legally bogus. Everything they do requires that they re-engineer Apple's proprietary, copyrighted code. Last time I looked, that was a violation of copyright. I really don't think it gets any more complicated than that. Lots of software only runs on PARTICULAR machinery. Is some judge going to tell Microsoft that they have to make Windows 7 capable of running on every machine known to man? Or tell RIM that it has to make its Blackberry Desktop run on the iPhone? I think not.