A lot of buzz has been going around on tech websites about Apple v. Psystar, so I wanted to shed a little light on it too.
The issue is that Apple is accusing the independent company Psystar for putting Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware. Basically, Psystar is officially selling Hackintoshes. Apple is claiming that by doing so, Psystar is committing copyright infringement and violating Apple's EULA for Mac OS X.
There are basically 2 conflicting reports.
If Psystar, as some have been saying, was copying Mac OS X and installing these copies on multiple machines, then (as much as it pains me to say it, in this case, given current copyright law) that's wrong as it infringes on Apple's copyright.
If, on the other hand, as other people are saying, Psystar was purchasing legitimate copies of Mac OS X and installing a single purchased copy on a single machine, why is this wrong? For one thing, this doesn't even infringe on copyright. In fact, recent copyright laws have specifically said that this sort of legitimate installation on other hardware is not infringing on copyright.
That leaves the EULA. The court should then be asking, is such a provision (preventing installation on "unauthorized hardware") even legal? Heck, even Microsoft (traditionally no paragon of open computing) lets people install a copy of Windows on any hardware they want, as long as that is only done once per copy.
Let's see how this whole thing plays out.
