I see where we disagree. Let me try to explain.
Microsoft does not manufacture "computer systems". They make software. Part of a system, but only half.
Dell and other PC hardware vendors do not manufacture "computer systems". They make hardware. Part of a system, but only half.
Show me a Dell computer that consists of Dell hardware integrated with a Dell operating system. Ain't none that I know of.
Show me a Microsoft computer that consists of Microsoft hardware integrated with Windows. Ain't none that I know of.
Apple manufactures SYSTEMS, consisting of hardware integrated with software. They make SYSTEMS. They do not sell their software for use with other manufacturer's hardware, and while they ALLOW -- under certain circumstances -- Mac owners to put other software on the Apple hardware, they NEVER sell the hardware without the software. They sell SYSTEMS.
When will the Psystar apologists realize that Psystar is not making a competing product (a system) -- they are making an illegal copyright-infringing piece of hardware and encouraging Mac-heads to violate the terms of the OS-X EULA (which states you may not install OS-X on non-Apple hardware).
The reason that restriction is legal is simply that Apple manufactures and sells SYSTEMS and they have the right to require that the SYSTEM not be broken up in pieces.
There's lots of precedent for that. Analogies with Windows and PC hardware are fallacious and nothing more.
There's the kicker -- they sell their software independently of the hardware. They are both a software and a hardware manufacturer.
while they ALLOW -- under certain circumstances -- Mac owners to put other software on the Apple hardware
That is the equivalent of saying while Ford will allow -- under certain circumstances -- owners to put non-Ford gasoline (if Ford sold gasoline) in Ford cars. Ford doesn't allow anything, and Apple shouldn't be able to either. You bought the hardware, it's yours, period.
When will the Psystar apologists realize that Psystar is not making a competing product (a system) -- they are making an illegal copyright-infringing piece of hardware and encouraging Mac-heads to violate the terms of the OS-X EULA
Here is where we disagree. Psystar is paying for each copy of OS X. The first question is the EULA. I don't think that should be enforceable because it stretches copyright beyond its intent. I believe Apple has the right to prevent you from making and distributing multiple copies of OS X off the disk you bought -- that's right in with copyright. But I can't agree with them having the power to say what you can and can't install it on. You bought it, it's yours, you install it wherever you want. Just don't distribute copies.
The second is the DMCA. I believe this is an extremely clear case of the interoperability exemption, since they are trying to get OS X to operate with standard PC hardware.
Here I run up against the problem of principle vs. practical. I do NOT want Psystar diluting the OS X market with unsupported machines that have no quality engineering in them (they may be decent by PC standards, but that's a lower standard). History with Microsoft shows people will blame Apple for any of Psystar's screw-ups. But the principles of original copyright intent and being against copyright abuse override that.