Stop there again. The law requires that willfulness be proven by the accuser. Infringement is non-willful until proven otherwise. Given that the person operates under the kind of copyright law in this regard that most of the world operates under, it is reasonable that he may not know of our specific law in that regard.
For example, did you know that in the UK if you are sued for libel it is up to you to prove that you did not commit libel? Didn't think so. It seems strange to us because in the US the plaintiff must prove the various criteria of libel. It would likewise seem strange to someone in most of the rest of the world that you cannot mess around with software you just bought or create tools to install it on your computer.
There was a significant financial benefit for anyone who was illegally using the crack to run OSX on cheap Dells,
You blow it again. The financial benefit must be for the author or distributor. It doesn't matter if a million people save $100 each. The hacker, who was described as a Mac fanatic himself (and likely a Mac developer, since he originally used the developer version of OS X) most likely already had a Mac. In any case, it doesn't work like that. You actually need to receive something of value in exchange for the tool. Any financial gain you may think up is not based on facts, and we have only the facts of the article to deal with.
You need to prove criminality according to the facts on hand and the law which you so carelessly dismissed the first time I brought this up quite a while ago.
Your claim that no Russian hackers benefitted financially from this is equally devious to your other claims. You are an admitted liar, who lies in defense of leftists and foreign criminals, that much was already clear.
the law which you so carelessly dismissed
LOL, I am the obviously the one defending the law, while you endlessly try to use your lies to enable foreign hackers to trample all over it.