Does Psystar purchase legit copies of operating system from Apple for their computers?
Originally, they bought some of them from Apple, but once Apple learned they were being installed in violation of the licence, they will no longer sell to them direct.
Yes they did until Apple cut them off..
Does Psystar purchase legit copies of operating system from Apple for their computers?
Actually, the court case is about the operative definition of "legit." It has been SOP for software vendors to specify in the license not only that it's illegal to bootleg a copy of the software but also what machine(s) a licensed copy may be run on. For example, a database software license might cost "x" for legally running the database program on a PC class of machine and "10x" to run the same software on a mainframe. And so it is with Apple, the vendor of OS X.AAPL is willing to license the use of OS X only on machines they build. Because, as others noted, AAPL's business model is that the software sells the hardware. Relatively few would buy a Mac to run only Windows/Linux without OS X, and many more would buy OS X for their el cheapo machines if that were legal. The problem being that AAPL can't make much money selling OS X and Macs seperately.
If the court were to break AAPL's business model, the money for further development of OS X would be diverted by clone makers and AAPL would be right back where it was before Jobs returned. OS X would stagnate. Microsoft might be in the same sort of pickle under the licensing regime demanded by Psystar because that might allow thousands of netbooks to run Windows and Office online - with a single supercomputer made with Intel CPUs doing all the work executing a single licensed copy of Windows and Office. It would be a "tragedy of the commons" situation just like when everyone is allowed to graze their flock on government property, and overgrazing is inevitable because nobody has any incentive to leave any grass for anyone else.
Of course successful competition by Linux against Microsoft would have the same effect, but that would simply mean that amateurs were able to beat pros, and there is therfore no reason for pros to exist. If that be the case, so be it - but if under its present business model AAPL can do a superior OS development which outruns the development of Linux, then we should want them to do it.
Note that I emphasize development, an ongoing activity, rather than the state of the art existing at a particular time. Socialism fails in competition with capitalism precisely because socialism assumes away all dynamism in the economy. Socialism solves oversimplified "straw man" problems but prevents the solution of the hard problems of real life. Socialized medicine is a solution to the problem of delivery of existing medical technology but is never going to lead capitalism in developing new medical technology. With the result, in the short run, that people die for lack of advances in medicine - and in the the long run they don't even save money because the cost of delivery of existing medical processes isn't driven down.
And modern management theory states that if you aren't trying to improve, you are getting worse. Socialists are so busy bean counting that they are incompetent at trying to improve, therefore practice under socialism actually degrades with time.