I simply don't see a legal or moral problem with them taking software they've bought and loading it up on whatever hardware they want. I'm absolutely opposed to the concept of these companies claiming (when it is convienient to them) that you are actually licensing rather than buying it. The entire idea flies in the face of the doctrine of first sale, which was thankfully fully adjudicated when the US was a Republic was goverened by reason and rule of law and prior to the US becoming a corporatist state where copyright has essentially become eternal.
Yes, it was... but the adjudication hinged on what the agreement said. In the judgement the ruling was careful to make the distinction between a license and a sale. In the case that most people point to and the Bacall case, it was ruled to be a sale because of the language was written wrong. Other cases in which it is explicitly spelled out that the contract is a license have consistently been upheld and the doctrine of 1st sale is not applicable.
Apple is selling the OS to folks.
. . . and your position is that if they want to make their OS function as a loss leader for their hardware, they can do so only by making their hardware in such a way that PC's can't adequately emulate it. Otherwise, they cannot engage in their chosen system business. They must be in the software business and, separately, the hardware business.Although they could, I suppose, price their OS at $1,000,000 per licensed copy - and give people who own or buy Macs a $999,901 rebate, and a warranty of operability. Would that suit you better than seeing Apple refuse to sell licensed copies of OS X to people who don't own Macs?