Actually, I've been wondering about this for a while. Everybody likes to trot out the term "illegal" when talking about OSx86 stuff, but it's not quite that simple. Personal OSx86 installations are NOT a breach of any statutes I'm aware of, so there's no criminal issue. There's little-to-no real remedy available to Apple against the consumer that purchases a retail copy of leopard and then hacks it to run on a non-apple box. Sure, it breaches the contract--but so what? The first question you'd have to ask: what are the damages?

Apple would be hard-pressed to get damages for even a few hundred dollars (whatever profit they make on a mac mini or a basic mac pro) against an individual builder. In point of fact, I believe they'd have to prove that but for the breach of the agreement, Apple would have made that profit (i.e. the person more likely than not would have bought a mac if they hadn't been able to buy leopard and breach the contract).

Against a system builder, though, I think it gets a little more tricky for the system builder. The court is more likely to award specific performance of the contract if it can be shown that monetary damages alone aren't sufficient to make Apple whole for the breach(es) of contract. The prototypical example of a court awarding specific performance is the case of a sports player who has signed a contract with a team. The sports player's value can't be quantified or replicated in a reliably meaningful way by money alone. Apple could argue that the breach of contract by this company results in damage to the public's perception of Apple and that such perception can't be remedied by money alone. Also, if you followed the rationale of MGM v. Grokster, a company that's built on the basis of facilitating unlawful practices doesn't get protection because it's not "technically" breaking the law. My guess (and I don't know the case law on it) is that a company that's aiding a breach of contract by end users will probably be held vicariously liable.

There's probably a good trademark claim for the use of the terms "Mac" and "OSX" and "Apple" and even "Leopard."

No, there's not a good copyright claim as long as the OS was purchased at retail. No, there's not a good patent claim as long as the software was purchased at retail.

So, bottom line: 1) It's not illegal; it's breach of contract. 2) Apple probably doesn't have remedy against individuals, but it MIGHT (probably) have remedy against a company like this for specific performance (i.e. not selling computers with OSX preinstalled).

Looks like Psystar might be fraud.
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/08/04/16/report_waves_caution_...

Even if it is, hopefully it will inspire others to pick up the model.

If its not a matter of law, why has no one done this before?

I pretty much presented this same argument in the earlier thread.

Apple's only other legal recourse could be a patent or copyright infringement lawsuit, but Abhyanker thinks Apple may not even have a case there. Rather, he believes Apple's only realistic avenue for thwarting Psystar and potential copycats would be to issue updates for Mac OS X that would break compatibility with unlicensed clones.

Or option 3) Apple finally releases an affordable, upgradeable desktop product in their lineup that fills the gap between Mac Mini and Mac Pro.

In other words, Psystar's Open Mac is just a natural reaction to the market not getting a product that it wants from Apple, because Apple has refused to provide it.

This reminds me of Perestroika. Gorbachev tried to loosen up Soviet rigidity enough for the USSR to survive, but once the ball started rolling and people got a taste of freedom, the party lost control and the citizens demanded change. Hope this is the beginning of the end of Apple's hardware hegemony.

nice. i think i found my new install.

#2, yeah, like they did with bricking iPhones.

Apple could see this as a chance to grow their marketshare (after all, the platform is hardware agnostic these days, to expand your userbase, you need to sell the software), but instead, they will probably follow their historically short-sighted, oblivious mentality that dooms them to perpetual obscurity.

#3, They can sell it as they wish, but once you buy it you can use it as you wish.

Ouch, that would hurt if you bought one and then Apple broke it.