Note the difference in what Pamela Jones comments.  Comparing Psystar to SCO as being backed by mysterious companies (in SCO’s case, turning out to be Microsoft) using them to try and destroy others reveals the dark side and illegitimate, in my opinion, use of the law. Interesting theory.

Psystar surrenders in Mac clone wars; still sells Rebel EFI – Computerworld Blogs.

It amuses me whenever people go about saying Apple is evil as an excuse for hackintosh development.  It’s just an excuse for their actions and not taking responsibility for them.  The Groklaw article is worth a read, as it explains much about Apple’s view of things that people don’t consider.

Those of you who imagined this was about freedom for the code, hardy har, take a look at page 18, called “Plan of Action”. The plan was simple, to use Apple’s code to “compete directly against Apple.” And what was the actual goal? Not freedom for Apple’s code. I believe I’d call it unjust gains at Apple’s expense. The brochure projected that Psystar’s profit by 2011 would be in the millions, $47,465,719 alone from a mobile line they wanted funding to be able to produce. They figured they’d hold a projected 7% share of all PC sales by 2011. That is how one can measure the projected loss to Apple. If Psystar wanted Apple to fund its business, it should have asked.

Groklaw – Apple Asks for Permanent Injunction Against Psystar – Updated 2Xs.