Pee Jay of groklaw doesn't grok 17 USC 117, Rebel EFI, and ...

[Alexander Terekhov]

... the difference between inducing breach of contract allegation (Apple
EULA's tying restriction with respect to running Apple OS on non-Apple
branded computers) vs (contributory) copyright infringement.

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20091215225827172
(Apple wins total, permanent injunction against Psystar)

"Here's how it [Psystar] describes Rebel EFI:

Rebel EFI is a software product that users can install on their own
computers. WIth Rebel EFI, generic personal computers can run OS X.
Psystar does not come in contact with OS X at all in manufacturing or
selling Rebel EFI. In particular, in manufacturing and selling Rebel
EFI, Psystar does not install a copy of OS X on any computer; does not
use any kind of imaging station; does not add to, delete from, or
modiffy any copy of OS X in any way; does not create any DVD's or other
media containing OS X; and does not even resell copies of OS X to end
users.

So, can users buy Rebel EFI from Psystar and install their own copy of
OSX from Apple without it being copyright infringement?

Psystar thinks they can:

Such end users are protected by 17 U.S.C. Section 117, which provides
that "it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer
program to make ... another copy or adaptation of that computer program
provided ... that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an
essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction
with a machine."

See what I mean? That's when I stopped reading. What Psystar hasn't
figured out, but may discern from the permanent injunction from
California, is that it is not an end user so it can't ask the court for
a declaratory judgment that what end users do is OK. One of them would
have to do that. Declaratory judgments are not for theoreticals. And in
any case, making a product that will help end users bypass the EULA that
they must agree to to install Apple's software ... well, I fail to
comprehend why Psystar doesn't get it, even with lawyers to explain it
to them. "

LMAO!

regards,
alexander.

--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm 
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can 
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards 
too, whereas GNU cannot.)