OSNews

Making a profit and going against the EULA are two separate topics.

First of all, where does it say that any manufacturers have marked-up OSX? I'm pretty sure that they are selling OSX at cost. In such a case, the manufacturer is purchasing OSX at the end user's behest.

Even if the manufacture were not buying OSX directly at the user's behest and were marking-up the price and making a profit, that would be their rightful prerogative. Once they've bought a copy of OSX, that copy is theirs to sell at any price they can get. Right of ownership has been a basic principle of western trade for several millennia.

Now, an EULA is merely a declaration by a manufacturer. Just because something is declared in an EULA doesn't make that declaration right nor "legal."

Indeed, the OSX EULA includes some doosies. For instance, one part of the EULA states, "You also agree that you will not use the Apple Software for any purposes prohibited by United States law, including, without limitation, the development, design, manufacture or production of missiles, nuclear, chemical or biological weapons." This clause means that some engineer at Lockheed is prohibited from using his Macbook to compose a memo reminding personnel to use sunscreen before they attend an upcoming flight test in the Mohave. Pretty silly, and definitely not legally binding.

Remember that Psystar lost it's case because Apple convinced a judge that Psystar had violated the very questionable DMCA, by circumventing Apple's "technology" designed to prevent OSX from being installed on non-Apple computers. The EULA had nothing to do with the rulings.

So, Psystar and Quo are not doing anything wrong by buying copies of OSX at the user's and/or buying OSX and marking it up.

Likewise, going against an EULA is neither illegal nor unethical.