In the entry, they explain how they value openness, and how they have nothing to hide. "We buy hundreds of copies of OS X legally, from retailers like Amazon and Apple itself. We're probably one of Apple's biggest customers," Psystar writes, "Then we install these copies of OS X, along with kernel extensions that we wrote in-house, on computers that we buy and build. Then we resell the package to people like you. That's it."
"Apple's copyright on OS X doesn't give Apple the right to tell people what they can do with it after they buy a copy," they continue, "Apple can't tell an applications developer that it can't make a piece of Mac-compatible software. They can't forbid Mac users from writing blogs critical of Apple. And they can't tell us not to write kernel extensions that turn the computers we buy into Mac-compatible hardware."
Of course, most of us will agree with Psystar that those are things a company shouldn't be allowed to do. The problem is, of course, that despite the fact that laws are supposed to exist for the people, reality is generally the other way around: the people exist for the laws.
If you think Apple should be allowed to dictate how you handle the software you purchased (and you purchased your copy, it's yours, as the EULA is not part of the sale), you might want to look beyond Apple, at the market at large, and realise what sorts of nonsense could be legitimate if Apple wins this case. Microsoft has a clause in its EULA that you may not publish benchmarking information of test releases of Microsoft software. Microsoft Office's EULA states that you are not allowed to run it on anything else but Windows - so you will no longer be able to run it through WINE.
And that is just a selection. Be careful what you wish for. You may lose more rights than you thought. All in the name of helping a company that - by definition, like any other company - couldn't care less about you.