OSNews

What I'm curious about is why Psystar cannot claim copyright misuse and slam dunk the case. From Lasercomb America v. Reynolds:

"Thus, we are persuaded that the rationale of Morton Salt in establishing the misuse defense applies to copyrights. In the passage from Morton Salt quoted above, the phraseology adapts easily to a copyright context:
The grant to the [author] of the special privilege of a [copyright] carries out a public policy adopted by the Constitution and laws of the United States, “to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to [Authors] . . . the exclusive Right . . .” to their [“original” works]. United States Constitution, Art. I, §8, cl. 8, [17 U.S.C.A. §102]. But the public policy which includes [original works] within the granted monopoly excludes from it all that is not embraced in the [original expression]. It equally forbids the use of the [copyright] to secure an exclusive right or limited monopoly not granted by the [Copyright] Office and which it is contrary to public policy to grant. Cf. Morton Salt, 314 U.S. at 492 .
Having determined that “misuse of copyright” is a valid defense, analogous to the misuse of patent defense"


To me, it seems obvious that Apple is trying to secure a limited monopoly, by forcing people to only use OS X on their hardware. It's identical to Morton Salt Co. v. G.S. Suppiger, except it applies to copyright, and in Lasercomb v. Reynolds the judge stated that the same restrictions apply to copyright.