...the baseball steroids story.

ENOUGH ALREADY!!

... does Psystar get the money to keep fighting this lawsuit? Did they really even sell that many computers to make enough of a profit to continue this legal battle?

Psystar has no case. They can keep twisting the facts but I don't think that will help them in court unless our legal system is that twisted also.

I could care less about Mac clones. If there's one thing I've learned over the years, it's that you get what you pay for. I'll happily continue to pay a premium price for Apple's hardware - because it's a better product.

the "GUESTS" who leaves comments aren't up for a rational argument on hardware. First, I use 3 different computing platforms. Simply put, the Macs always work. The extra $$$ I spend up front on Apple hardware has ALWAYS resulted in rock solid products that have never broken down, at least for me, and I appreciate it!

Where are they getting the software from? If they are installing on new PCs i find it illegal just in the fact that Apple only sells upgrade software, correct?

Apple, if they lose, should simply sell a Full version for $499 and the upgrade for their current price. Let Psystar pay the true value of the software.

As not a guest, I'm up for some rational argument. Personally, I don't feel Psystar has a winnable case, mainly due to their altering of OS X and reselling it. Now if they had built systems with the EFI-X hardware workaround and installed a non-patched OS X, that would be different.

As for paying more for Macs, an old boring argument. Yes, there is far more pricing variety out there, but I believe in the narrow range of what Apple does provide, they are competitive. Sure, you can get a cheaper desktop than a MacPro, but can you get something speced out exactly like a MacPro for the significantly less? Maybe yes, I suspect no. But I don't care.

Like bigpoppa206, I like Apple hardware because its solid dependable product that doesn't feel/look like something only WalMart could be proud of. But what I do not like is Apple holding OS X hostage to their whims of what they believe their hardware should. Take for example the matte vs glossy screen issue. If you want matte laptop / iMac, your outta luck, unless you want the pricey 17" laptop. Want a desktop with decent graphics, but don't want to shell out for a MacPro, sorry, no mid-towers, and for all we know Apple is never going to update the Mini to be respectable in that area. Prefer eSATA connectors for drive expansion? I did manage to connect a eSATA extender from my MacPro's motherboad, but why doesn't Apple just offer it as an option? And certainly its nowhere around for any non MacPro. Where is SLI? How about hardware RAID on the motherboard? Where are easily accesible front ports on the mini or iMac? Built-in memory card readers? Blu-ray? How about an iMac with 2 harddrive bays?

Some of these things can be worked around, others can not. Increasingly, I find that finding the right Mac for myself is difficult because of everything Apple doesn't think is important, but I do. If Apple were forced to license OS X, even if they had strict provisions on what the motherboard could offer, we'd still be able to see a lot more variety in products that would appeal to both the newbies and the Mac elite, and Apple would be forced to compete more on offering even stronger value, vs using OS X as the gun pointed at your head.