I think you mean DMCA.

[Quite correct. Fixed. -Ed]

Psystar did this .. Psystar did that .. Psystar made the code ..

What a big fat lie! Psystar just visited Insanelymac and made money! That is it. They didn't do anything. Probably the restart fix only.

As an American I believe in competition and the efficiency of the free market. In the case of Apple vs Psystar, the DMCA is clearly being used to squelch the only competition Apple has for its hardware. The existence of competition here would pressure Apple to sell its hardware at a competitive price, and of course Apple would prefer to avoid such a thing. Much of Apple's perceived hardware value exists in the notion that Macintoshes are the only systems which can run OS X. This is no longer true; yet by perpetuating this artificial limitation, Apple creates an economy of scarcity for the benefit of its own product line. Further, with such a binding the relative benefits of Apple's hardware and software become indistinguishable in the consumer's mind, and the public ends up not really knowing what they are paying the extra money for. Is it the hardware, the software, or perhaps only the Apple logo?

Many people buy Apple machines because they've simply had it with Windows viruses, and they don't know any other way to obtain a positive computing experience. If everyone were able to easily load OS X on their existing PC's, then Apple's hardware would find its true market value. It would also provoke a defensive response from that perennial champion of anticompetitive practices, Microsoft. This decision-making process is insanity, and most of this craziness owes its existence to that extremely unnatural concept, "intellectual property" itself. This concept has allowed a few businesses to profit at the expense of the many, via the direct impairment of the functioning of our free market system. Such impairments are entirely unnecessary, as demonstrated by the immense public, private and commercial value realized in the Open Source movement. I am certain that this tremendous value has been delayed for decades by the many forms of intellectual property law. When the KIM-1 was introduced in the 1970's, this CPU test board for the 6502 actually became popular because hobbyists could write and freely exchange software for it. Programs were published in magazines and traded on cassettes or paper tape. It was a brilliantly creative culture, but one which rapidly succumbed to the commercialization of the microcomputing revolution. It more or less morphed into a culture of software piracy as the instinctive human need to freely exchange information continued. One might be tempted to argue that software copyrights and hardware patents encouraged innovation. Certainly this is true in some ways, but I would counter that software copyrights in particular have been more a retardant of progress than a catalyst. Where a large investment in development must be made prior to the release of a product, the existence of an exclusive ownership on the concept is certainly a primary encouragement to make such an investment. Chipmaking labs are expensive. However in the case of software, I honestly cannot think of a single example of any software for which the complete development in advance of its public release has been necessary for its existence. The tremendous depth and breadth of software available in the Public Domain today, including applications, games and sophisticated operating systems, constitutes rigorous proof of this essential point. There are Free and Open Source Software alternatives today for virtually anything: Adobe Photoshop, MS-Office, and even the new phenomenon of MMORPG's are now appearing in the public domain. The internet is a public network, and the internet browser was born in the public domain. The free market, and the public domain, contain incredible amounts of intelligence and creativity. Commercial software vendors already have more than enough legal protection for their ideas, and the industry's business practices are suffering as a result of this excessive protection. I say, it's time to roll back some of these protections which clearly interfere with competition, innovation, and the efficient functioning of a free market.

I've always liked their CE's,however after all this I dislike Apple even more and further more I will NEVER EVER buy, promote or recomend and Apple product. As a matter of fact I will do everything in my power to deter any of my friends from buying another product from a company that has monopolized its selfand acts above the law.

you missed a piece about peoplem moving because of viruses:
they believe apple's LIES of no viruses for macs.
the truth is there ARE viruses for macs, but they're just a too small target for most virus makers, because they're just a minority.
watch the amount of viruses for macs rise when more people buy apple's overpriced junk.

Apple thinks it can ignore the law, but they forget one major factor: antitrust laws.
Microsoft had to bow down to these laws, Apple will have to do so as well.