Apple vs. Psystar...

...if a verdict is handed down asserting consumer rights over Apple's sleazy and illegitimate claims, asserting that a company may not dictate the use of a product they sell (which is the law already), then I have a thought. If other vendors begin installing OSX because of demand--not that they might widely--I wonder if they might provide better support and service than Apple? I say this because Apple is notorious for hiding mistakes and dropping people cold: other companies do too, but some don't or don't as badly.

If Apple is opened-up, they won't likely be required to give support, but I would bet that for anti-competition reasons they might be required not only to stop claiming rights over consumers' use of their OS, but also increase outside access to their internals, like has been done to Microsoft (which has only worked in its favor, provided simply requiring non-disclosure agreements where enforceable). Apple is arguing it can't maintain user experience/quality if it doesn't have complete control of its ecosystem (i.e. of hardware and software), but potentially it could be outcompeted in these ways: bad for Apple because Apple is not a software, but a hardware, vendor at heart. Nevertheless neither Apple nor any other company has any right to demand the government bend law and let it do as it pleases just because its model of business would be affected by a changed context: in the end there is either adapt, or be selected out. If Apple loses hardware with its current methods, it loses everything: if it changes them, opens-up, becomes more cooperative, lets its peripheral businesses flourish (whether or not they affect its core), then it might have a better fighting chance in the long run.