that's' why I told him to junk the old Mac.
I cite Germany because there is a grounds for ignoring Apple's license in Germany, even though German laws are similar to ours. There may other grounds under US law, and under the 50 state laws to which Apple is subject. A person used to be able to contract to keep other races out of their neighborhood; courts refused to enforce those provisions. Courts may well decide not to enforce Apple's desires on licensing as well.
As you would know were you an antitrust attorney, the state of the market is constantly shifting, and a decision that involves the market in 2003 may well be very different from one that involves the market in 2009. Not only that, but the theories underlying antitrust keep shifting. Under the Reagan DOJ, and continuing with both Bush's, the "economic" theory of antitrust held sway for the most part. Under Clinton and now Obama, any large entity that uses its power is automatically suspect. I don't agree with that theory, but it may mean that a lot more companies fall under the purview of the DOJ. Apple is clearly not a monopoly in the market for personal computers. But the relevant market may be defined as something different in future litigation.
The point is, only an Apple corporate lawyers and their sycophants would consider the issue open and shut. I do not, and I will use their legally purchased software on my PC unless and until there is more clarity on the issue.
Show me where you have "purchased" software and not "purchased" a license. You can't. You do not own the software. You own a license to USE the software. That license has limits on how you are permitted to use that software. If you owned the software, you could, with impunity, make copies and sell them to anyone. I don't suggest you try that.
By the way, Psystar has admitted in recent motions that they were infringing the copyrights on OS X Leopard and have even told Judge Alsup that they are willing to accept a "nominal" fine for doing so. They say they are willing to admit this now because neither they nor Apple are currently selling Leopard (which is not true. Leopard is still available for older Macs.) Talk about cheek. They've been arguing for almost two years that they are not infringing, but once they stop—for this particular product—they say, "Oh, all right, we were infringing. Give us a slap on the hand and end this case." They also maintain that their admission of infringing OS X Leopard does not mean that they are infringing OS X Snow Leopard... while doing exactly the same thing they were doing before. Insanity.