You persist in arguing that a license term that may be unenforceable must be treated as enforceable. That is simply not the case, as Autocad and many other companies have found. You will never disagree with Apple that it can say anything it wants in a license. I will never agree with you that Apple can enforce those terms. What you can not show me is any legal authority that prevents me from using Apple’s OS on my PC. You can’t. You can repeat Apple’s legal arguments, sure. But that would make you a PR flack, or spokesman, not a thinking FReeper.
BS, and even stronger BS, Defiant, to assume things about my thinking processes. I have come to my conclusion about this not from Apple's legal position, but because of years in business, courses in business and contract law, and personal and second hand experience. A good friend of mine wrote a program back in the late '70s that became a standard on Apple computers in education. Tens of thousands of copies were installed and it was used in almost every school district in the US. My friend worked on developing that program for over a year. He sold exactly SIX copies of his program. All the rest of those installations were pirated in violation of his SLA because people like you think the license limitation clauses are unenforceable because YOU want to use them in contravention of the wishes of the actual owner of the software. My friend never wrote another piece of software because the pirates STOLE his work and did not compensate him.
I have had intellectual property misappropriated in a similar way with people republishing my copyrighted work without my permission and even stripping my copyright and name from the story because, they claim, it's "fair use" and they don't need to abide by copyright law. "Fair Use" to remove my name as author and place someone else's name on MY story? BS!
When I was a performing musician many years ago, I paid the license fee for every piece I performed... because I expected other musicians to do the same for me. That's the Golden Rule. You, however, advocate ignoring the wishes of the OWNER of the software and claim, against evidence, that your wishes should trump those constitutionally established copyright rights.
If you rented a car from a rental agency, does that rental license agreement allow you to take it down to Sam's quicky Auto Paint and paint it a different color? Does it allow you to take it out of the area it may be limited to? Can you sell it to someone else? Can you let another driver drive it? No... because the contract you agreed to said you could not. An SLA is a contract, no more, no less.
if you leased an apartment with a long-term lease, can you sub-let that apartment to another tenant if the lease agreement says you can't, essentially installing another "hardware" unit in that apartment rather than you as the original contracted "hardware" unit on the agreement? Nope. If you do that, the owner of the apartment has the right to remove from you the rights to use that apartment.
You may be relying on the rule of First Sale... but the courts have ruled that only applies to an actual sale where all rights to a thing are transferred, not a sale of a license to use someone else's software property. The Autocad case failed because the license did several things wrong. One, it did not have a clause that specifically provided for how Autocad would regain control of the software when the license ended. Two, because they were not clear enough that it WAS a license with a limited usability. Three, the seller on eBay NEVER agreed to the SLA because he never opened the packages or ran the software... he just resold something he bought unopened at a garage sale. Since he was never a licensee, the license agreement could not apply. The courts ruled that a license violation had indeed occurred but it was committed by the original purchaser of the Autocad software who sold the unused portions of their bundles in violation of their limited license... not the plaintiff in the case at hand.
Apple specifically allows a licensee a one time transfer of the software to a new licensee, but any existing back-up copies and the working copy on the computer must be destroyed. That new licensee then also gains the same one time transfer right along with the restrictions because they also must agree to the license before they are allowed to run the software. This meets the courts tests for a license which invalidates the First Sale rule. The courts have ruled that requiring the destruction of the transfered copies, including the operating copy, still in the possession of the transferor, meets the requirement that the copyright owner regain possession of the software at the end of any one licensee's license tenure.
As of this time, because it has not been adjudicated, anything in a contract you agree to IS enforceable. You just cannot ignore a law or contract on your whim. Until a judge, somewhere with jurisdiction, declares that it is unenforceable, then you must abide by the contract you agreed to. So far, every one of these types of SLAs has been upheld, contrary to popular belief. IF you think something in the SLA is unenforceable, then sue for an injunction against the corporate person exercising the consequences of your violating that provision... but until then you are wrong to unilaterally violate the contract and can be sued for specific performance.
The good news for you is that Apple doesn't much care what you do privately... but if you try to SELL your Hackintosh, you might find a totally different attitude. The German case hinges on a consumer regulation that states that the license must be available for reading before purchase. Very few software packages have the entire multipage SLA available on the box. Do you know of any? This criteria can be met merely by having the license available at the place of purchase or on the internet sales site. However, the German company is getting around that little problem by buying OS X from an out of Germany source that doesn't have to have the license available. Apple is contesting that approach. Who will win on that one is anyone's guess.