Thanks for the link I've been meaning to read on this
BLANKETDECISION ON EVERYBODYPsystar.
And you'd be correct in saying that I've been grossly misinformed if Psystar's method was the only method. You're trying to match the decisions from a half-baked company which couldn't compile a good defense to the entire Hackintosh community.
There's PC-EFI, Boot 123, etc. which require no modification to the OS; hence it runs "vanilla".
This is the last time I'm going to explain this to you because your don't seem to be grasping it. On boot, every boot, OSX retrieves a custom generated decryption key stored in the bios. Without this EFI, the bootloader won't boot. If it does boot, the Mac kernel has a module that periodically authenticates with the EFI. The only way to circumvent this is to boot through a custom bootloader which doesn't check the initial EFI and then intercept subsequent EFI calls and reply as if it was the bios. Psystars implementation also modified the kernel extension to allow the OSX to run on a wider range of hardware where the bios would fight with a fake EFI call. (EFI is also used so when you re-install with Dell restore CD for instance, you don't get prompted for a CD key. Some of these implementations would make OSX's check fail.)
ANY means to circumvent this copy protection software violates the DMCA and/or copyright law. Whether Apple's code has been modified (which most of them do use Apple code released previously but for a purpose for which it was prohibited) or replaced with after-market code (which the federal judge ruled was a violation of copyright law) Apple could sue if they chose. The bootloader is part of OSX.
The judge's ruling, if you bothered to read it, is broad enough that it would encompass any current means of booting OSX. This happened, because Psystar was actually performing ALL of the current means of bypassing the OS. It was replacing kernel extensions, using an aftermarket bootloader, and emulating EFI calls. All of which were specifically found to be a violation. Further, the judge cited cases in his decision such as Grokster that encompass any conspiracy or intent to assist others commit copyright violations. So, even if they aren't distributing Apple code, them helping others violate Apple's copyright is a violation. (Remember, that since Apple's terms of service prohibit non-Apple hardware any installs on non-Apple hardware are copyright violations...this is also addressed in this ruling.)