Apple represents its intent with the License It distributes its software under (In this case, a restrictive commercial EULA). If Apple distributes NO license, then standard copyright laws apply. Standard copyright law certainly does not allow Psystar to resell duplicates of Apple's software. Nor does Apple's restrictive commercial EULA.

And regardless, I think we can all view this case on two levels, what is correct by Law, and what we in the community think is reasonable by our guidelines.

Some things that are considered valid by Law (The DMCA's anti-decryption clause) may be seen as negative by those in the community (In fact, by anybody who want to play the DVD that they purchased on their OpenBSD computer)

In the case of PsyStar, I think they are stepping outside the Legal and the mainstream-free-software-community lines in their behavior.