![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Actually, you can call up your local IBM rep or main sales, and pick up an AIX license for any supported version on any supported hardware. The reason you cannot get AIX for unsupported hardware is because A) it's several thousand dollars for the license and support which are tied together, and B) IBM does not want you coming back to them because it doesn't work. Every version has different hardware support limitations, and IBM plays gatekeeper there. However, if you ask the right local rep, you can get AIX without support and without tying it to hardware. You'll get yelled at if you let it call home, but you can. I've done it to get licenses for old Bull hardware.
There's a fundamental difference; it's a closed system. IBM controls the hardware and software. There is a legitimate and specific reason for declining to sell you a license. OS X is a different matter entirely. There is no legitimate, legal reason to refuse to sell a license with or without support provided the customer understands that non-Apple hardware may or may not work. It is and has always been the responsibility of the CUSTOMER to ensure compatibility with hardware. Apple does NOT play gatekeeper with OSX at all - they merrily sold unsupported versions at full price to customers with incompatible systems (G5's and G4's especially) then told them to get bent when they wanted a refund.
For that matter, they don't even support their product, negating the "whine whine we'll get more support calls" argument. If you want actual support for OS X, you can only get it through the purchase of Apple hardware, with an AppleCare agreement on that hardware, or through the purchase of a very, very expensive ($6,000) AppleCare agreement meant for software developers. They already built in the "ha ha, support? Get bent." There is no question that support of and for OS X does not exist on non-Apple hardware.
What it comes down to is Apple trying to use a very questionable legal method to retain and maintain hardware revenue. They make a lot of money off the hardware side of the house - the actual cost versus sales price on Apple hardware is obscene. Regardless, at it's core, their entire argument is basically "we make and sell the software so we should be able to retroactively refuse to sell it to someone and invalidate their purchase, without refund, whenever we damn well please for any reason we feel like. Like, that guy is wearing an orange shirt and pink pants, so we're voiding his licenses and warranties for being a fashion disaster and not returning his money."
Really, Apple has no legitimate grounds to sue. Their only real legal course of action was to refuse to sell to Psystar in the first place. Instead, they're trying to yank back all their stuff that they already sold, and refuse to exchange or refund. If Psystar stated or insinuated that anything was supported by Apple, or that Apple had given approval, then Apple has a case. From what I recall though, Psystar clearly stated that customers could NOT get support from Apple, that they should not go to Apple, and that support in entirety was provided by Psystar.