No, I don’t really.
Basically, the OpenMac is one guy in a garage, if that. The “back orders” aren’t. The reason Apple legal hasn’t done anything just yet is, I’d imagine, because until one of these machines has actually been sold, there’s no breach of anything going on. I’ll believe the existence of these machines when I see reports of them in the wild from somewhere reputable.
Now, the fun part. The whole charade has brought the “HEY GUYS, WOULDN’T IT BE GREAT IF APPLE LET YOU RUN OS X ON PCs?” brigade out of the woodwork. Now, these guys either can’t do basic arithmetic or they have really really short memories. Or both. Probably both. Mac OS X on beige boxes is a really really really bad idea. You know it, I know it, Apple knows it. It’s a costly exercise fraught with twisty-turny passages, all alike, and doesn’t actually make Apple any money.
But wait! (They cry) It’s just a matter of drivers, isn’t it?
Yeah, sure it is. We’ll ignore the support angle and business angles for the moment, and pretend the whole Mac OS X on PCs debate boils down to drivers. Do you people have any idea of the work involved in producing good-quality drivers? I’m guessing you don’t, and maybe think that drivers could “just” be ported from Windows (Macs are x86 now, after all). Well, they can’t, not in any sane fashion, at any rate. Code shared? Perhaps. A quick easy port? Nah. Doesn’t work like that.
In any case, nobody’s going to buy retail Mac OS X if it doesn’t have the hardware support, and there isn’t going to be a sudden rush of hardware manufacturers producing Mac OS X drivers as a result: we largely rely on Apple to bundle the drivers with the OS as it is, because third-party drivers are—on the whole—like pulling teeth, if they exist at all.
What people really mean when they say “I think it’d be a really smart move for Apple to offer Mac OS X on PCs” is “I really want Apple to offer a completely-working Mac OS X that I can run on my PC, because I’d rather pay £99 to Apple than £699”.
Good luck with that.