That would be according to one moral theory, but another (critical) approach elaborated upon by 19th c. thinkers rejects it as a "mere pretension", just as with the system's laws and rights.

In the wrong conventionally, according to our morality developed in the system it works for? Sure. But on a matter like this, I'm personally more than happy to take another look. Many moral systems that serve the current structures we are rightly critical of - the moral system that had no problem with slavery or marital rape, for instance.

I imagine the people destroying property might just feel the same way about Apple's right to property, and the system which provides it.