Forums | MacLife

To kinda sum this up...
There have been quite a few rulings that suggest Apple's EULA may not hold but there are also rulings that suggest it might. The courts are all over the map right now and no one has pushed any of these cases up the system far enough to really establish a firm court stance.
But someone will, like the way it looks like Safe Harbor is going to be tested in the Verizon vs Goggle case.
I would like that to happen sooner than latter.

Bat wrote:

ScifiterX wrote:

My point is yes Apple has 100% of it's own brands (which is not an uncommon practice) but since they aren't the only brand of OS based on the Unix technology standards they can't be a true monopoly. If you can not see how that is relevant than I personally couldn't explain it any better to you.

Pariah wrote:

Big "M" monopoly has nothing what so ever to do with this discussion. The small "m" monopoly rights that go along with patents and copyrights is what I was talking about anyways.

Monopoly in the small 'm' sense is what I've usually been referring to, and a useful distinction to make. Therein I think lay the confusion.

Ya, the trouble is there are two boxes many people here have a hard time thinking outside of. One is the Microsoft model when it comes to software and the other is the Dell model when thinking about hardware.
That's why these discussions so often get mired in irrelevancies. Suggest Apple offers a little more choice and people think you mean a Dell like kaleidescope of redundant and confusing models or mention Apple licensing OSX and the assumption is they would have to try to support a Windows-esque universe of hardware. Neither of which is true but people who are stuck inside boxes can't see out of them.
When software legalities come up most people's only frame of reference is the Microsoft antitrust stuff even though it has no actual bearing on the discussion at hand.