4 ms·

Your argument is based on what you personally think the law should be, and that's not the same as what the law is. Microsoft did things that actually broke the

Your argument is based on what you personally think the law should be, and that's not the same as what the law is. Microsoft did things that actually broke the law. Nobody's yet convinced a court that Apple has done things that broke the law. And Apple is demonstrably not doing the thing Microsoft got in trouble for. So you're free to argue that in your ideal world, if you made all the laws, Apple would be put out of business. But you're not free to argue that that's what the actual laws in the real world say to do.

shmerl 8y ago
So you are saying "since the law is full of holes, don't blame Apple for being crooks". I disagree. Whitewashing monopolistic abuse based on how neutered by years of lobbying by monopolists anti-trust laws are, is quite bad in itself. > in your ideal world, if you made all the laws, Apple would be put out of business. In the ideal world with functional anti-trust, they'd be held accountable for their disgusting anti-competitive behavior and they'd fix it. In the current world their monopolistic abuse runs unchecked, causing damage to the industry and progress.