> I'm much more fearful of a legal regime that could step in and simply dictate the business operations of a private entity. They already do. In the US we call

> I'm much more fearful of a legal regime that could step in and simply dictate the business operations of a private entity. They already do. In the US we call those dictatorial edicts regulations, and they specify how many business operations are to be done or impose restrictions on how things can be done. Laws against putting sawdust in meat? dictating the business operations of a private entity. restrictions on how pure gasoline must be to be used in a car? dictating the business operations of a private entity. Laws restricting the reasons a business can fire someone or refuse to hire them? dictating the business operations of a private entity. I could keep going, but I think I've made my point here. > If you are critical of Apple's 'dictatorship', how can you be comfortable with the idea that the government is going to wield its power any better? Because in the us the government is not a dictatorship. > You can choose not to do business with Apple. Try that with the government. I believe that is called immigration. > We aren't talking about public safety, fraudulent behavior, or monopolistic advantage here. The government is not restricted to making laws abut just those things. Article 1, sections 8 through 10 of the Constitution define what the government can and can't make laws about. > Running to a lawyer and the courts when you don't like the product offerings of a private company is absurd. I think you are mischaracterizing what is happening here. I think it is more correct to say that what is happening is that people are running to a lawyer and the courts when a private company is trying to control how you use their product (and possibly making changes to how it works/what it does) after you have purchased it.