The Secretary of Defense has nothing to do with either this case, the DOJ v. Microsoft case or the Judiciary. The U.S. Government did not turn a blind eye to Microsoft until Bush came into power.

Secondly, I did not state or imply that these cases are similar nor did I use an analogy. What I did was acknowledge the fact that cases do not necessarily turn out as expected. The fact that a different judge may hear Apple’s case increased the probability of such a happenstance.

---

“Cannot run out of time. There is infinite time. You are finite. Zathras is finite. This is wrong tool.” 2.3GHz Power Mac G5/8GB/2x1TB HDD/OS X 10.4.11/30-inch ACD, 60GB iPod (Color)

Psystar is falling.

---

http://www.cyclelogicpress.com

Clearly, you have no concept of the economic or legal definitions of ‘market’ or ‘monopoly’ as the first two lines of your post obviate. Fortunately, Justice Alsup is apparently more knowledgeable than you. Consumer preference does not dictate or define a market and a company maintaining control over their brand does not constitute a monopoly. So yes, we are dismissing the Mac OS market, because no such thing exists. The Mac OS is a component of a product and that product is Apple’s brand, period.


And here we have this bull— argument again. Psystar is not fighting for you to have a choice. They are attempting to defend their illegal act of using another company’s brand against that company. Psystar is fighting for the right to leech off of other’s work at the developer’s expense. Perhaps you should get over your selfishness long enough to stop putting Psystar on some pedestal as the guardians of consumer interests because they are not doing this for you or any other consumer, but instead to justify profiting from another OEMs R&D.


Yes, competition and innovation are good things, but no one has the right to compete within a brand. Brands are owned by single companies, because brands are not markets. Apple sells personal computer systems, period. Apple is not Microsoft, and therefore Apple is not in the business of selling operating systems for just anyone to use. OS X is far from the most prevalent operating system in use so to imply that Apple is stifling competition is beyond ludicrous.

Any lack of operating system choice in the personal computer market rest solely on Microsoft’s shoulders as the DOJ v. Microsoft case clearly demonstrated. In fact, the only reason that OS X exists as an alternative to Windows today is because Apple develops an operating system exclusively for Apple hardware, so Microsoft could not bully Apple into an exclusion deal as they did with Dell, et al.


Exactly. And yet you contradict the entirety of the rest of your post by ending with this statement.

---

“Cannot run out of time. There is infinite time. You are finite. Zathras is finite. This is wrong tool.” 2.3GHz Power Mac G5/8GB/2x1TB HDD/OS X 10.4.11/30-inch ACD, 60GB iPod (Color)

D-Dog doesn't know how to set apart a quote, but you should have recognized it regardless
The entire top portion was a quote from page two, posted by ebonfyre.

:O THAT part was D-Dog 's own reply to ebonfyre. Hee hee, you just validated that you share his point! Come on mdawson, we expect better from you!

---

iTunes, iPod, iMac, iPhone, *not* Itunes, IPod, IMAC, iphone MAC: Media Access Control, Mac: a brand of computers