Linked by Nescio on Mon 9th Mar 2009 08:05 UTC
Apple Numerous irrelevant issues and feelings about them are ventilated in comments on the case. However, there are only two important issues. One is what the law is, the other is what we think the law should be.
Thread beginning with comment 352361
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[8]: Comment by lurch_mojoff
by rhavyn on Mon 9th Mar 2009 23:39 UTC in reply to "RE[7]: Comment by lurch_mojoff"
Member since:

"Again, I'm not sure how any of that is relevant besides proving my point. Are you trying to say that this is applicable in the Pystar case? How? Which claim of Psystar's would be able to use this lawsuit as precedent?

You brought in Psystar - not me.

Last time I checked, this entire article is about Psystar. Again, please don't be disingenuous.

We are talking about product tying. You brought forth gaming consoles as an example of tying being allowed - and I showed you a high-profile lawsuit which stated that that tying is actually NOT allowed.

Psystar never came into our argument, so I have no idea why you're bringing it in now - apart from the obvious fact of course that you want to shift the attention away from an argument you were losing, but I'll forgive you for that.

As I said in my previous post, which you did not respond to (which seems to be par for the course for you, why not try responding to the actual arguments instead of going off into random interludes):

"I'm sorry, how does that prove that there is something wrong with tying your products? As a matter of fact, it seems your example proves what I'm saying. Sony went out of their way to prevent anyone from being able to play Playstation games on non Sony hardware. Was Sony in some way sanctioned for that behavior? No? Maybe because tying products isn't inherantly illegal? "

The result of the lawsuit was that bleem could do something Sony didn't want them to do, not that Sony did anything wrong.

Reply Parent Score: 2