Jim, The reason Apple never gets into trouble for "monopolistic behaviour" is that the company has never been that successful.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act "Section 2 of the Act forbade monopoly<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly>. In Section 2 cases, the court has, again on its own initiative, drawn a distinction between coercive<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coercive_monopoly> and innocent monopoly. The act is not meant to punish businesses that come to dominate their market passively or on their own merit, only those that intentionally dominate the market through misconduct, which generally consists of conspiratorial conduct of the kind forbidden by Section 1 of the Sherman Act, or Section 3 of the Clayton Act." On 30 January 2010 21:56, Jim Tonge <jim_d_to...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > Just wanted to softly, gently throw my oar in on this debate :) > > Don't you need a computer in the first place to sync your media from? I > think comparing the iPad and a personal computer is a little like comparing > a scooter and a lorry. > > Of greater pertinence is the freedom of the device - more iStore lock-in, > no different browsers, no competition with Apple apps. Can someone explain > how Apple are avoiding getting in trouble like Microsoft did for > IE-bundling? > - > Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please > visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. > Unofficial list archive: > http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ > -- Brian Butterworth follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002
