And lo on Wed, 02 Jul 2008 15:32:32 +0100, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> did  
spake, saying:

> Phil Cook <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>> >   OTOH Monopoly laws of most countries would luckily prevent that.
>
>> Why? If that's how it's sold then what would be the problem legally?  
>> Even
>> if you're talking some sort of perfect system that would prevent another
>> OS to be run regardless of how either the replacement OS or the system  
>> was
>> altered I don't see any legal reason against it.
>
>   Monopoly laws in most countries have been created precisely to prevent
> that.
>
>   Sure, Apple owns its own product, the iPod, and Apple sells songs for
> their own product, the iPod. Naturally Apple has all the right to make
> their own product to play only the songs sold by Apple? Makes sense.
>
>   Well, no. Apple has had problems with EU monopoly laws because of that.
> They must allow songs by others to be played with the iPod.

iPod's weren't sold with "only plays songs bought from the Apple store"  
written across them. People expected to be able to play their own music  
and got into a snit when they couldn't.

>   And besides, haven't you heard of the IE lawsuits MS had to endure?
> Monopoly laws in action.

Yes but in that case MS weren't preventing other browsers they were taking  
advantage of a dominance in one field to advance in another and shutting  
out the competition.

 From both these examples I don't see a connection with a one OS only PC.  
Why aren't Nokia being sued like Apple because I can't install the Sony  
Ericsson menu system on my mobile phone?

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message