You mention his teammates several times. The thing is, many of his important teammates did cheat, in the sense of either they got caught with a drug test or they admitted to doping afterwards. Among these teammates are Hamilton, Heras, Andreu, and Landis. So a big part of the "help" that he got in races was probably the beneficiary of drug assistance, whether or not he himself used drugs.

There is no sales ban. The injunction in Germany has not yet taken effect and cannot take effect until the US trial concludes. In stark contrast with Apple's injuctions, which not only did come into effect but in some cases are currently still in effect, the XBox/Windows 7 "sales ban" was never in effect at any point in time. And this is the way it should be! Of course we all agree (I hope) that a trial is the appropriate legal apparatus to settle patent claims.

Fine, I admit it's false. But you had to stretch back 20 years to prove me wrong? This is the best you can do? 20 years is an eternity in tech time. I'll happily agree to reconsider my avoidance of Apple products in 20 years.

According to my version of the internet, the UX21E weighs 2.43 lbs. The previous-generation Macbook Air was 2.34 lbs. Fractions of pounds matter here.

The UX21A is a strong contender. But is it available for sale yet? I can't find it actually for sale anywhere.

To be honest, my own personal purchasing decisions are not a big deal either in the grand scheme of things, so I don't know why you're making such a big issue of it. I have every right to boycott Apple for whatever reasons. Since you asked for my reasons, I gave them. End of story.

The thing is, I'm already doing everything I reasonably can to punish Monsanto as a consumer. Your logic is somehow based on the preposterous assumption that boycotting Apple somehow means that I'm not doing enough to avoid Monsanto. That presumption is plainly, laughably, false.

I disagree with your assessment that Apple's claims have more merit. I admit that such an assessment is subjective, and I am not asking you to agree with me. I would like the same amount of respect from you. I am not asking you to avoid Apple products. But likewise surely you cannot force me to buy Apple products against my will.

If you'll read the rest of this thread, your points have already been discussed at length. All companies abuse patents. The system is broken. We should try to fix the system. However, that said, some companies abuse the system more severely than others. Motorola never managed to obtain a pre-trial sales ban like Apple did.

You are correct that there is literally no way to avoid buying from all abusive companies. But it is possible to avoid buying from the most egregiously abusive one or two companies. That's what I'm doing.

I'd be very happy to be wrong. Please recommend some specific examples of 11"-12" ultrabooks that I should consider. The one model that you mention, the Asus Zenbook, is quite a bit heavier and slower than the Macbook Air. The newly released Asus Zenbook Prime is indeed very nice but it's not available for sale yet as far as I know.

Monsanto is indeed a bad actor and I do try very hard to avoid buying Monsanto products, just like I try to avoid buying Apple products. I don't always succeed, because Monsanto designs their genes to aggressively contaminate nearby farmfields and then sues the neighboring farmers for patent infringement. Nevertheless, I do try. The fact that I do not succeed perfectly is, I think, irrelevant.

Your argument as far as I can tell is something along the lines of "You can't avoid Monsanto haha so why bother even trying to avoid Apple." This argument is so ridiculous that I don't even know how to begin addressing it.

I have not moved the goal posts. I avoid companies that egregiously abuse the legal system. It is indeed impossible to avoid every company that abuses the legal system, but I certainly try to avoid the most egregious abusers. Apple and Monsanto are both in the category of egregious abusers. I notice that not a single one of your counter-arguments involves any factual rebuttal of any of my claims. Do you actually have any legitimate counterpoints or are you just going around accusing me of false bias while ignoring your own obvious bias?

I am not OK with Apple suing for damages either, because I feel the US patent system is broken. However, every other company in the world also uses the patent system to sue for damages, so I can't blame Apple in particular if they were to do that.

Sales bans, however, are uniquely destructive. They destroy free-market competition and free-market choice in a way that monetary damages do not. I do not support such legal actions and I certainly won't pay anyone to act in this way. Are you somehow suggesting that I am not within my rights to boycott Apple?

I'm not asking you to boycott Apple. I'm not biased against Apple. I've said nothing but good things about Apple products. But I certainly am within my rights to make my own purchasing decisions about my own money, for whatever reasons. I have given numerous very legitimate reasons for not purchasing Apple products and not a single one has been factually rebutted.

14" is too big. I want 11" or 12". Portability is a huge consideration. Can you do the same in the 11" size range? Also, how's the battery life and thermal profile? Bonus points if you can include dedicated page-up and page-down keys (which the Air does not have).

Name a single other company that has obtained a pre-trial sales ban on a phone.

The fact that the legal system permits such abuse, does not mean such abuse is legitimate. There are dozens of other companies that do not abuse the legal system in the way that Apple does.

Actually, I understated the case. Every other company except Apple does not abuse the legal system to the extent that Apple does.

Oh, I definitely want one, but there are non-technical reasons why I will not purchase Apple products (see my reply elsewhere in this thread).

I have a Galaxy Nexus phone. Apple has sued (successfully) to prevent this phone from being sold in the US. I will not financially support a company that attempts to destroy competing products through the legal system. It's true that the patent system in the US is broken and that lots of other companies abuse patents, but Apple takes abuse of the patent system to a whole new level of evil. No other tech company has gone as far as trying (much less succeeding) to outright ban the sale of competing products. Even Oracle in all their evilness did not order Google to stop making Android; they simply said "pay us 6 billion dollars".

Basically, competition is good. Choice is good. I have no problem with anyone choosing Apple products. But when Apple says Samsung may not sell this phone, I have a huge problem with that. If Apple feels that their patents are being violated, the correct remedy is monetary compensation, not a sales ban.