Ah, ok, so "fuck that" is your retort? That's the level we're going with here? Gotcha. Good to know.

Putting aside the fact that Apple has already announced their solution to all this and that it's a non-issue, I'll bite.

If it's 4 computers clogging up the entire network bandwidth, then yeah, your network isn't configured properly. If you're in a Mac shop and it's in the hundreds, then your IT guy should have enough knowledge/experience to keep everyone from hammering the App Store at the same time. Although considering you mentioned a primary IT requirement is that something be ordered on Amazon and stuck in a cabinet, I'm guessing he doesn't have enough knowledge or experience. That, or you're just trolling.

Seriously, would it hurt your IT guy that much to properly configure the network, or to put a copy of the Lion installer on a local network share?

My anecdotal evidence says exactly the opposite. Photoshop CS5 runs very smoothly on my 5-year-old iMac at home, while on my Win 7 PC at work it lags and semi-frequently crashes.

Are you personally familiar with a significant enough portion of all iTunes users to make this statement valid?

If you start providing free maintenance and updates to my car - regardless of whether I pay you the $99/yr - then I'll consider it.

PS - Car analogies fail.

Doctor-patient confidentiality wouldn't prevent a doctor from taking action against libelous reviews - which are really the only kinds of negative reviews they should be concerned about. As said above, no one is likely to have a 100% approval rating, and the negative reviews are often more informative than the positive reviews - and non-credible negative reviews are generally easier to recognize. If the reviews are demonstrably false and can cause harm to the doctor or his/her practice, then let it go to the courts. Otherwise, there's no need to even think about trying to regulate comments/reviews.

When you have willingly entered into a contract with a third party that agrees you will not say a thing, and you say it, and the third party brings a case against you in court. Then.

They're asking for a small percentage. At the moment. Depending on how much a given developer makes from an app, this could be a small amount, or it very well could be "THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS".

What if they decide to increase the percentage when they realize they're not making thousands from the majority of licensees? What if this makes other holders of dubious-at-best patents think that they're now entitled to a percentage of every developer's revenue too? It's a slippery slope for anyone - but especially an independent developer - to start down, and it's good to see such a strong response from Apple on their behalf.

B) Someone unethically copied my digital data. They didn't steal it, but I want you to prosecute them for... unethical copying!

Except they (the police/your local DA) wouldn't prosecute you for theft - and they might not even prosecute you at all, if it wasn't criminal copyright infringement. It's still copyright infringement though, a civil offense, so YOU could bring a case against them for that...but not theft.

Get it?

Oh fuck. No wonder this is happening. He's "taken aback" because he's a douchenozzle with tenure. Oh yeah, and now IT has to deal not only with HIPAA but also FERPA data privacy regulations with the server he's kludged together without any care for security.

Just the kind of well-reasoned response that corporate America has come to expect from their local neckbeard in IT. And yet you guys still wonder why people try to end-run the system like this? Douchenozzle, indeed.*

*That said, this guy still shouldn't be plugging his own servers onto the network unsupervised.

There are just as many anti-Apple fanatics, if not more, than pro-Apple fanatics here. Just look at any article about anything Apple-related and the first 10-20 comments are usually something along the lines of "get ready for the fanboys to come running to Apple's defense." Except there's rarely this frothing-at-the-mouth blind loyalty that the comments predicted.

Sure, there are loudmouth jerks who shout to any and all that their preferred brand can do no wrong - but they're not exclusive to Apple. I'll leave it to others to explain why a faster processor or "better" specs don't necessarily translate into "better" products, for fear of being labeled a fanboy for it.

So your alternative to locking him up at taxpayer expense is to hire round-the-clock surveillance at taxpayer expense?

Because your attorney clearly and patiently explained the relevant facts to him while presenting your case?

Of course this is the real world and that isn't always how it works, but by and large judges and attorneys aren't the incompetent jackasses they're made out to be on Slashdot.

The part of my dictionary with the definition of the verb "loose" disagrees with you.

"Stupidly"? Wow. I wish I could run as stupid a business as Apple - then I could rest my stupid head on piles of money each night.

Speaking of stupid, you posted:

Why is this "wonky" reasoning? I exercise my "right" to whatever computer I want at whatever price I want all the time. It's called capitalism and open markets

That is most decidedly not how capitalism works. With capitalism, you can buy whatever computer you want, or you can buy a computer at whatever price you want (out of the range offered). You don't often get to choose both. About the only true statement you've made in this thread was that you have the right to not buy Apple products.

Kudos though - the way you replaced "Apple" with "Crapple" has made me sit down and really rethink my position on all of this.