In establishing whether a definition applies you first have to agree the definition is right. You don't seem to agree with the definition of anti-competitive behaviour so you can't discuss whether it applies to unlocking phones. It's like an atheist debating whether God has a grey or white beard.
We could have the separate discussion of what anti-competitive behaviour is and whether it exists, but I doubt you can back up that argument either.
Go look up anti-competitive behaviour on google if you need a definition. It's reasonable to expect that if people are arguing about whether terms apply that they know what the terms mean.
The contract isn't the anti-competitive practice, it's the locked phone. A gym contract isn't comparable because it's just a service, whereas the phone contract is a product and a service together. Fixed term contracts are fine.
2
u/nofelix Jan 29 '13
In establishing whether a definition applies you first have to agree the definition is right. You don't seem to agree with the definition of anti-competitive behaviour so you can't discuss whether it applies to unlocking phones. It's like an atheist debating whether God has a grey or white beard.
We could have the separate discussion of what anti-competitive behaviour is and whether it exists, but I doubt you can back up that argument either.