> It’s reductio ad absurdum

It's not, it's just factually wrong.

If Apple can legally claim 30% of your salary then a doctor using an iPad to demonstrate results of a scan to a patient has to pay Apple 30% of their consultation fee.

That's reductio ad absurdum.

Lol.

▲

spacebanana7 8 hours ago | parent [-]

> If Apple can legally claim 30% of your salary then a doctor using an iPad to demonstrate results of a scan to a patient has to pay Apple 30% of their consultation fee.

Apple could absolutely do this. They could say that professional medical use of macOS requires a commercial license, and the price of that commercial licence could be linked to revenue.

Doctors - or rather their hospital IT/procurement departments - would be held to the terms of service they agree to. Far more rigorously than ordinary consumers.

▲

willtemperley 8 hours ago | parent [-]

If that were legally enforcable, which is almost certainly not the case, Microsoft and Google could do the same, making your argument moot in this context.

▲

spacebanana7 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Every software company can do this. Oracle Java is free for personal use but if you use it in prod you have to pay a licence based on the number of employees in your company. Epic games takes 5% of your revenue above a million if you use unreal for a game. Docker desktop requires a paid license if you have over 250 employees or $10 million in revenue.

▲

willtemperley 6 hours ago | parent [-]

Let's continue with the reductio ad absurdum - a taxi driver uses their iPhone to navigate. Can Apple take 30% of their revenue?

	▲	spacebanana7 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Absolutely, if the taxi driver signs a contract / agrees to terms of service. What law prohibits them from charging that? This is why open source is so important.

▲

g947o 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Heard of the word "contract"?

▲

bigDinosaur 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

What would make this legally unenforceable?