You claimed: "existing lawyers have already commented on this to no end and disputed endlessly the idea that anyone in this arena would be considered a contractor"

But now there are... none? So you hallucinated their comments?

And you can't identify any way the panelists don't meet the multiple 'contractor' definitions I've provided?

And you've apparently forgotten that the Apple terms explicitly allow the enterprise's contractors, as part of the definition of "Permitted Users".

I've stated elsewhere that the apps may have violated another aspect of the Enterprise Terms, about the use of the "Network Extension Framework". And further that even if the use was OK by the current terms, Apple has the power to change them.

And both Apple and Google would rather this go away, so Google isn't going to go-to-the-legal-mat with their best arguments unless this platform cold war gets a lot hotter. (In particular, some of the best anti-competition arguments that could be made about Apple's behavior are arguments Google wouldn't want made against its own behaviors elsewhere.)

So no, Google's admission of error is strategic kiss-and-make-nice rather than dispositive on the terms, and especially doesn't hinge on your insistence that these contracted workers aren't 'contractors'.

And finally, the "legal blog" URL you've provided (<https://legalforgood.com/grantswhatsthedifferencebetweenaven...) identifies "vendors" as... a kind of contractor! I quote:

"A Vendor, in contrast, is just a contractor who provides goods and/`or services to the recipient so the recipient can accomplish the project’s purposes. Selected terms and conditions might be passed through to the vendor."

It's an inappropriate reference, anyway, since it's specifically talking about the lingo of federal grants, not more general agreements. But if you're imagining lawyers-in-the-conversation who aren't here, and supplying links that explicitly refute your claim of a bright-line vendor/contractor distinction, I think we're done. Good day, sir!

> But now there are... none? So you hallucinated their comments?

I linked one on the open web. I've linked others in my past comments...

> And you've apparently forgotten that the Apple terms explicitly allow the enterprise's contractors, as part of the definition of "Permitted Users".

It actually doesn't. The constraint is employees or persons who are obligated to protect the internal use application from unauthorized use. Screenwise Meter has no NDA or other substantive clause (from what I can google) binding its users to protect it from unauthorized use per the definition of Permitted Users apple put down on paper. Should be noted that this is also one of the general distinctions between most vendors v. most contractors producing work for hire.

---

Google admitted to a mistake you're still saying they didn't make, in contradiction to "go-to-the-legal-mat with their best arguments unless this platform cold war gets a lot hotter." They just went on the record saying what they were doing was wrong. Which gives them a mighty hard time in the public arena trying to repeat it.

> I think we're done. Good day, sir!

So you're right, we're quite done. I still wouldn't have taken the position you took up with your name attached to it on the open internet, but you do you.