I still have the view though that if someone has the money they should be able to buy it and a lifetime ban is not really ideal.
Also a CNN article I read recently means the limit of 2 isn't stopping the trade in Hong Kong: http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/04/08/ipad.hong.kong.china.sale...
If a retailer is unable or unwilling to enter a market, why should they be able to artificially ban anyone in that market from obtaining their product?
Take this outside of the context of Apple here. If Universal decides to release a DVD in the US, but wait 2 years to release that same DVD in the UK, should they be allowed to ban people in the UK from trying to obtain the US version? Trying to artificially create segment markets to suit your business goals like this goes against the entire idea of a global marketplace.
If anything, Apple is losing that revenue because they are 'unable and/or unwilling to enter that market,' not because someone isn't in the store shopping for their iPad. The argument that Apple is losing money over this is like the argument that the media industries make when they claim that every download is a lost sale.
I'm not saying it's right - just that it's not new.
Saying that this guy somehow 'wronged' Apple is like saying that someone who buys DVDs outside of their region code (and uses a region-free dvd player) is somehow 'wronging' the movie studios.
Indeed, they resort to technical means to effectively "ban" people (region codes). IMO the reverse situation should arise that the companies are prevented from imposing artificial segmentation by any means if they wish to retain copyright protection.
This only makes sense if the base product is a loss-leader, and all of the margins come from the upsells. Best Buy may work this way, but I'm pretty sure Apple makes a profit selling even the barest iPad configuration.