or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by elroth

Yes - Apple answers questions with "We don't comment on future products" or ""Apple buys smaller technology companies from time to time, and we generally do not discuss our purpose or plans." Samsung's answer to every question is "We categorically deny any allegation."
Not exactly. The Apple lawyers get paid, of course, but if they weren't working on this crazy lawsuit, they'd be working on another one. The plaintiffs' lawyers, though, don't get paid unless the lawsuit is successful. However, it depends on the contract they wrote up - it could say their clients have to pay them for certain expenses anyway, like filing fees (but usually they pay nothing unless they win, and then the lawyer takes so much of the award that the clients are...
Yeah, and even with the correction (to "increased by nearly 10 per cent") they are wrong. It's a 10.67% increase. They do screw up percentages all the time. They ( and lots of other people) also mix up "percentages" with "percentage points" all the time: while Apple's share increased 10.67% (or 0.8 percentage points), Samsung's share increased 2.6 percentage points (not 2.6% - it was actually up 10.57%, to put it in the same terms as they list Apple). 
As I think about it, maybe it's not so surprising that Apple came up with this. After all, it's kind of what they've been doing (as it's been rumored) to ensure secrecy of their new products - they give different employees different parts of it, with different "contextual clues", so if it leaks, they can track down where the leak came from. It's pretty clever to expand this to a system of tracking down spammers.
Three stars to you for the Catch-22 reference.
What, no Bitcoins? I'm destroying my SquareStand, along with my iPad, iPhone, iPod, iMac, and even a photograph of my IIsi. Rise up!
Yes and no. Those were basically the original terms, but it wasn't clearly spelled out that he was strictly limited to that. Further, when Cote hired him, the two opf them discussed widening his job, and apparently agreed that he could do more investigating of Apple. The Justice Department supported the expanded powers in statements they made (I believe even in court to Judge Cote). Bromwich acted on the wider mandate, and was investigating Apple beyond the original order,...
Here's another story that's a much better analysis of the ruling, the issues involved, and the road ahead:   Court: Antitrust monitor Bromwich stays, with limits | MacNN
You don't understand it at all. Money is never an "irreparable harm", because if it's later found to be unjust or "outlandish", they can order Bromwich to pay it back (and the harm is repaired).
I'm pretty disappointed in this AI story, especially with the false headline. It's not a good summary of what the court ruled - for that, go to the link in Sacto Joe's previous post. This is a win for Apple, though not a total victory (the monitor stays for now). If you really look at it, during the appeal the DOJ backed down in a major way - they actually said (quoted in today's ruling) that the monitor was only authorized to look into Apple's antitrust compliance...
New Posts  All Forums: