or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by elroth

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...
It's is a court proceeding, not a policy debate. The DOJ actions have absolutely nothing to do with the Apple/Samsung trial. In the U.S. court system (unlike China, Korea and other places), EVERY company deserves fair treatment, whether it's American or foreign. For a lawyer to appeal to nationalism is prejudicial, and not allowed. It should be the same verdict as if it were Apple v. Google instead of Apple v. Samsung. Of course, judges can make mistakes, issue bad...
I don't know - that may be true to some degree in a number of industries, but the U.S. was making pretty crappy televisions, and not improving them (Magnavox? Zenith?). I don't know if the Asian companies like Sony stole American IP, but they sure did improve the quality and functionality of televisions. Of course, after that came all the cheap Asian TVs that are still built today.
 Wait until Google starts sending holographic advertising images into your living room when you're lounging around, personalized ads that mention what you're wearing and what you had for dinner, and offers to deliver your daughter's favorite ice cream flavor in 15 minutes. Then tell me you're not worried.
The latest figures, just came out yesterday: Apple sells 40.6% of U.S. albums. That's the market for new albums, and doesn't include used CD sales (a big business), or streaming music subscriptions. Apple sells 63% of paid music downloads (of course, that doesn't include CD sales or subscriptions). That's a monopoly? I buy well over a hundred CDs a year, and maybe 10 downloaded albums from Apple. That's a monopoly? Amazon had 90% of the ebook market, and was threatening...
No - my tracks are Apple Lossless (from CDs), so iTunes Match would DOWNgrade them. Interesting that still 57% of album sales are from CDs. And that doesn't even include the sales of used CDs, which is a very large market itself, but the record industry of course doesn't add in those sales. Adding used CDs in may take CD album sales up to 65% or more of total album sales. For years digi-heads have told us CDs are dead - not true.
Wow, this is really good news. Now we can get the same intelligent radio ads that normal radio stations offer. I enjoy them sooo much.
New Posts  All Forums: