or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by elroth

You're right. Apple is not one of the publishers. It's a totally different case than the publishers colluding (a horizontal relationship, which Apple was not a part of). Apple is asserting its innocence and its rights. It's unbelievable the people that so strongly declare Apple guilty, when their appeal hasn't been heard. Lots of interesting arguments of law in today's filing.
1. Her pre-trial opinion was way too strong - she didn't say "the gov't. seems to have a strong case," or something like that - she said she believed the government will show Apple engaged in a conspiracy. Before any evidence was introduced, before any opening arguments, before she heard anything from Apple. That's not really appropriate.2. Cote and Bromwich worked together for years, and she gave him a glowing recommendation to the DOJ for a previous job. All news reports...
If you would actually read the court's decision, and Apple's filing today, you would find that the court did indeed rule that "the record is equivocal on whether Apple itself desired higher e-book prices than those offered at Amazon."  In case you still don't understand, that means the judge said herself (in her ruling) that it hasn't been shown that Apple desired higher prices. Yet she convicted Apple anyway. She also said in her ruling that the iPad encouraged innovation...
That's exactly the example I was going to use - I better change the password in my brain. I'm on the other side, though: If my opinion is that "The Earth is flat", then that opinion is contrary to fact, and is false. The statement "I believe the Earth is flat" is still true, of course, but that's a statement ABOUT my opinion, not the opinion itself.  By the way, did anyone see the episode of "The Good Wife" where the judge required all the lawyers to end their...
Maybe they could submit it to the San Francisco Design Review Board and get some suggestions for modifications. Like a fountain in the back or something.
One ring to rule them all.
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.
New Posts  All Forums: