or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by EWTHeckman

  Hmmm… Can any E-books be purchased through iTunes for any platform other than iBooks? If that's the case, this settlement idea strikes me as … well … odd.
  That is what I'm asking. The article seems to indicate that it's only iBook buyers that would get the proposed settlement.
What about those who had to pay more from other sources because of those agreements?
Yet more attacks directed specifically at Apple on specious grounds. Sounds to me like Apple isn't willing to pay off the right people. "Nice bizness ya got there. Be a shame if sumptin' were ta happen to it."
  Typical response of someone who is confusing his own bias with truth.     So you think "Based on what has been reported here, I don't think the DOJ has demonstrated that beyond reasonable doubt (so far)" is a flimsy argument? Okaaay then.
Typical response of someone with an a priori bias.
I've been a certified "bleed in 6 colors" guy for more than 30 years. But that doesn't mean I'm blind, biased, or stupid. The evidence proves only what it proves, no more, no less. That's what I am trying to get you to understand.
  Like I said, I am not sure whether Apple actually acted in accord with the intent in that draft email. They must demonstrate that Apple acted in a way which created collusion among the publishers. Based on what has been reported here, I don't think the DOJ has demonstrated that beyond reasonable doubt (so far).   I personally would not call this draft a "smoking gun". A "smoking gun" settles an entire case beyond reasonable doubt. This is crucially important evidence...
Riiiight. Apparently you're unfamiliar with the concept of "plausible deniability".   What shows whether or not he followed though on that "line of action" is, by definition, his actions.
The problem is, it isn't "obvious" that he abandoned that line of thought, merely that he thought better about putting that thought in writing. If he acted consistent with that thought, even if he was never again dumb enough to write it down or be recorded saying it, then the DOJ can show that A) He had that thought, and B) He acted on that thought, which would prove their case.   Remember, the publishers did impose agency pricing on Amazon. The DOJ has now shown the...
New Posts  All Forums: