or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by EWTHeckman

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...
What it shows is Steve Jobs' intent. If he wasn't thinking about getting the publishers to change their deals with Amazon, he would not have written it in the first place. That he never sent it shows that it occurred to him that putting that into writing was not such a good idea.
  They are not allowed to lie under oath in court. That is perjury and punishable. They're only permitted to lie during an investigation.
  Maps on iOS shows the area in 3D. It really makes it pretty easy to get the lay of the land.   Based on the shadows in the image under iOS, it looks like the only reason there's any light at all in that plaza is because of the weird triangular building. I could see the replacement of that with a square building (of any design) possibly putting the entire plaza permanently into shadow. (Note: This assessment is based entirely on the iOS Maps image which is static. I...
New Posts  All Forums: