or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › WSJ blasts Apple e-books antitrust judge in scathing editorial
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

WSJ blasts Apple e-books antitrust judge in scathing editorial - Page 2

post #41 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

From a small group of people who had to pay a couple of bucks more for some of the eBooks they wanted to buy.

That could very easily afford it.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #42 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfc1138 View Post
 

I read it through and had to check twice (I was on my 5s) that is really WAS the WSJ. Pretty take no prisoners scathing.

 

Ripped both the judge and the monitor big time. The zero antitrust experience and having to hire a "helper" law firm to back up his ignorance at the same rate he's billing was pitiful.

 

WSJ <-------- Rupert Murdoch -------> Harper Collins

 

Rupert is probably rubbing his hands together like Montgomery Burns and preparing to unleash the FOX.

 

Murdoch is a powerful friend.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #43 of 68
Quote: "Not ordinarily in such an incendiary mood, the Journal may be coming to the aid of its News Corp. stablemate and Apple's fellow antitrust defendant, publisher HarperCollins..."

What a silly comment! You don't know squat about the WSJ, News Corp, Apple or HarperCollins. Report the news, stick to the story and don't add any ridiculous embellishments.

Apple's getting stuck with huge fees for an intrusive lawyer who knows almost nothing about anti-trust law and who is a friend of the judge is more than enough reason for the WSJ to be ticked off. It is, after all, a business friendly publication that means it's hostile toward out of control lawyers like this one.

I believe there are ways for Apple to file legal actions against both this judge and this lawyer. And both seem far enough out of line, they may have hung themselves including, as another poster noted, the judge claiming to have decided how the case should be settled before the trial even began. (So much for 'innocent until proven guilty.') I certainly hope Apple's lawyers are considering taking those steps. With this judge and this lawyer, they have nothing to lose.
post #44 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by cfabre View Post


I have tried to outline this in a previous post last week or so.

That was indeed a great post!

http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160970/apple-at-odds-with-e-book-antitrust-monitor-over-70k-per-week-fee-unreasonable-demands#post_2441697
post #45 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

It's a money grab. I'd love someone working for the US gov to go to jail over this.

Because we as American, at least some, can be so envious of other's success, we'd want tear the bastards down to size. How else can you explain analists, judges, and pundits that spew such venomous hatred towards Apple?
post #46 of 68
Originally Posted by TheMacMan View Post
Because we as American, at least some, can be so envious of other's success, we'd want tear the bastards down to size. How else can you explain analists, judges, and pundits that spew such venomous hatred towards Apple?

 

That’s YDBT Syndrome, I think.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #47 of 68

And I"ll second that as one of the Best Posts of The Year!

The post was also still in my mind when I posted on this thread earlier, to partially answer why there is so much hate... and probably a fair amount of actual fear... for and of Apple by the government.

I think it's pretty obvious by now that this particular run-in with the government isn't just about ebooks and price fixing.

So who besides the WSJ... is gonna come out and say in plain English... that Apple is being unjustly persecuted here far and beyond the scope of their supposed wrong-doing and sentance?
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
post #48 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

Wow! This is heating up. One has to wonder where the Apple hate came from in the first place?

It's not Apple hate, it's money love.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #49 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

That’s YDBT Syndrome, I think.

Thanks, Obama!

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #50 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Thanks, Obama!

With all respect, Spam, the post that Phil and ThePixelDoc refer to above carries far more weight as explanation than the money grubbing you allude to.

This is way beyond the power of Holder or Obama to influence.
post #51 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur View Post

With all respect, Spam, the post that Phil and ThePixelDoc refer to above carries far more weight as explanation than the money grubbing you allude to.

This is way beyond the power of Holder or Obama to influence.

I respectfully submit that maintenance of state power via a massive spying apparatus is also an exercise of economic control.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #52 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

I respectfully submit that maintenance of state power via a massive spying apparatus is also an exercise of economic control.

Whatever ideological language and theory you want to throw at it, go ahead. I'm just pointing out that you've fingered the wrong guy, and there are other layers more important.
post #53 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

That’s YDBT Syndrome, I think.

Translation?
post #54 of 68

Here is a five page amicus brief that explains the situation:-

 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/105016617/Apple-Amicus-Brief

 

It tries to show where the DoJ and the court went wrong.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #55 of 68
Originally Posted by Flaneur View Post
Translation?

 

In the same department as being either envious or openly hostile toward others and their successes, real or imagined, in a regard in which you are inadequate is the “you didn’t build that” mindset, in which it is perpetrated that said successful person’s successes were not a result of his work (the work that you haven’t or simply won’t do), his motivation (the motivation that you lack or simply choose not to have), or his skill, learned or inherent (the skill that you lack or simply choose not to learn), but rather a group effort.

 

Put in relevant terms, Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak certainly had assistance with Apple in its early years, and Steve Jobs certainly had assistance at Apple when he returned in 1996, but the suggestion that Steve Jobs, as a successful person, “did not build this” company and that his success was not his own is tantamount to slander.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #56 of 68
^ Agree completely, TS.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #57 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inkling View Post

Quote: "Not ordinarily in such an incendiary mood, the Journal may be coming to the aid of its News Corp. stablemate and Apple's fellow antitrust defendant, publisher HarperCollins..."

What a silly comment! You don't know squat about the WSJ, News Corp, Apple or HarperCollins. Report the news, stick to the story and don't add any ridiculous embellishments.

It is entirely possible that they don't know squat, because (as I mentioned above), this piece sounds like they took the article posted in Fortune by Philip Elmer-Dewitt (PED) and reworded it and submitted it as their own. This is what Elmer-Dewitt wrote:
Quote:
If the Journal's rhetoric seems a bit over the top ("condominium"?), that may be because News Corp. (NWS), which publishes the paper, has a stick in this particular fire. It also owns HarperCollins, one of the five e-book publishers Judge Cote ruled had colluded with Apple.

So this is PED's conspiracy theory.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #58 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post
 

Here is a five page amicus brief that explains the situation:-

 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/105016617/Apple-Amicus-Brief

 

It tries to show where the DoJ and the court went wrong.

 

That's a plausible explanation of the assumptions and mistakes that might have led to the court's basic decision, but it doesn't really shed any more light on whether this is part a larger government scheme to subdue Apple or just a few incompetents at DoJ working with a prejudiced and ignorant judge. It's very tempting, but logically untenable, to regard the recent information about NSA surveillance activities as direct evidence for this hypothesized conspiracy.

 

I'm always very wary of big conspiracy theories (they generally turn out, in hindsight, to be wrong), and have always agreed with Bernard Ingham when he said: 'Many journalists have fallen for the conspiracy theory of government. I do assure you that they would produce more accurate work if they adhered to the cock-up theory.'

post #59 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post
 

It's very tempting, but logically untenable, to regard the recent information about NSA surveillance activities as direct evidence for this hypothesized conspiracy.

 

I'm always very wary of big conspiracy theories (they generally turn out, in hindsight, to be wrong), and have always agreed with Bernard Ingham when he said: 'Many journalists have fallen for the conspiracy theory of government. I do assure you that they would produce more accurate work if they adhered to the cock-up theory.'

 

You may be right: I may well just be the DoJ and/or the judge having lost all common sense.

 

But my point would be this: by looking at the DoJ, the judge and their Grand Inquisitor we are looking in the wrong direction.

 

The elephant in the room is Apple's ecosystem: it is rock-solid, brand new and grows at an unprecedented pace. Any of these three aspects alone would be enough of a pain for the NSA, but they could cope with each separately, provided some extra time and a couple of more B$. The thing is, the three aspects combined together is a real threat (sic) for their mission.

 

​They are used to deal with old and, shall I say, insecure-by-design ecosystems, e.g. Windows and its zero-day attack that they get ahead of time -- They probably also know a couple of tricks to break into Macs. They are used to deal with large scale systems like the telcos and their networking gear manufacturers. This is old business going back all the way to the 60' and 70'. They are used to new ecosystems: if we are to believe the press about Android malware and apps stealing personal information, breaking into it should not be a big deal -- And at least they have (1) the source code (2) the proper connection with the telcos if needed. They are also used to strong ecosystem. I guess that they break into by bullying the provider. That is probably what happened to RIM a long time ago when they started to get traction in the market.

 

They get none of this with Apple's ecosystem. And to make matter worse: (1) it is the first ecosystem build at a time where everybody with a brain could see the surveillance state coming -- It's design is post-9/11; (2) Apple does care about their customers and their privacy; (3) Apple designs both HW and SW, which means they can really build strong security -- Just have a look at the state-of-the-art Touch ID architecture.

 

How could the three-letters agencies deal with this, if not by actual threatening and plain abuse?

post #60 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

Wow! This is heating up. One has to wonder where the Apple hate came from in the first place?

Amazon's lobbyists.
post #61 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfc1138 View Post

I read it through and had to check twice (I was on my 5s) that is really WAS the WSJ. Pretty take no prisoners scathing.

Ripped both the judge and the monitor big time. The zero antitrust experience and having to hire a "helper" law firm to back up his ignorance at the same rate he's billing was pitiful.
They charge $400/hr more than he does.
post #62 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by cfabre View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post
 

It's very tempting, but logically untenable, to regard the recent information about NSA surveillance activities as direct evidence for this hypothesized conspiracy.

 

I'm always very wary of big conspiracy theories (they generally turn out, in hindsight, to be wrong), and have always agreed with Bernard Ingham when he said: 'Many journalists have fallen for the conspiracy theory of government. I do assure you that they would produce more accurate work if they adhered to the cock-up theory.'

 

You may be right: I may well just be the DoJ and/or the judge having lost all common sense.

 

But my point would be this: by looking at the DoJ, the judge and their Grand Inquisitor we are looking in the wrong direction.

 

The elephant in the room is Apple's ecosystem: it is rock-solid, brand new and grows at an unprecedented pace. Any of these three aspects alone would be enough of a pain for the NSA, but they could cope with each separately, provided some extra time and a couple of more B$. The thing is, the three aspects combined together is a real threat (sic) for their mission.

 

​They are used to deal with old and, shall I say, insecure-by-design ecosystems, e.g. Windows and its zero-day attack that they get ahead of time -- They probably also know a couple of tricks to break into Macs. They are used to deal with large scale systems like the telcos and their networking gear manufacturers. This is old business going back all the way to the 60' and 70'. They are used to new ecosystems: if we are to believe the press about Android malware and apps stealing personal information, breaking into it should not be a big deal -- And at least they have (1) the source code (2) the proper connection with the telcos if needed. They are also used to strong ecosystem. I guess that they break into by bullying the provider. That is probably what happened to RIM a long time ago when they started to get traction in the market.

 

They get none of this with Apple's ecosystem. And to make matter worse: (1) it is the first ecosystem build at a time where everybody with a brain could see the surveillance state coming -- It's design is post-9/11; (2) Apple does care about their customers and their privacy; (3) Apple designs both HW and SW, which means they can really build strong security -- Just have a look at the state-of-the-art Touch ID architecture.

 

How could the three-letters agencies deal with this, if not by actual threatening and plain abuse?

 

I completely agree with your assessment of the headaches that Apple may be giving the NSA (assuming that we are correct in believing that they do not have access).  I'm not convinced that the NSA (or whichever agencies may be involved) have either the authority (real or assumed) or the influence to go after such a powerful US company, especially during the continuing fallout from Snowden's tales. And, if they did manage to put together such a campaign, I would expect to see a better effort at keeping it believable and, at least superficially, above board. If, as seems likely, the legal challenges gain some traction, then I think that will support the incompetence theory, although it could still be a really incompetent conspiracy.

 

That's the great thing about conspiracies too - they are hard to disprove.

post #63 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by cfabre View Post

You may be right: I may well just be the DoJ and/or the judge having lost all common sense.

But my point would be this: by looking at the DoJ, the judge and their Grand Inquisitor we are looking in the wrong direction.

The elephant in the room is
Apple's ecosystem
: it is
 rock-solid, brand new and grows at an unprecedented pace. Any of these three aspects alone would be enough of a pain for the NSA, but they could cope with each separately, provided some extra time and a couple of more B$. The thing is, the t
hree aspects combined together is a real threat (sic) for their mission.


​They are used to deal with old and, shall I say, 
insecure-by-design ecosystems, e.g. Windows and its zero-day attack that they get ahead of time -- They 
probably 
also know a couple of tricks to break into Macs. They are used to deal with large scale systems like the telcos and their 
networking gear 
manufacturers. This is old business going back all the way to the 60' and 70'. They are used to new ecosystems: if we are to believe the press about Android malware and apps stealing 
personal information, breaking into it should not be a big 
deal -- And at least they have (1) the source code (2) the proper connection with the telcos if needed. They are also used to strong ecosystem. I guess that they break into by bullying the provider. That is probably what happened to RIM a long time ago when they started to get traction in the market.

They get none of this with Apple's ecosystem. And to make matter worse: (1) it is the first ecosystem build at a time where everybody with a brain could see the surveillance state coming -- It's design is post-9/11; (2) Apple does care about their customers and their privacy; (3) Apple designs both HW and SW, which means they can really build strong security -- Just have a look at the state-of-the-art Touch ID architecture.

How could the three-letters agencies deal with this, if not by actual threatening and plain abuse?

Spying on us is obviously not so hard.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/12/08/cellphone-data-spying-nsa-police/3902809/
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #64 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post
 

I'm not convinced that the NSA (or whichever agencies may be involved) have either the authority (real or assumed) or the influence to go after such a powerful US company, especially during the continuing fallout from Snowden's tales. And, if they did manage to put together such a campaign, I would expect to see a better effort at keeping it believable and, at least superficially, above board. If, as seems likely, the legal challenges gain some traction, then I think that will support the incompetence theory, although it could still be a really incompetent conspiracy.

 

Let's wait a bit and see how does this ends up. The picture will certainly be lot clearer in 6 months or so.

post #65 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Spying on us is obviously not so hard.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/12/08/cellphone-data-spying-nsa-police/3902809/

 

I wasn't talking about "spying on us," but about "breaking into Apple's ecosystem."

 

It's not quite the same thing, indeed.

post #66 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by cfabre View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post
 

I'm not convinced that the NSA (or whichever agencies may be involved) have either the authority (real or assumed) or the influence to go after such a powerful US company, especially during the continuing fallout from Snowden's tales. And, if they did manage to put together such a campaign, I would expect to see a better effort at keeping it believable and, at least superficially, above board. If, as seems likely, the legal challenges gain some traction, then I think that will support the incompetence theory, although it could still be a really incompetent conspiracy.

 

Let's wait a bit and see how does this ends up. The picture will certainly be lot clearer in 6 months or so.

 

Agreed. It will be fascinating to see how this plays out.

post #67 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by cfabre View Post

I wasn't talking about "spying on us," but about "breaking into Apple's ecosystem."

It's not quite the same thing, indeed.

Why break into the safe when the money is all over to be easily had?
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #68 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


Why break into the safe when the money is all over to be easily had?

Hah.

 

If Zuckerberg hadn't invented FaceBook the NSA would have.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › WSJ blasts Apple e-books antitrust judge in scathing editorial