or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple wins temporary reprieve from monitor in e-books antitrust case
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple wins temporary reprieve from monitor in e-books antitrust case - Page 2

post #41 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post
 

It seems you don't trust the judge before they are proven corrupt, based only on rumours. You don't think that's a dangerous attitude to take?

 

It seems Cote had her mind made up before the trial that Apple was guilty.


Fixed it for 'ya.

post #42 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post
 

 

Ah, so then what's your opinion of Bromwich trying to interview Apple employees outside of e-books? You think that's acceptable?

A very tricky question to answer. I think it's certainly reasonable for Bromwich to expect to have a short interview with board members. After all these people are not protected pariahs, they are normal human beings with direct access and control over Apple.

 

 

Quote:
Ever since the beginning of this case the parties involved (opposite Apple) have been trying to expand this case into other areas that aren't relevant to e-books.

I haven't followed the case closely enough to feel that from it, but I don't really see the point in doing so. The whole purpose of the monitorship is to ensure Apple develops effective training and reference material that this sort of case does not happen again. Interviewing members of the board? Seems reasonable. Moving into iTunes and 30% cuts? Yeah I don't really see the justification for that.

 

Having said that though, if the DOJ wanted this, and Cote is as corrupt as some people in this forum are making out, then why was it thrown out?

post #43 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post
 

 

It seems Cote had her mind made up before the trial that Apple was guilty.


Fixed it for 'ya.


No, she responded to a request from Apple for a pre-trial opinion. Literally Apple requested this opinion from her, and you are now condemning her for giving it. You must see that's a little ridiculous?

post #44 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post
 

 

So did Samsung not copy valuable Apple IP?

Yes or No.

Huh as I said in my previous post. Samsung certainly infringed on some of Apple's IP rights. Whether they copied outright is a different matter as they won several cases to do with that in the UK. I have no loyalty to Samsung and they don't pay me. In fact I think I own a single Samsung product and that's an old, scratched TV.

post #45 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post

I disagree. What Apple did was wrong even if done with the best of intentions.

 

I find it unfortunate that you're unwilling to engage in honest debate.  I didn't say anything about Apple's intentions, or use intentions as a claim to absolve them, thus your response regarding intentions is knocking down a straw man.  It lets you pretend like you're responding to the point I made, when in reality, you are simply ignoring it and using it as an excuse to once again bash apple.

 

If you cannot come up with honest arguments, then you're going to just continue to look bad.

 

Hell, Apple didn't even do what you claim they did, so whether it was "wrong" or not is irrelevant.  Further, even if they *had* done what you claim, it would not be wrong.   But that is a moral argument, and since you aren't seemingly capable of presenting any arguments, let alone moral ones, there's no point.

 

So, present an argument.  Show facts, logic and reason to defend your conclusions.  You keep asserting them, so back them up.

 

Or admit you cannot back them up and you're just a basher.

 

Quote:

 No evidence has been presented for this.

 

A lie. But then you don't really care, do you?  Anything that disagrees with your ideology you will ignore, and then assert was never presented.  Anything that rebuts your accusations you will simply ignore and then restate your accusations.   You're not capable of honest debate.

 

Quote:

 It seems you don't trust the judge before they are proven corrupt, based only on rumours. You don't think that's a dangerous attitude to take?

 

Again, strawman.  I know the judge is corrupt, after they were proven so, by their prejudicial statements before hearing any evidence. 

 

What's dangerous is people who reject facts, logic, reason, and reality and instead believe things based on ideology, as you do.  That leads to a populace that does not realize how ignorant it is, and consequently is much easier to control, based on ideology.  

 

IF you had reached your opinion based on facts, logic or reason, you could present arguments.  You refuse to present arguments, so it's obvious that it is ideology for you.  

 

That is dangerous.   That's what ends up taking world powers and turning them into third world countries, like the UK.   The tragedy of the UK, for instance, is not that the living conditions are so poor, but that the residents don't even realize it, they still think they are The Empire. 

 

Ideology is what causes that. 

post #46 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post
 


That's a totally different issue. That happened a number of years ago and was indeed very troubling to hear. That doesn't mean I condemn every single thing they ever do because they screwed up once. I have never defended them capturing this data and I won't, because it was a stupid and illegal thing to do.

 

Different issue but same company.  I don't care if it happened yesterday or last year.  Google is run by the same guys as when they stole passwords.  And no they have not just screwed up ONCE.  They have settled with the government and others many times.  And who knows how many other times they didn't get caught.  Bottom line is Google has shown a pattern of using personal information without permission time and time again.

 

Google scanning your personal emails

http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/federal-court-allows-lawsuit-against-googles-email-scanning-to-proceed

 

Google Agrees To Settle Lawsuit Over Passing Search Queries To Third Parties

http://searchengineland.com/google-agrees-to-settle-lawsuit-over-passing-search-queries-to-third-parties-167574

 

Google Settles With States to Avoid Class Action Lawsuit over Tracking

http://dashburst.com/google-settles-with-states-to-avoid-class-action-lawsuit-over-tracking/

 

Google Settles Lawsuits Brought by French Authors and Publishers

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303901504577459971316136552

 

Google pays up $17M for ignoring user privacy settings in Safari

http://venturebeat.com/2013/11/18/google-privacy-settlement/

 

Google dodges FTC antitrust lawsuit with changes to search, patents, ads

I could go on and on and on.

 

yet you still defend Google and say they only broke the law ONCE by ACCIDENT.
 

 

 

Apple Purchases last 12 months - iPhone 5S (two), iPhone 6, iPhone 6+ (two), iPadAir, iPadAir2, iPadMini2, AppleTV (two), MacMini, Airport Extreme, iPod Classic.
Reply
Apple Purchases last 12 months - iPhone 5S (two), iPhone 6, iPhone 6+ (two), iPadAir, iPadAir2, iPadMini2, AppleTV (two), MacMini, Airport Extreme, iPod Classic.
Reply
post #47 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post
I was using a full touch screen smartphone in 2006.

 

Name that phone.

post #48 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post
 

yet you still defend Google and say they only broke the law ONCE by ACCIDENT.
 

 

No, I never said that. Stop lying about what I am posting.

post #49 of 190
Originally Posted by Jessi View Post

Name that phone.

 

 

OOH OOH! LG PRADA!

What do I win?

post #50 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post
 

 

Here you defend Google for stealing personal information such as wifi passcodes, internet purchases, ect. 

 

http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/161653/nests-fadell-backtracks-on-data-privacy-will-be-transparent-about-future-changes/80#post_2460449

 

Ah, so he's a general Apple hater.  A troll.  And he's pretending to be reasonable to better troll us. 

post #51 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessi View Post
 

 

Name that phone.


The powerhouse HTC Wizard: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTC_Wizard

 

I had a few other similar devices at the same time. An Ipaq or two, plus I had a Tytn and my friend had a Tytn II.

 

They were all awful.

post #52 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post
 

It's not really that full of legalese, but for what it's worth I also read Bromwich and Apple's filings too.

 

 

She did indeed say this, because Apple asked her for a pre-trial opinion. This isn't really 'unusual'.


 

She was allowed to preside over the trial because asking for a preliminary view is very common, it allows Lawyers to decide where to focus their efforts. Remember, Apple solicited this opinion from her.


 

The DOJ actually investigated Amazon on Apple's behalf. It wasn't that Apple was making agreements with publishers that was the problem. It's that they made simultaneous agreements with a majority of the market in a way which forced price rises and a complete elimination of price competition. This is basically the most straightforwardly illegal thing you can do in anti-trust.

DOJ lawyer Mark Ryan requested she (Judge Cote) share any thoughts on the case given the evidence at hand.

post #53 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post
 

She did indeed say this, because Apple asked her for a pre-trial opinion. This isn't really 'unusual'.


 

She was allowed to preside over the trial because asking for a preliminary view is very common, it allows Lawyers to decide where to focus their efforts. Remember, Apple solicited this opinion from her.

 

So now who's the liar... 

 

"Toward the end of the hearing, Mark Ryan, a lawyer with the Justice Department, asked if she would be able to share any of her thoughts on the case so far.  Cote then gave what she called her "tentative view," which she said was based largely on material submitted as evidence - emails and correspondence that took place over a six-week period between December 2009 and January 2010."

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/23/us-usa-apple-ebooks-idUSBRE94M19A20130523

 

dang, Mulder beat me by 10 seconds, but I got the link. :)


Edited by GregInPrague - 1/21/14 at 11:09am
post #54 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post
 

 

No, I never said that. Stop lying about what I am posting.

 

You said Google was not a stalker.  They are.  I've posted 6 examples where they stole personal information. 

 

So is Google a stalker?

Yes or No.

Apple Purchases last 12 months - iPhone 5S (two), iPhone 6, iPhone 6+ (two), iPadAir, iPadAir2, iPadMini2, AppleTV (two), MacMini, Airport Extreme, iPod Classic.
Reply
Apple Purchases last 12 months - iPhone 5S (two), iPhone 6, iPhone 6+ (two), iPadAir, iPadAir2, iPadMini2, AppleTV (two), MacMini, Airport Extreme, iPod Classic.
Reply
post #55 of 190
@ItsTheInternet

While some of your points regarding the judge might (a big might) be accurate, as soon as it was brought to light that she wanted to have ex parte meetings with the monitor she appointed, it showed a nefarious intent. She only backtracked when there was public scrutiny. No judge should have an ex parte, off the books meeting with an appointment of their own. It was also brought to light that the monitor wanted to have meetings with Apple employees without Apple's lawyers present. There have been other things that have come up that disproves your point that the judge and the monitor are impartial. Just because it's not unheard of for a judge to provide a pre-trial opinion, doesn't mean the opinion is impartial and the subsequent actions following her pre-trial opinion proves that the opinion wasn't impartial.
post #56 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post
I also don't like the fact you're threatening me because I disagree with you. Grow up.

 

His "threat" was to hunt down your posts, and your sock puppet accounts, and to expose them. 

 

In short, he "threatened" to expose the truth. 

 

Of course your response is a lie, to imply he "threatened" you for disagreement and to use the phrase "threatening me" to imply he "threatened" you with bodily harm, which he did not. 

 

So, are you choosing to lie or are you incapable of telling the truth? 

post #57 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessi View Post
 

 

I find it unfortunate that you're unwilling to engage in honest debate.  I didn't say anything about Apple's intentions, or use intentions as a claim to absolve them, thus your response regarding intentions is knocking down a straw man.  It lets you pretend like you're responding to the point I made, when in reality, you are simply ignoring it and using it as an excuse to once again bash apple.

I'm not bashing Apple at all. I'm repeating facts from a court case. If that's your idea of dishonest debate then I have no idea how I'm supposed to respond to you.

 

Quote:
Hell, Apple didn't even do what you claim they did, so whether it was "wrong" or not is irrelevant.  Further, even if they *had* done what you claim, it would not be wrong.   But that is a moral argument, and since you aren't seemingly capable of presenting any arguments, let alone moral ones, there's no point.

What are you talking about. I reported what Apple were convicted of. Your hyperbole doesn't change reality.

 

Quote:
A lie. But then you don't really care, do you?  Anything that disagrees with your ideology you will ignore, and then assert was never presented.  Anything that rebuts your accusations you will simply ignore and then restate your accusations.   You're not capable of honest debate.

You've responded to me a total of once on this site. I don't know who you are, but yet you're willing to immediately libel me as much as you can in order to try and gain Internet Points. Everything you've said is nonsense. I never lied and I have no particular bias against Apple.


 

Quote:

Again, strawman.  I know the judge is corrupt, after they were proven so, by their prejudicial statements before hearing any evidence. 

 

What's dangerous is people who reject facts, logic, reason, and reality and instead believe things based on ideology, as you do.  That leads to a populace that does not realize how ignorant it is, and consequently is much easier to control, based on ideology.  

 

IF you had reached your opinion based on facts, logic or reason, you could present arguments.  You refuse to present arguments, so it's obvious that it is ideology for you.  

This is all complete nonsense. You 'know' the judge is corrupt, but yet you have no evidence for it and you don't even understand what you're trying to cite. This discussion is over.

post #58 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post
 It's that they made simultaneous agreements with a majority of the market in a way which forced price rises and a complete elimination of price competition. This is basically the most straightforwardly illegal thing you can do in anti-trust.

Lie, Lie, Lie.  The agreements were not simultaneous, they did not force price rises, they, in fact, allowed price competition where it did not exist before, and it did not eliminate price competition.

 

Since you have to lie about the basic facts of the case, it's obvious you're just a troll. 

post #59 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessi View Post
 

 

His "threat" was to hunt down your posts, and your sock puppet accounts, and to expose them. 

 

In short, he "threatened" to expose the truth. 

 

Of course your response is a lie, to imply he "threatened" you for disagreement and to use the phrase "threatening me" to imply he "threatened" you with bodily harm, which he did not. 

 

So, are you choosing to lie or are you incapable of telling the truth? 


I have no sock puppet accounts. This is my first and only account here. It seems you're just desperate to prove that anyone who is remotely critical of Apple must have an ulterior motive.

 

I don't, and what I posted were facts. I'm neither lying nor incapable of telling the truth. On the other hand you seem perfectly willing to build straw men and try and knock them down.

post #60 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by foad View Post

@ItsTheInternet

While some of your points regarding the judge might (a big might) be accurate, as soon as it was brought to light that she wanted to have ex parte meetings with the monitor she appointed, it showed a nefarious intent. She only backtracked when there was public scrutiny. No judge should have an ex parte, off the books meeting with an appointment of their own. It was also brought to light that the monitor wanted to have meetings with Apple employees without Apple's lawyers present. There have been other things that have come up that disproves your point that the judge and the monitor are impartial. Just because it's not unheard of for a judge to provide a pre-trial opinion, doesn't mean the opinion is impartial and the subsequent actions following her pre-trial opinion proves that the opinion wasn't impartial.

Hiya. This is one of the facts people don't understand. That order was never put in place. Apple even used it as one of their arguments to the court even though it was never enacted. I urge you to read Cote's opinion she submitted, it explains a lot of these facts quite nicely in a way some people here seem desperate to ignore.

post #61 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregInPrague View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post
 

She did indeed say this, because Apple asked her for a pre-trial opinion. This isn't really 'unusual'.


 

She was allowed to preside over the trial because asking for a preliminary view is very common, it allows Lawyers to decide where to focus their efforts. Remember, Apple solicited this opinion from her.

 

So now who's the liar... 

 

"Toward the end of the hearing, Mark Ryan, a lawyer with the Justice Department, asked if she would be able to share any of her thoughts on the case so far.  Cote then gave what she called her "tentative view," which she said was based largely on material submitted as evidence - emails and correspondence that took place over a six-week period between December 2009 and January 2010."

I'm pretty sure that Apple also requested this but if I'm wrong I'll admit it. I'll go check the trial documents again.

post #62 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post
 


I have no sock puppet accounts. This is my first and only account here. It seems you're just desperate to prove that anyone who is remotely critical of Apple must have an ulterior motive.

 

I don't, and what I posted were facts. I'm neither lying nor incapable of telling the truth. On the other hand you seem perfectly willing to build straw men and try and knock them down.

 

So did Samsung STEAL valuable Apple IP?

yes or no

 

Is Google stalking people and  stealing personal information?

yes or no

 

answer those and we will see if you are a troll or not

Apple Purchases last 12 months - iPhone 5S (two), iPhone 6, iPhone 6+ (two), iPadAir, iPadAir2, iPadMini2, AppleTV (two), MacMini, Airport Extreme, iPod Classic.
Reply
Apple Purchases last 12 months - iPhone 5S (two), iPhone 6, iPhone 6+ (two), iPadAir, iPadAir2, iPadMini2, AppleTV (two), MacMini, Airport Extreme, iPod Classic.
Reply
post #63 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post
 

 

You said Google was not a stalker.  They are.  I've posted 6 examples where they stole personal information. 

 

So is Google a stalker?

Yes or No.

I don't think I'd really ever say an International company is 'a stalker'. Some of the links you've provided though are pretty interesting. I'm not about to condemn an entire company at once but I will set aside some time to read them. I certainly don't like the idea of anyone bypassing privacy settings.

post #64 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post
 

Ok, US vs Apple inc: http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/applebooks.html

 

But I'm sure you will say that showing the evidence from the trial which resulted in a verdict against Apple is now insufficient. You would have me replay the Prosecution case into the forum, which seems wasteful.

 

Apple has been found guilty by the courts. Until this is overturned that ruling stands no matter how much you dislike it. That's not a personal bias of mine either, it's just what the courts have ruled.

 

You haven't shown any evidence. You just linked to the trial page.   Apple has been found guilty by you, and it doesn't matter how much I dislike it, that's just, like, your opinion man. 

 

Your opinion is not reality.  Your opinion is not law.  Same goes for Judge Cot's opinion.  

 

Under US Law Apple is completely innocent, because the entire body of "anti-trust" law is invalid, and itself illegal under the US constitution.  You want me to link to the constitution to "prove" it?  

 

Naw, that would be dishonest to do what you do, I'll point to the exact part of the constitution that makes Apple's actions legal (even if they *had* violated anti-trust law, something you have not proven or provided any reason to believe they have.) 

 

Here's your proof: http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html  Nowhere in there is given the power to criminalize competition.

 

I'm not asking you to replay the prosecution case, I'm asking you to show some reasoning for your opinion. 

 

Ironically, in your attempt to dishonestly evade actually defending your opinion you've exposed it: You believe Cote's opinion and thus you confuse your opinion for objective reality. 

 

Which means you cannot defend it, you know **** all about what's going on, you're just spouting nonsense to try and troll us because you're an apple hater.

 

 I do enjoy humiliating the likes of you!

post #65 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post
 


No, she responded to a request from Apple for a pre-trial opinion. Literally Apple requested this opinion from her, and you are now condemning her for giving it. You must see that's a little ridiculous?


Your Trolling has actually annoyed me enough to dig up the password for this account, i'm just replying to this post to high light a LIE that you are trying to perpetuate. Apple did not request her opinion. Also it is VERY rare for a judge to express an opinion pre-trial, especially if it is leaning against the defendant, as there is a presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

post #66 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post
 

answer those and we will see if you are a troll or not

 

You don't get to decide, and I sure as hell am not replying to obviously baited yes/no answers. You'll find my replies in the posts I already submitted. Perhaps take a second to read them first, I've literally had to reply to like 20 posts in the last few minutes and I'm going to take a smoke break!

post #67 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post
 

 

No, I never said that. Stop lying about what I am posting.

 

The irony of you saying that is really quite rich, given that most of what you are posting are lies. 

 

But then, when called on lies, liars usually tell a lie and claim they weren't actually lying, and then try to prove it by making up another lie!

post #68 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

 

 

OOH OOH! LG PRADA!

What do I win?

 

Nothing, Sales started in May 2007, so it would be impossible for The Trollinator to have been using it in 2006.

 

Will be interesting to see his answer to this.  Ok, I'm being foolish, it will not be interesting, it will be nonsense. 

post #69 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessi View Post
 

 

You haven't shown any evidence. You just linked to the trial page.   Apple has been found guilty by you, and it doesn't matter how much I dislike it, that's just, like, your opinion man. 

 

Your opinion is not reality.  Your opinion is not law.  Same goes for Judge Cot's opinion. 

No, Apple was found guilty by the courts. I said nothing about whether they're guilty in my eyes. I don't know US anti trust law well enough to be able to negotiate any nuances in the case.

 

Quote:
Under US Law Apple is completely innocent, because the entire body of "anti-trust" law is invalid, and itself illegal under the US constitution.  You want me to link to the constitution to "prove" it?  

Haha when you start claiming you know law better than Apple's Lawyers, that's when the discussion ends. Please go join TS in the 'I think I am a lawyer but only on the Internet' corner.

 

Quote:
Ironically, in your attempt to dishonestly evade actually defending your opinion you've exposed it: You believe Cote's opinion and thus you confuse your opinion for objective reality. 

 

Cote's 'opinion' is a legal judgement. She is a Judge.


 

Quote:

Which means you cannot defend it, you know **** all about what's going on, you're just spouting nonsense to try and troll us because you're an apple hater.

 

Read my posts before this argument. I joined here because I think Apple is one of the most technologically advanced companies in the world. Pretty weird behaviour for an 'apple hater' eh?

 

 

Quote:
 I do enjoy humiliating the likes of you!

You just claimed to know law better than Apple's Lawyers. The only humiliation here is your own.

post #70 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessi View Post
 

 

Nothing, Sales started in May 2007, so it would be impossible for The Trollinator to have been using it in 2006.

 

Will be interesting to see his answer to this.  Ok, I'm being foolish, it will not be interesting, it will be nonsense. 

 

Please take the time to read the thread before replying: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/161670/apple-wins-temporary-reprieve-from-monitor-in-e-books-antitrust-case/40#post_2460559

 

I literally still have it in a drawer somewhere. It was total crap at the time and I can only imagine how it would look next to a Nexus 5 now. I might go find it just for the comedy picture.

post #71 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post
 


The powerhouse HTC Wizard: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTC_Wizard

 

I had a few other similar devices at the same time. An Ipaq or two, plus I had a Tytn and my friend had a Tytn II.

 

They were all awful.

 

I knew you were lying.  The HTC Wizard did not have a touchscreen like the iPhone (though of course, trolls like you have changed wikipedia to say otherwise).  It's screen was of the type that first appeared on the Apple Newton, a decade earlier. 

 

I love how you guys like to lie about technology.  You might as well be saying there was nothing innovative in the iPhone because Bell had made a phone call over a hundred years before!

post #72 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessi View Post
 

 

I knew you were lying.  The HTC Wizard did not have a touchscreen like the iPhone (though of course, trolls like you have changed wikipedia to say otherwise).  It's screen was of the type that first appeared on the Apple Newton, a decade earlier.

Right a resistive touchscreen. I never claimed it had a capacitive screen. It was just a touch screen with a virtual keyboard, a similar model to what Apple used. Nor did I claim it was good, because it wasn't.

post #73 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post
 

I don't, and what I posted were facts. I'm neither lying nor incapable of telling the truth. On the other hand you seem perfectly willing to build straw men and try and knock them down.

 

I see, now you're resorting to projection.  I cite facts point out that you refuse to do so. I catch you on lies, and point out that you're erecting strawmen so you start accusing me of same. 

 

Obviously you can't expect to fool me with that kind of nonsense, after all, I am the one who has your number and exposed it publicly.  

 

What I find mystifying is that you would think that this site-- Apple insider-- is going to have people who will believe an apple troll when he attacks someone defending apple with facts logic and reason, merely because he's got a snotty tone?

 

Or do you realize that you're not fooling them either and this is all an attempt to convince yourself? 

 

It's not working. 

post #74 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post
 

 

You don't get to decide, and I sure as hell am not replying to obviously baited yes/no answers. You'll find my replies in the posts I already submitted. Perhaps take a second to read them first, I've literally had to reply to like 20 posts in the last few minutes and I'm going to take a smoke break!

 

i guess you are a troll after all, sad.

 

You can't answer two easy questions.

 

Whats hilarious is you won't answer these questions yet you open STATE that Apple is GUILTY because the court said so.  Guess what?  The court said Samsung stole valuable IP from Apple and the court said Google stole personal information from people.

 

so again i ask:

 

So did Samsung STEAL valuable Apple IP?

yes or no

 

Is Google stalking people and  stealing personal information?

yes or no

Apple Purchases last 12 months - iPhone 5S (two), iPhone 6, iPhone 6+ (two), iPadAir, iPadAir2, iPadMini2, AppleTV (two), MacMini, Airport Extreme, iPod Classic.
Reply
Apple Purchases last 12 months - iPhone 5S (two), iPhone 6, iPhone 6+ (two), iPadAir, iPadAir2, iPadMini2, AppleTV (two), MacMini, Airport Extreme, iPod Classic.
Reply
post #75 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post
 

 

You don't get to decide, and I sure as hell am not replying to obviously baited yes/no answers. You'll find my replies in the posts I already submitted. Perhaps take a second to read them first, I've literally had to reply to like 20 posts in the last few minutes and I'm going to take a smoke break!

 

You won't respond to any requests for you to defend your positions.  You just repeat them and then turn the conversation personal. 

 

Nobody "decides" you're a troll, your actions make it clear.

post #76 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessi View Post

 

What I find mystifying is that you would think that this site-- Apple insider-- is going to have people who will believe an apple troll when he attacks someone defending apple with facts logic and reason, merely because he's got a snotty tone?

Your 'facts, logic and reason' are that you think you are a better Lawyer than Judge Cote and Apple's defence team. A frankly hilarious position.

 

If you keep accusing me of lying and distorting without any actual evidence, I'll just keep reporting your posts and ignore you. This is not a productive discussion and I don't see the point in continuing it. Many other posters here are completely reasonable but apparently expressing any opinion contrary to you is grounds for endless mindless insults.

post #77 of 190

I'm not sure if anyone else has brought this up but part of the final judgement that came down was that apple was to setup an effective anti-trust mechanism and submit this to the monitor after a grace period of 90 days.

My problem with Bromwich is that he has no anti-trust experience and has to hire another firm to actually do his job, so apple gets billed by the firm that is actually doing the work, and being billed by Bromwich because the judge appointed him.

One of the problems apple had with Bromwich is that he wanted to interview any and all apple employees even if they are NOT involved with the e-book said of the company without an apple lawyer present, and then he wanted to pass that information back to judge Cote without an apple lawyer present as well.

post #78 of 190

Good job Apple, the guy seemed like a complete ass.

post #79 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post

No, Apple was found guilty by the courts. I said nothing about whether they're guilty in my eyes. I don't know US anti trust law well enough to be able to negotiate any nuances in the case.

 

Lie, Lie, Certainly True.

 

Hilarious, you have repeatedly said they are guilty.   Now you say you don't understand the law to negotiate "nuances"?  LOL!    You make claims when required to defend them you refuse to do so, when called on that, you pretend like you never made the claims in the first place.

 

Really think you're fooling anyone?  Can you name anyone in this thread whom you've fooled with this act?

 

Quote:
 Haha when you start claiming you know law better than Apple's Lawyers, that's when the discussion ends.   'I think I am a lawyer

 

Lie, Lie, Lie.

I see, you cannot respond to my argument so you just make up an absurd lie about me.  I never said anything about Apple's lawyers, I made an argument to you.  In the deluded hope that maybe you weren't a troll and you might engage on the point.  But you don't, you just lie.  And the discussion can't end because we have not had a discussion.  For there to be a discussion you'd have to defend your repeated assertions, which you seem disinclined to do, preferring to make up lies and attempt to smear your opponents with them.

 

Quote:
 Cote's 'opinion' is a legal judgement. She is a Judge.

 

Wow, two statements without any lies.  Too bad they're irrelevant.  But I understand, when you've been proven wrong, it's much easier for you to quote some bit and then make an irrelevant statement as if you had scored a bunch of argument points. 

 

Too bad you don't have the intellectual capability to address my arguments... but then, you just said you didn't know US law so you can't make legal arguments.

 

So which is it?   You can't have it both ways... though of course, you will try.

 

Quote:
 I joined here because I think Apple is one of the most technologically advanced companies in the world. Pretty weird behaviour for an 'apple hater' eh?

 

ROFL!  I love it how all the apple haters say "I can't be an apple hater, no matter how absurd and biased and hateful the things I say about them! I owned an Apple product once!"  Only you don't even make that claim. 

 

It's like you think we're stupid enough to fall for that. 

 

And if you aren't an Apple hater, why are you constantly making legal claims that Apple is a criminal organization, when you admit you don't understand the law?  Asinine. 

 

Quote:
 You just claimed to know law better than Apple's Lawyers. The only humiliation here is your own.

 

Oh, yeah?  Provide a link and a direct quote from me saying I know the law better than Apple's lawyers.   Do that, and maybe I'll be humiliated. Yet, the reality is, I never said anything about Apple's lawyers, whom I think did a slam dunk job. 

 

So, you're so humiliated at being constantly called out on your lies, that you choose to make another lie and then hope that I-- who knows its a lie-- will be humiliated ?

 

Really?

 

Have you convinced yourself yet?

 

 

post #80 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulder View Post
 

DOJ lawyer Mark Ryan requested she (Judge Cote) share any thoughts on the case given the evidence at hand.

 

Really?  So it was the DoJ that made the request?  But the Trollinator ASSURED us, repeatedly that it was Apple requesting it. 

 

How could that be?  You must be a liar!  (it's ok, I know you're not a liar.)

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple wins temporary reprieve from monitor in e-books antitrust case