Originally Posted by matt_s
However, wading through your personal attacks to search through & distill the rest of your post delivers a few good points, one put eloquently. These probably would have been much more dramatic if you had abandoned the attack on me, and just stuck to the case.
Perhaps if you had not started this discussion with a personal attack on TBell folks would be more inclined to take your call for civility with more credence.
The courts could also say that Apple's EULA is illegal and therefore, invalid. Again, just because a EULA says that up is down does not make it so.
I thought you believed this case has nothing to do with EULAs?
In any case, given the case history and past rulings of the 9th circuit (that you ignored) this seems highly unlikely. Enough that wagering 4 figures on it does not seem a high risk activity.
Again, I think there's a chance that Apple may be putting themselves at risk by marching this into court.
There appears little risk given past 9th circuit rulings that the district court will use as precedence.
There are a number of legal experts who consider the locking of OS X to specific hardware strategy that Apple deploys to be a tying of one product to another in blatant violation of Federal anti-trust statutes. They may have a strong point; again, it will need to be determined and resolved in court.
Too bad this has nothing to do with the current case. I doubt that this can be used as an affirmative defense for copyright infringement, trademark violation and breach of contract. IANAL and neither are you. Show where this has EVER been sucessfully used as a defense and we might consider this as relevant.
My experience tells me that such a remarkably high powered law firm would not have taken this case on - considering the short pockets of Pystar & the deep, billion dollar pockets of Apple - if they didn't think an anti-trust tying lawsuit might have a $500 to $750 million dollar chance at success. A big time PR campaign pitting David vs Goliath will be a big part of this court case.
What experience would that be? I note that SCO had a remarkably high powered law firm as well. And lost horribly.
It will be interesting to watch this case mature and work it's way through the legal system. Apple will not be able to stifle the news emanating out of the courtroom, as they like to do with most of their super, top secret sauces & projects. This has the potential to give them a very public, world-stage black eye that could impact iPhone, iPod and iTunes marketability. I truly hope it doesn't come to that but I can envision such a disaster happening with a few missteps here and there.
Right. FUD. You might claim to favor Apple but thus far all you've written is unsubstantiated FUD. Apple is not part of the Illuminatus and cannot stifle negative press.
Do I perceive a certain outcome? No, of course not. There are too many variables ahead. Even for copyright infringement. Anyone who claims that this or that will definitely happen in a court of law is a fool and not to be trusted.
Do I want a certain outcome? I want justice to prevail. Don't you?
Yes, you do want a certain outcome despite your protests and it has nothing to do with justice but your own personal worldview.