The real question is why were the FTC and DoJ so predisposed to do Amazon's bidding and go after Apple when the "case", as is now abundantly clear, was such a house of cards. As this trial unfolds, it's becoming increasingly clear that there was undue influence at work here, and, frankly, I think there needs to be an investigation of that.
I see where you're going with that, and sure it's possible. But I always try to err on the side of incompetence before I assign blame for intentional acts. In my experience, incompetence is far more common than actual evil intent.
Trust me, though: I'm not disagreeing with you. I just don't know, at this point.
I see where you're going with that, and sure it's possible. But I always try to err on the side of incompetence before I assign blame for intentional acts. In my experience, incompetence is far more common than actual evil intent.
Trust me, though: I'm not disagreeing with you. I just don't know, at this point.
I considered stupidity as a possibility at first, but, as the facts come out, it seems less and less likely. This looks like official corruption pure and simple.
I considered stupidity as a possibility at first, but, as the facts come out, it seems less and less likely. This looks like official corruption pure and simple.
It sure could be.
I'm sort of shocked, as the trial has proceeded, that anyone at the DoJ thought that there was enough to go forward with this case in the first place. That being said, one NEVER knows how a jury (or in this case, a judge) will decide. Anything can happen in any trial. But I'm really sort of stunned at the lack of any sort of proof against Apple.
This does sound like some sort of sour grapes. Over what, I have no real idea. But prosecutors -- or in this case, the DoJ -- don't usually want to go to trial without a VERY good idea that they will win, or unless they have to. Neither of those seem to be the case here.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
The real question is why were the FTC and DoJ so predisposed to do Amazon's bidding and go after Apple when the "case", as is now abundantly clear, was such a house of cards. As this trial unfolds, it's becoming increasingly clear that there was undue influence at work here, and, frankly, I think there needs to be an investigation of that.
I see where you're going with that, and sure it's possible. But I always try to err on the side of incompetence before I assign blame for intentional acts. In my experience, incompetence is far more common than actual evil intent.
Trust me, though: I'm not disagreeing with you. I just don't know, at this point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronJ
I see where you're going with that, and sure it's possible. But I always try to err on the side of incompetence before I assign blame for intentional acts. In my experience, incompetence is far more common than actual evil intent.
Trust me, though: I'm not disagreeing with you. I just don't know, at this point.
I considered stupidity as a possibility at first, but, as the facts come out, it seems less and less likely. This looks like official corruption pure and simple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
I considered stupidity as a possibility at first, but, as the facts come out, it seems less and less likely. This looks like official corruption pure and simple.
It sure could be.
I'm sort of shocked, as the trial has proceeded, that anyone at the DoJ thought that there was enough to go forward with this case in the first place. That being said, one NEVER knows how a jury (or in this case, a judge) will decide. Anything can happen in any trial. But I'm really sort of stunned at the lack of any sort of proof against Apple.
This does sound like some sort of sour grapes. Over what, I have no real idea. But prosecutors -- or in this case, the DoJ -- don't usually want to go to trial without a VERY good idea that they will win, or unless they have to. Neither of those seem to be the case here.