BTW, where has KD gone? I was over at Groklaw to see what they said about the Samsung/Nokia/Apple case regarding Samsung showing its execs "attorney eyes only" documents only to find nothing is new over there. I guess PJ really is going to abandon Groklaw over the fake excuse of NSA spying on e-mails.
While I was there I remembered our resident "expert on everything" and realized he hasn't posted in some while. Perhaps some of these newbie accounts should take the hint as well.
Dude read the verdict and then u will see what they are guilty of or perhaps they are appealing a innocent conviction and while you are at it request that Samsung pay their dues too for there guilt.
And if amazon is brought up on charges too then let them pay for any proven crimes!
Simple law and order money and greed. Stop pretending apple is wholesome.
Especially when the judge so clearly prejudged the case - and made some bizarre rulings.
Yeah, nothing like making a statement that "Apple is likely guilty" before the trial even starts.
And if that wasn't enough, making demands of Apple that go far beyond the scope of the case (like trying to force Apple to allow Apps to link to outside stores without paying Apple their 30% cut). Even funnier is the settlement the DOJ ended up proposing was far softer than what the judge proposed. IMO she has more than a little bias.
EDITED: Mixed them up. It was the DOJ who asked for strict terms and the judge who scaled them back.
There's nothing quite so ironic (or hypocritcal) as someone condemning bias and so blatantly demonstrate their own in the process.
I'm biased? Please show me where anything I said was biased.
Although I did get two facts reversed, that doesn't change the fact Denise Cote seems to have "pre-judged" the case. And she apparently has a history of this.
Meanwhile you whine about Apple appealing and they should "let it go" when it's Apple's right to appeal. Unless you think the US should change laws to prevent anyone from ever appealing a decision and that whatever a court/judge decides should be final and written in stone.
He was recently fired by Samsung after his last bullshit campaign came in under quota.
Too bad. I was hoping to have a touchscreen debate with him after his claims to have been working in the industry for almost 20 years. I can't count how many times I tried to get him to prove his knowledge and experience in this industry to no avail. He probably never expected another AI member to also have 20+ years in touchscreen development (the first system I coded for was back in 1985).
Too bad. I was hoping to have a touchscreen debate with him after his claims to have been working in the industry for almost 20 years.
If I remember rightly, one of the last points he was attempting to convince everybody of was that Apple was unlikely to be able to fit a fingerprint sensor inside the home button that would do the job of the current button yet still remain responsive when detecting fingerprints.
a) entering a business as a vertical player with the intent of making money
b) creating competition that forced Amazon to stop "Price Dumping" of e-books
c) assisting in ending the emerging practice of releasing e-books well after hard back releases
Tragically, the basis of Apple's legal guilt is simply that they were considered -- out of the gate -- a horizontal player -- in contraction to the entire history of anti-trust law in the United States (as I understand it).
"Lang Law is the informal name given to French law number 81-766, from 10 August 1981, relating to book prices. The law establishes a fixed price for books sold in France, limiting price discounts on them. The law is named after Jack Lang, the French Minister of Culture at the time.
The Lang Law works as follows:
The publisher decides on a price for its book and prints it on the back
Booksellers are not allowed to sell a book for a discount of more than 5% below the publisher's price."
"The Net Book Agreement (NBA) was a British fixed book price agreement between publishers and booksellers which set the prices at which books were to be sold to the public.
It came into effect on 1 January 1900 and involved retailers selling books at agreed prices. Any bookseller who sold a book at less than the agreed price would no longer be supplied by the publisher in question."
Amazon used the wholesale model and publishers didn't want this:
So if Apple changes the system so that publishers set the prices, they are punished for it. If the government does it, that's ok.
The main issue I suppose is the act of conspiring with multiple publishers to all do the same thing together but it's not like they agreed on prices together, they just agreed to change business models.
(like trying to force Apple to allow Apps to link to outside stores without paying Apple their 30% cut)
There's nothing quite so ironic (or hypocritcal) as someone condemning bias and so blatantly demonstrate their own in the process.
When a federal court judge is biased, it deserves condemnation. There is no requirement for impartiality for forum posters. The post you quoted is not ironic or hypocritical.
Comments
90% market share prior to Apple.
So? Why does it matter that they had a high market share prior to a serious competitor entering the market?
How long can any business sell something below cost?
BTW, where has KD gone? I was over at Groklaw to see what they said about the Samsung/Nokia/Apple case regarding Samsung showing its execs "attorney eyes only" documents only to find nothing is new over there. I guess PJ really is going to abandon Groklaw over the fake excuse of NSA spying on e-mails.
While I was there I remembered our resident "expert on everything" and realized he hasn't posted in some while. Perhaps some of these newbie accounts should take the hint as well.
And if amazon is brought up on charges too then let them pay for any proven crimes!
Simple law and order money and greed. Stop pretending apple is wholesome.
Ah dude maybe u did not see what I wrote all corporations!!! That includes amazon... Amazon is a corporation too money before principals.
Apple is guilty plain and simple.
Next!
Apple has every right to appeal under law.
Thats the way it is, accept it and move on.
Especially when the judge so clearly prejudged the case - and made some bizarre rulings.
Of.
What.
Especially when the judge so clearly prejudged the case - and made some bizarre rulings.
Yeah, nothing like making a statement that "Apple is likely guilty" before the trial even starts.
And if that wasn't enough, making demands of Apple that go far beyond the scope of the case (like trying to force Apple to allow Apps to link to outside stores without paying Apple their 30% cut). Even funnier is the settlement the DOJ ended up proposing was far softer than what the judge proposed. IMO she has more than a little bias.
EDITED: Mixed them up. It was the DOJ who asked for strict terms and the judge who scaled them back.
There's nothing quite so ironic (or hypocritcal) as someone condemning bias and so blatantly demonstrate their own in the process.
BTW, where has KD gone?
He was recently fired by Samsung after his last bullshit campaign came in under quota.
There's nothing quite so ironic (or hypocritcal) as someone condemning bias and so blatantly demonstrate their own in the process.
I'm biased? Please show me where anything I said was biased.
Although I did get two facts reversed, that doesn't change the fact Denise Cote seems to have "pre-judged" the case. And she apparently has a history of this.
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2013/08/14/apple-ebook-judge-cote-2/
Meanwhile you whine about Apple appealing and they should "let it go" when it's Apple's right to appeal. Unless you think the US should change laws to prevent anyone from ever appealing a decision and that whatever a court/judge decides should be final and written in stone.
He was recently fired by Samsung after his last bullshit campaign came in under quota.
Too bad. I was hoping to have a touchscreen debate with him after his claims to have been working in the industry for almost 20 years. I can't count how many times I tried to get him to prove his knowledge and experience in this industry to no avail. He probably never expected another AI member to also have 20+ years in touchscreen development (the first system I coded for was back in 1985).
I'm biased? Please show me where anything I said was biased.
In asserting that Apple somehow deserves a 30% cut of everything, even when they don't add any value.
In asserting that Apple somehow deserves a 30% cut of everything, even when they don't add any value.
Those are the terms of Apple's store, don't like them, sell somewhere else.
It's a free country.
Too bad. I was hoping to have a touchscreen debate with him after his claims to have been working in the industry for almost 20 years.
If I remember rightly, one of the last points he was attempting to convince everybody of was that Apple was unlikely to be able to fit a fingerprint sensor inside the home button that would do the job of the current button yet still remain responsive when detecting fingerprints.
Nothing like ending on a big fail, huh?
In asserting that Apple somehow deserves a 30% cut of everything…
Guess you missed the part where it’s Apple’s store, hosted on Apple’s servers, and available for Apple’s devices.
Apple does indeed seem guilty of:
a) entering a business as a vertical player with the intent of making money
b) creating competition that forced Amazon to stop "Price Dumping" of e-books
c) assisting in ending the emerging practice of releasing e-books well after hard back releases
Tragically, the basis of Apple's legal guilt is simply that they were considered -- out of the gate -- a horizontal player -- in contraction to the entire history of anti-trust law in the United States (as I understand it).
I hope Apple wins this appeal...
Ok but this is the same with Apple though. It was the publishers setting the prices by shifting to the agency model.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lang_Law
"Lang Law is the informal name given to French law number 81-766, from 10 August 1981, relating to book prices. The law establishes a fixed price for books sold in France, limiting price discounts on them. The law is named after Jack Lang, the French Minister of Culture at the time.
The Lang Law works as follows:
The publisher decides on a price for its book and prints it on the back
Booksellers are not allowed to sell a book for a discount of more than 5% below the publisher's price."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_Book_Agreement
"The Net Book Agreement (NBA) was a British fixed book price agreement between publishers and booksellers which set the prices at which books were to be sold to the public.
It came into effect on 1 January 1900 and involved retailers selling books at agreed prices. Any bookseller who sold a book at less than the agreed price would no longer be supplied by the publisher in question."
Amazon used the wholesale model and publishers didn't want this:
http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/07/11/a-disastrous-week-for-publishers-authors-and-readers/
So if Apple changes the system so that publishers set the prices, they are punished for it. If the government does it, that's ok.
The main issue I suppose is the act of conspiring with multiple publishers to all do the same thing together but it's not like they agreed on prices together, they just agreed to change business models.
When a federal court judge is biased, it deserves condemnation. There is no requirement for impartiality for forum posters. The post you quoted is not ironic or hypocritical.
Yes, you have to do it by the book, especially if it's the cooking…
[VIDEO]