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.
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."
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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!
Comments
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.
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.
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.
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. :)
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.
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?
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.
What are you talking about. I reported what Apple were convicted of. Your hyperbole doesn't change reality.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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!
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!
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.
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.
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.
Cote's 'opinion' is a legal judgement. She is a Judge.
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?
You just claimed to know law better than Apple's Lawyers. The only humiliation here is your own.
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.
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!