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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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 ?
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.
I've had fun reading the banter between you, Sog35 and Jessi. To be quite honest, your comments are actually well written while the other's I can picture being written from yelling and frothing mouths. No you are not a troll because you disagree with these two. It's quite obvious that you admire Apple as a company as do I but these extreme fanboi's can't take anything that could tarnish Apple. The baited questions from Sog35 are actually quite humorous. I'm a huge Apple fanboi but this extremism is just stupid. I'm sure I'll be labelled a troll in 3...2...1...
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.)
Nah I checked it out and PMd both the posters. It looks like I was incorrect there. I was under the impression that it was Apple that solicited the opinion but instead it was the other side of the aisle to so speak.
Still, it hardly reflects as negatively on the Judge as if she stated it unsolicited.
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.
Ah here we go- here's the "Jessi's a better lawyer than Cote and Apple's legal team" claim. It was made by YOU. And then you turned around and claimed I made it.
I'm merely trying to get you to defend your position, and instead you're constantly smearing me.
Quote:
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.
Says the guy who just lied about what I've said, and then called it "hilarious" in an attempt to humiliate me.
So sure, please report this post. IT has actual quotes with a link to you saying the things I'm quoting.
Quite different from your lies about what I have said.
You think other people notice you are constantly putting words n my mouth, but never quoting me saying them?
Gee, I wonder why.
Do you think the moderation team will be fooled?
But thanks for admitting you're attempting to get me in trouble on the board because you don't like me asking you to provide evidence for your assertions, or calling you out when you lie about me.
I've had fun reading the banter between you, Sog35 and Jessi. To be quite honest, your comments are actually well written while the other's I can picture being written from yelling and frothing mouths. No you are not a troll because you disagree with these two. It's quite obvious that you admire Apple as a company as do I but these extreme fanboi's can't take anything that could tarnish Apple. The baited questions from Sog35 are actually quite humorous. I'm a huge Apple fanboi but this extremism is just stupid. I'm sure I'll be labelled a troll in 3...2...1...
Thanks for your kind words. It seems many people are not only angry but are angry based on a very limited set of readings. For example Sog35 would have me condemn Samsung because they lost a court case and condemn Google based primarily on media reports, but they equally condemn me for considering Apple to be guilty at trial.
I'm just going to try and avoid responding to people who clearly are only happy with one kind of statement. I may have a lot of respect for Apple but that doesn't mean they can do anything without receiving condemnation in my eyes.
Sure. Apple has always developed their products in such a manner. They take an existing concept that is poorly implemented, refine it methodically until it is as simple and usable as possible, and add their quality industrial design.
iPod
iPhone
iPad
Hell you could argue OSX belongs to this family too. I hardly think it's a slander against Apple to say they took an existing concept and turned it into a product success everyone else can only dream of.
That is the definition of almost every product design even the 5000+ years of iteration of the wheel. The last innovation (by that measure) in electronics was the transistor by AT&T.
"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."
But her pre-trial opinion was based on pre-trial evidence submitted by involved parties. If you're not allowed to form a preliminary opinion based on pre-trial evidence, then what is it even there for?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessi
Again, strawman. I know the judge is corrupt, after they were proven so, by their prejudicial statements before hearing any evidence.
See above quote by GregInPrague; that claim is completely untrue, as her statements were based off a substantial body of evidence submitted pre-trial. Whether or not you think the pre-trial evidence justified her claims is a different matter entirely, but to say that she's "corrupt" because she formed opinions "before hearing any evidence" is as silly as the people who claim Samsung have never copied Apple in the slightest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessi
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?
I can see the headlines already: "Internet Forum Lawyer Overturns Century Of Supreme Court Decisions".
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
And yet Apple got a stay. Sounds like 61 pages of nothing if they so quickly decided to give Apple that stay. They could have granted Apple an appeal hearing AND kept Bromwich working while waiting for the appeal, but they didn't. Speaks volumes to me.
I'm not particularly familiar with cases like this, but aren't court orders usually suspended pending an appeal? I was under the impression that that happens with injunctions and the like - the court bans phone X, company Y appeals, and the ban is suspended pending the result of the appeal. Is that not the case?
Thanks for your kind words. It seems many people are not only angry but are angry based on a very limited set of readings.
Notice how, you will not defend your assertions, we make several arguments and bring points to bear, but rather than rebut them, you characterize us, and try to imply we're ignorant of the facts. It's funny, we aren't afraid of the fact,s why are you?
But then, your need to do this shows the weakness of your position.
I'd love for you to stop making up lies about me (like the idea that I claimed anything about Apple's legal team) and address the facts... but you can't, you can only smear, and the above quote is yet another smear.
Quote:
I'm just going to try and avoid responding to people who clearly are only happy with one kind of statement. I may have a lot of respect for Apple but that doesn't mean they can do anything without receiving condemnation in my eyes.
It's true I am only happy with one kind of statement: Arguments based on facts, logic, or reason. Hell that's at least three. But the fact that we hate your smear campaign and your snotty dishonest statements does not make use narrow minded.
It merely means we wish you'd join us in debate on the merits, instead of ad hominem.
BTW - love you kissing the ass of your sock puppet. It's so cute!
That is the definition of almost every product design even the 5000+ years of iteration of the wheel. The last innovation (by that measure) in electronics was the transistor by AT&T.
I don't think I was really trying to define what 'innovation' was. You're not wrong in that this is how product design typically works. My point was that Apple did not invent the iPhone out of a total vacuum. It was a marked improvement on previous attempts such as the HTC Wizard. I was saying that the first gen iPhone probably still fits into the 'proto-smartphone' crowd as it was in some respects behind WM phones and in many respects in front.
By the time you get to the 3GS then you're in definite 'modern smartphone' territory. I just don't understand why people seem to want to insist that the iPhone has no outside influences from previous smartphones, when in my eyes it seems clear that it does.
Comments
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.
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.
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.
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.
…I’ll just keep reporting your posts…
Don’t waste Marvin’s time.
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.
Good job Apple, the guy seemed like a complete ass.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
This discussion is over.
You keep saying that, but then you keep responding with more and more personal attacks.
Well, this is why I get expecting an Apple basher to defend their bashings with facts and the like.
Just keep ending the discussion, it's hilarious!
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.)
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.
I've had fun reading the banter between you, Sog35 and Jessi. To be quite honest, your comments are actually well written while the other's I can picture being written from yelling and frothing mouths. No you are not a troll because you disagree with these two. It's quite obvious that you admire Apple as a company as do I but these extreme fanboi's can't take anything that could tarnish Apple. The baited questions from Sog35 are actually quite humorous. I'm a huge Apple fanboi but this extremism is just stupid. I'm sure I'll be labelled a troll in 3...2...1...
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.)
Nah I checked it out and PMd both the posters. It looks like I was incorrect there. I was under the impression that it was Apple that solicited the opinion but instead it was the other side of the aisle to so speak.
Still, it hardly reflects as negatively on the Judge as if she stated it unsolicited.
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.
Ah here we go- here's the "Jessi's a better lawyer than Cote and Apple's legal team" claim. It was made by YOU. And then you turned around and claimed I made it.
I'm merely trying to get you to defend your position, and instead you're constantly smearing me.
Quote:
Says the guy who just lied about what I've said, and then called it "hilarious" in an attempt to humiliate me.
So sure, please report this post. IT has actual quotes with a link to you saying the things I'm quoting.
Quite different from your lies about what I have said.
You think other people notice you are constantly putting words n my mouth, but never quoting me saying them?
Gee, I wonder why.
Do you think the moderation team will be fooled?
But thanks for admitting you're attempting to get me in trouble on the board because you don't like me asking you to provide evidence for your assertions, or calling you out when you lie about me.
I still have some popcorn left, have you guys scared away ItsTheInternet already... dang i didn't even have time to sharpen my pitch fork
Dem trolls be needing a whooping.
I've had fun reading the banter between you, Sog35 and Jessi. To be quite honest, your comments are actually well written while the other's I can picture being written from yelling and frothing mouths. No you are not a troll because you disagree with these two. It's quite obvious that you admire Apple as a company as do I but these extreme fanboi's can't take anything that could tarnish Apple. The baited questions from Sog35 are actually quite humorous. I'm a huge Apple fanboi but this extremism is just stupid. I'm sure I'll be labelled a troll in 3...2...1...
Thanks for your kind words. It seems many people are not only angry but are angry based on a very limited set of readings. For example Sog35 would have me condemn Samsung because they lost a court case and condemn Google based primarily on media reports, but they equally condemn me for considering Apple to be guilty at trial.
I'm just going to try and avoid responding to people who clearly are only happy with one kind of statement. I may have a lot of respect for Apple but that doesn't mean they can do anything without receiving condemnation in my eyes.
I'm sure I'll be labelled a troll in 3...2...1...
Hi there, sock puppet!
That is the definition of almost every product design even the 5000+ years of iteration of the wheel. The last innovation (by that measure) in electronics was the transistor by AT&T.
Originally Posted by GregInPrague
"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."
But her pre-trial opinion was based on pre-trial evidence submitted by involved parties. If you're not allowed to form a preliminary opinion based on pre-trial evidence, then what is it even there for?
Quote:
Again, strawman. I know the judge is corrupt, after they were proven so, by their prejudicial statements before hearing any evidence.
See above quote by GregInPrague; that claim is completely untrue, as her statements were based off a substantial body of evidence submitted pre-trial. Whether or not you think the pre-trial evidence justified her claims is a different matter entirely, but to say that she's "corrupt" because she formed opinions "before hearing any evidence" is as silly as the people who claim Samsung have never copied Apple in the slightest.
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?
I can see the headlines already: "Internet Forum Lawyer Overturns Century Of Supreme Court Decisions".
Quote:
And yet Apple got a stay. Sounds like 61 pages of nothing if they so quickly decided to give Apple that stay. They could have granted Apple an appeal hearing AND kept Bromwich working while waiting for the appeal, but they didn't. Speaks volumes to me.
Thanks for your kind words. It seems many people are not only angry but are angry based on a very limited set of readings.
Notice how, you will not defend your assertions, we make several arguments and bring points to bear, but rather than rebut them, you characterize us, and try to imply we're ignorant of the facts. It's funny, we aren't afraid of the fact,s why are you?
But then, your need to do this shows the weakness of your position.
I'd love for you to stop making up lies about me (like the idea that I claimed anything about Apple's legal team) and address the facts... but you can't, you can only smear, and the above quote is yet another smear.
It's true I am only happy with one kind of statement: Arguments based on facts, logic, or reason. Hell that's at least three. But the fact that we hate your smear campaign and your snotty dishonest statements does not make use narrow minded.
It merely means we wish you'd join us in debate on the merits, instead of ad hominem.
BTW - love you kissing the ass of your sock puppet. It's so cute!
That is the definition of almost every product design even the 5000+ years of iteration of the wheel. The last innovation (by that measure) in electronics was the transistor by AT&T.
I don't think I was really trying to define what 'innovation' was. You're not wrong in that this is how product design typically works. My point was that Apple did not invent the iPhone out of a total vacuum. It was a marked improvement on previous attempts such as the HTC Wizard. I was saying that the first gen iPhone probably still fits into the 'proto-smartphone' crowd as it was in some respects behind WM phones and in many respects in front.
By the time you get to the 3GS then you're in definite 'modern smartphone' territory. I just don't understand why people seem to want to insist that the iPhone has no outside influences from previous smartphones, when in my eyes it seems clear that it does.