I can see the headlines already: "Internet Forum Lawyer Overturns Century Of Supreme Court Decisions".
Try making an argument, rather than ad hominem. I gave an argument. Can you rebut it? Nope? So you characterize me in a snotty way. Oh, that was SO BRAVE! Let me change my panties!
PS- you got a century of Supreme Court cites? I only need one: Marbury v. Madison. Oh, there I go making arguments again, which I guess just counts as fodder for more insults from you, eh?
PPS- Hi sock puppet #2! Or is it 3? I get so confused!
It was a marked improvement on previous attempts such as the HTC Wizard.
Yes, the HTC Wizard was the "original" smartphone, and the iPhone was just a "market improvement" on it, the iPhone didn't actually invent anything, did it? LOL.
Yes, the HTC Wizard was the "original" smartphone, and the iPhone was just a "market improvement" on it, the iPhone didn't actually invent anything, did it? LOL.
'marked', not 'market'. Nor was it the 'original' smartphone. It was one of a whole range of terrible Windows Mobile smartphones (I argue 'proto-smartphones') which were around at the time.
The iPhone was far superior in many respects, much nicer hardware, smoother more intuitive interface, better browser. Arguably a better base platform too although I'm sure Windows fans would disagree (I am a Linux user so both of the sides hate me )
Why are you so obsessed with this idea that things can only be absolutely binary one way or the other? Every product probably in the history of mankind has been a refinement of previous attempts, that's just how development works.
I doubt this will happen. Cote's opinion reads very well and the basis of her judgements also seems sound. I doubt anyone so far in this thread actually read her 64 page opinion filing.
I did, Apple comes across very badly in it, so I would not be cheerleading this at all. There's no evidence whatsoever of Cote being prejudicial, if there is I invite you to cite it.
Of course that stupid bitch will write a lot of bullshit to justify her shitty behaviour, 64 pages of protecting one's arse.
She used to work with Bromwich and has known him for years.
Yet you still don't want to admit Google is a stalker?
'A stalker' is a person. Google is a company. Over here we don't consider companies people.
I refuse to reply to your ridiculously loaded questions. I am sure I could equally construct misleading arguments about Apple but it serves no purpose. I've already told you that I agree Samsung certainly did infringe on some of Apple's IP and that some of the news reports about Google are quite concerning.
You won't push me into picking a binary position based on a small amount of evidence. Lets face it this is in a thread where people are saying that a court opinion doesn't matter because they know that all the laws surrounding it are unconstitutional. That's a level of hyperbole I'm not willing to match.
There is plenty of evidence that supports Apple's "price-fixing" scheme actually de-monopolized the Amazon "sell-at-a-loss" strategy, allowed new entries like the Nook to be somewhat profitable, etc, turning a 1 horse e-book race into a healthy competitive eco-system.
Now the nook is dead, authors are paid less for their content and anyone looking to enter this arena can't compete with Amazon.
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.
People stop feeding the trolls, they are baiting you and your continue to argue in circles with them.
Face it no company is perfect, and to be honest if companies are not bouncing up against government rules and such they are not pushing the limits as they should. With that said, this is no longer about what Apple or anyone one company did right or wrong, It about what the judge did and now a higher court get to review those activities.
Most times you do not have judge who is so transparent in there biases as this one, and she is obviously going to keep doing what she did so she never has to admit she might have been wrong.
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?
If you read the quote (included in my post) that I was replying to you would have seen that I was merely contesting who asked for the preliminary opinion. It was the DoJ not Apple. That's all my post was meant to show.
I think her preliminary opinion was incredibly flawed which made it unsurprising when she finally ruled against Apple after the trial, but that's not what I was posting about.
Try making an argument, rather than ad hominem. I gave an argument. Can you rebut it? Nope? So you characterize me in a snotty way. Oh, that was SO BRAVE! Let me change my panties!
"SO BRAVE"? Is this Reddit?
Quote:
PS- you got a century of Supreme Court cites? I only need one: Marbury v. Madison. Oh, there I go making arguments again, which I guess just counts as fodder for more insults from you, eh?
The Supreme Court has repeatedly applied antitrust laws in cases from the passing of the Sherman Antitrust Act in 1890 right up until today, and Marbury v. Madison established the Supreme Court as the final arbiter of a law's constitutionality. In other words, the laws are perfectly in accordance with the Constitution based on over a century of cases.
Being argumentative and having a valid argument are not the same thing.
I also note that you ignored the part where I corrected you on the claim that Judge Cote's pre-trial statements were made without "seeing any evidence", whereas in fact they were made based on a large body of pre-trial evidence submitted by the relevant parties.
Quote:
PPS- Hi sock puppet #2! Or is it 3? I get so confused!
Yeah, you got me. I'm just one face of a vast network of sockpuppets that have been biding our time on AI until now, when we were deployed to disagree with you. I'll just go collect my wages and my complimentary Galaxy™ S5™ directly from the CEO of Samsung now as a reward for my forum posting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregInPrague
If you read the quote (included in my post) that I was replying to you would have seen that I was merely contesting who asked for the preliminary opinion. It was the DoJ not Apple. That's all my post was meant to show.
I think her preliminary opinion was incredibly flawed which made it unsurprising when she finally ruled against Apple after the trial, but that's not what I was posting about.
My apologies; it's pretty hard to keep track of who's said what in a thread like this. It's fair enough to think her preliminary opinion was wrong - I just disagree with the people who claim it was based on ~no evidence~.
I'm actually from England, North West England to be more precise. Here a Corporation is a distinct legal entity, but it does not have rights akin to a person. The whole situation in the US with people (corporations) having free speech (spending money) on any topic they like is utterly weird to us
I'll just go collect my wages and my complimentary Galaxy™ S5™ directly from the CEO of Samsung now as a reward for my forum posting.
The ultimate comedy of this is, I wouldn't accept one if they gave it me, because then I'd probably have to use it and all their added software is awful. My father has an S4 and it's absolutely stuffed with crap.
Are you unaware that the DoJ is part of the government and brought the antitrust suit against Apple?
Not I that I really care how the government of this banana-republic is set up, but yes I am aware of this.
Maybe some people associated with US government are not yet brainwashed iSheep, or maybe the whole affair was set up to maintain the appearance of "fairness"? Who knows.
After all, some patent office also ordered the import ban on some iPhones (or some other Apple crap) only to have the order overturned after Apple managers whined to Obama about it...
Comments
I can see the headlines already: "Internet Forum Lawyer Overturns Century Of Supreme Court Decisions".
Try making an argument, rather than ad hominem. I gave an argument. Can you rebut it? Nope? So you characterize me in a snotty way. Oh, that was SO BRAVE! Let me change my panties!
PS- you got a century of Supreme Court cites? I only need one: Marbury v. Madison. Oh, there I go making arguments again, which I guess just counts as fodder for more insults from you, eh?
PPS- Hi sock puppet #2! Or is it 3? I get so confused!
It was a marked improvement on previous attempts such as the HTC Wizard.
Yes, the HTC Wizard was the "original" smartphone, and the iPhone was just a "market improvement" on it, the iPhone didn't actually invent anything, did it? LOL.
Yes, the HTC Wizard was the "original" smartphone, and the iPhone was just a "market improvement" on it, the iPhone didn't actually invent anything, did it? LOL.
'marked', not 'market'. Nor was it the 'original' smartphone. It was one of a whole range of terrible Windows Mobile smartphones (I argue 'proto-smartphones') which were around at the time.
The iPhone was far superior in many respects, much nicer hardware, smoother more intuitive interface, better browser. Arguably a better base platform too although I'm sure Windows fans would disagree (I am a Linux user so both of the sides hate me
)
Why are you so obsessed with this idea that things can only be absolutely binary one way or the other? Every product probably in the history of mankind has been a refinement of previous attempts, that's just how development works.
I doubt this will happen. Cote's opinion reads very well and the basis of her judgements also seems sound. I doubt anyone so far in this thread actually read her 64 page opinion filing.
I did, Apple comes across very badly in it, so I would not be cheerleading this at all. There's no evidence whatsoever of Cote being prejudicial, if there is I invite you to cite it.
Of course that stupid bitch will write a lot of bullshit to justify her shitty behaviour, 64 pages of protecting one's arse.
She used to work with Bromwich and has known him for years.
Yet you still don't want to admit Google is a stalker?
'A stalker' is a person. Google is a company. Over here we don't consider companies people.
I refuse to reply to your ridiculously loaded questions. I am sure I could equally construct misleading arguments about Apple but it serves no purpose. I've already told you that I agree Samsung certainly did infringe on some of Apple's IP and that some of the news reports about Google are quite concerning.
You won't push me into picking a binary position based on a small amount of evidence. Lets face it this is in a thread where people are saying that a court opinion doesn't matter because they know that all the laws surrounding it are unconstitutional. That's a level of hyperbole I'm not willing to match.
There is plenty of evidence that supports Apple's "price-fixing" scheme actually de-monopolized the Amazon "sell-at-a-loss" strategy, allowed new entries like the Nook to be somewhat profitable, etc, turning a 1 horse e-book race into a healthy competitive eco-system.
Now the nook is dead, authors are paid less for their content and anyone looking to enter this arena can't compete with Amazon.
Why was the order not put in place?
People stop feeding the trolls, they are baiting you and your continue to argue in circles with them.
Face it no company is perfect, and to be honest if companies are not bouncing up against government rules and such they are not pushing the limits as they should. With that said, this is no longer about what Apple or anyone one company did right or wrong, It about what the judge did and now a higher court get to review those activities.
Most times you do not have judge who is so transparent in there biases as this one, and she is obviously going to keep doing what she did so she never has to admit she might have been wrong.
Who is surprised at this?
In the end, US government will always come to Apple's aid and overturn any court case which go against the patent-trolling fruit company.
I believe a company is a legal entity... and as such can be convicted of crime.
Is it not the job of the CIA/NSA to stalk people
Why was the order not put in place?
Apple filed objections to it.
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?
If you read the quote (included in my post) that I was replying to you would have seen that I was merely contesting who asked for the preliminary opinion. It was the DoJ not Apple. That's all my post was meant to show.
I think her preliminary opinion was incredibly flawed which made it unsurprising when she finally ruled against Apple after the trial, but that's not what I was posting about.
Who is surprised at this?
In the end, US government will always come to Apple's aid and overturn any court case which go against the patent-trolling fruit company.
Who is surprised at this?
In the end, US government will always come to Apple's aid and overturn any court case which go against the patent-trolling fruit company.
Are you unaware that the DoJ is part of the government and brought the antitrust suit against Apple?
Try making an argument, rather than ad hominem. I gave an argument. Can you rebut it? Nope? So you characterize me in a snotty way. Oh, that was SO BRAVE! Let me change my panties!
"SO BRAVE"? Is this Reddit?
The Supreme Court has repeatedly applied antitrust laws in cases from the passing of the Sherman Antitrust Act in 1890 right up until today, and Marbury v. Madison established the Supreme Court as the final arbiter of a law's constitutionality. In other words, the laws are perfectly in accordance with the Constitution based on over a century of cases.
Being argumentative and having a valid argument are not the same thing.
Quote:
Yeah, you got me. I'm just one face of a vast network of sockpuppets that have been biding our time on AI until now, when we were deployed to disagree with you. I'll just go collect my wages and my complimentary Galaxy™ S5™ directly from the CEO of Samsung now as a reward for my forum posting.
If you read the quote (included in my post) that I was replying to you would have seen that I was merely contesting who asked for the preliminary opinion. It was the DoJ not Apple. That's all my post was meant to show.
I think her preliminary opinion was incredibly flawed which made it unsurprising when she finally ruled against Apple after the trial, but that's not what I was posting about.
My apologies; it's pretty hard to keep track of who's said what in a thread like this. It's fair enough to think her preliminary opinion was wrong - I just disagree with the people who claim it was based on ~no evidence~.
a corporation is considered a seperate entity. Legally a person. At least in the USA. I'm not sure about Scotland where you live.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/07/the-supreme-court-still-thinks-corporations-are-people/259995/
I'm actually from England, North West England to be more precise. Here a Corporation is a distinct legal entity, but it does not have rights akin to a person. The whole situation in the US with people (corporations) having free speech (spending money) on any topic they like is utterly weird to us
OOH OOH! LG PRADA!
What do I win?
No, it said it was a HTC, probably the Diamond, trouble is Apple introduced the first MULTItouch screen phone.
I'll just go collect my wages and my complimentary Galaxy™ S5™ directly from the CEO of Samsung now as a reward for my forum posting.
The ultimate comedy of this is, I wouldn't accept one if they gave it me, because then I'd probably have to use it and all their added software is awful. My father has an S4 and it's absolutely stuffed with crap.
Are you unaware that the DoJ is part of the government and brought the antitrust suit against Apple?
Not I that I really care how the government of this banana-republic is set up, but yes I am aware of this.
Maybe some people associated with US government are not yet brainwashed iSheep, or maybe the whole affair was set up to maintain the appearance of "fairness"? Who knows.
After all, some patent office also ordered the import ban on some iPhones (or some other Apple crap) only to have the order overturned after Apple managers whined to Obama about it...