Wow imagine posting a list of allegations as fact (I refer to the link in the post I was responding to), since when did the US adopt a judicial system based on the presumption of guilt.
Apple is innocent, they did nothing wrong, they will be exonerated.
Google is NOT innocent, they were found to have breached Oracle's copyrights.
The letter from Jobs shows nothing except for negotiations with AN INDIVIDUAL PUBLISHER, which is a normal part of doing business.
There is NO evidence that there was ANY collusion with OTHER publishers as regards Apple.
Steve Jobs is unavailable to testify as to what the letter meant, it is basically worthless as evidence.
Please, only a blind Apple fanboy zealot wouldn't be able to see that Apple was trying to sell the change as a club to use against Amazon. As a side note, it kind of shows the BS of this idea that Apple's #1 concern is the consumer. Apple was more than happy to have consumers be forced to pay more so long as they got what they wanted (which is another way to lock people into the iOS ecosystem since iBooks are only readable via an iOS device).
Weird that a bunch of the publishers facing these charges decided to settle...kind of points to there being some level of collusion.
And until Apple is cleared in court, it's kind of nonsensical to state their absolute innocence. Just because you believe it doesn't make it so.
Then why did 3 publishing houses immediately settle with the DoJ? Will you take a plea bargain on a crime you didn't commit?
It happens all the time. If the DOJ offered to settle with them for less than their legal expenses for fighting over the issue, the rational decision would be to settle whether you were guilty or not.
It happens all the time. If the DOJ offered to settle with them for less than their legal expenses for fighting over the issue, the rational decision would be to settle whether you were guilty or not.
These aren't fly by night companies nor a shoe string budget upstart we're talking about. Its powerful and very profitable publishing houses with armies of lawyers.
Please, only a blind Apple fanboy zealot wouldn't be able to see that Apple was trying to sell the change as a club to use against Amazon. As a side note, it kind of shows the BS of this idea that Apple's #1 concern is the consumer. Apple was more than happy to have consumers be forced to pay more so long as they got what they wanted (which is another way to lock people into the iOS ecosystem since iBooks are only readable via an iOS device).
Weird that a bunch of the publishers facing these charges decided to settle...kind of points to there being some level of collusion.
And until Apple is cleared in court, it's kind of nonsensical to state their absolute innocence. Just because you believe it doesn't make it so.
Let's stick to facts not hyperbolic conjecture.
Under the American judicial system the presumption of innocence applies, it doesn't come down to what I believe or not, it IS so because that is the L-A-W, law!
These aren't fly by night companies nor a shoe string budget upstart we're talking about. Its powerful and very profitable publishing houses with armies of lawyers.
So?
As I said, if the cost to settle is less than the cost to fight it, it makes sense to settle. How does your comment refute that?
There's a big difference between "it had nothing to do with Apple" and "Apple had nothing to do with it". I believe the latter but the former is not true. The publishers working in unison, and using the threat of Apple as a competitor as leverage were able to change their terms with Amazon.
So?
As I said, if the cost to settle is less than the cost to fight it, it makes sense to settle. How does your comment refute that?
Because the general public doesn't see it that way. A settlement is just as good as admitting guilt. They could've at least waited to see what evidence the DoJ had on them, but they decided to fall on their swords when the suit was announced. Public perception means much and many companies spend a kings ramson to preserve it.
There's a big difference between "it had nothing to do with Apple" and "Apple had nothing to do with it". I believe the latter but the former is not true. The publishers working in unison, and using the threat of Apple as a competitor as leverage were able to change their terms with Amazon.
So you think Apple was in collusion with Amazon in order to force Amazon to sign the individual agency agreements that the publishers proposed when their contracts came up for renewal?
So you think Apple was in collusion with Amazon in order to force Amazon to sign the individual agency agreements that the publishers proposed when their contracts came up for renewal?
It had nothing to do with Apple.
Huh? Proofread before you hit submit. I said I believed Apple had nothing to do with it but now that they were onboard with Apple as a viable competitor they were able to dictate new terms with Amazon. If they went to Amazon and said "well if you don't like our terms we'll do all our business with Apple". In that case Apple was used as leverage, did Apple have anything to do with it willfully? No, but Amazon agreeing to their term had everything to do with Apple being a threat to take Amazons business away. Understand? Apple did what's best for them and rightly so and the publishers used Apple against Amazon to do what's best for them. Simply I believe Apple is not guilty but the publishers are. Is that easy enough for you to understand?
Huh? Proofread before you hit submit. I said I believed Apple had nothing to do with it but now that they were onboard with Apple as a viable competitor they were able to dictate new terms with Amazon. If they went to Amazon and said "well if you don't like our terms we'll do all our business with Apple". In that case Apple was used as leverage, did Apple have anything to do with it willfully? No, but Amazon agreeing to their term had everything to do with Apple being a threat to take Amazons business away. Understand? Apple did what's best for them and rightly so and the publishers used Apple against Amazon to do what's best for them. Simply I believe Apple is not guilty but the publishers are. Is that easy enough for you to understand?
"the guy in the shop down the road has that thing there, for $X, will you match it"
Whether you accept or not has nothing to do with the guy in the shop down the road.
Because the general public doesn't see it that way. A settlement is just as good as admitting guilt. They could've at least waited to see what evidence the DoJ had on them, but they decided to fall on their swords when the suit was announced. Public perception means much and many companies spend a kings ramson to preserve it.
Nonsense. The general public has no idea that the suit is even going on. In fact, it may well be that settling it at this stage (before a trial even begins) has less negative repercussions than having the public see the media circus that goes with a trial.
Nonsense. The general public has no idea that the suit is even going on. In fact, it may well be that settling it at this stage (before a trial even begins) has less negative repercussions than having the public see the media circus that goes with a trial.
Of course they do its been in all the newspapers, news shows, etc...
But, then, it's not surprising since you never support your arguments.
...
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio
Jragosta, you are a shameless liar!
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
...
So you respond to my statement that you never support your arguments by...... making another unsupported argument.
Figures.
I have supported my arguments many times providing links to sources or detailed explanations of my reasoning. Everyone can see that by following my post history, or even just by examining this thread. In fact, taking the time to post now is yet another example that I support my arguments.
It is therefore an indisputable fact that jragosta's claim, quoted above, is a blatant lie. That, and similar statements from the past, makes jragosta a liar.
Regarding the qualifier "shameless", we have the proof in the response to my statement: instead of trying to refute it, jragosta acted as if it was expected. There was no indication of embarrassment, no attempt to have the post deleted or modified. Clearly, jragosta is not ashamed to be a liar and is fine with me saying it loud and clear.
Having said that, I'm done with arguing with one of the most narrow-minded people on this forum.
I have supported my arguments many times providing links to sources or detailed explanations of my reasoning. Everyone can see that by following my post history, or even just by examining this thread. In fact, taking the time to post now is yet another example that I support my arguments.
It is therefore an indisputable fact that jragosta's claim, quoted above, is a blatant lie. That, and similar statements from the past, makes jragosta a liar.
Regarding the qualifier "shameless", we have the proof in the response to my statement: instead of trying to refute it, jragosta acted as if it was expected. There was no indication of embarrassment, no attempt to have the post deleted or modified. Clearly, jragosta is not ashamed to be a liar and is fine with me saying it loud and clear.
Having said that, I'm done with arguing with one of the most narrow-minded people on this forum.
He knows that. It's just a common claim he uses, and no it's very honest. It's typically a tactic used by those losing an argument. Better just to ignore it, realizing when he stoops to it it's probably a sign you won.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
Wow imagine posting a list of allegations as fact (I refer to the link in the post I was responding to), since when did the US adopt a judicial system based on the presumption of guilt.
Apple is innocent, they did nothing wrong, they will be exonerated.
Google is NOT innocent, they were found to have breached Oracle's copyrights.
The letter from Jobs shows nothing except for negotiations with AN INDIVIDUAL PUBLISHER, which is a normal part of doing business.
There is NO evidence that there was ANY collusion with OTHER publishers as regards Apple.
Steve Jobs is unavailable to testify as to what the letter meant, it is basically worthless as evidence.
Please, only a blind Apple fanboy zealot wouldn't be able to see that Apple was trying to sell the change as a club to use against Amazon. As a side note, it kind of shows the BS of this idea that Apple's #1 concern is the consumer. Apple was more than happy to have consumers be forced to pay more so long as they got what they wanted (which is another way to lock people into the iOS ecosystem since iBooks are only readable via an iOS device).
Weird that a bunch of the publishers facing these charges decided to settle...kind of points to there being some level of collusion.
And until Apple is cleared in court, it's kind of nonsensical to state their absolute innocence. Just because you believe it doesn't make it so.
It happens all the time. If the DOJ offered to settle with them for less than their legal expenses for fighting over the issue, the rational decision would be to settle whether you were guilty or not.
These aren't fly by night companies nor a shoe string budget upstart we're talking about. Its powerful and very profitable publishing houses with armies of lawyers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Then why did 3 publishing houses immediately settle with the DoJ? Will you take a plea bargain on a crime you didn't commit?
Who knows, but it had nothing to do with Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by caliminius
Please, only a blind Apple fanboy zealot wouldn't be able to see that Apple was trying to sell the change as a club to use against Amazon. As a side note, it kind of shows the BS of this idea that Apple's #1 concern is the consumer. Apple was more than happy to have consumers be forced to pay more so long as they got what they wanted (which is another way to lock people into the iOS ecosystem since iBooks are only readable via an iOS device).
Weird that a bunch of the publishers facing these charges decided to settle...kind of points to there being some level of collusion.
And until Apple is cleared in court, it's kind of nonsensical to state their absolute innocence. Just because you believe it doesn't make it so.
Let's stick to facts not hyperbolic conjecture.
Under the American judicial system the presumption of innocence applies, it doesn't come down to what I believe or not, it IS so because that is the L-A-W, law!
So?
As I said, if the cost to settle is less than the cost to fight it, it makes sense to settle. How does your comment refute that?
There's a big difference between "it had nothing to do with Apple" and "Apple had nothing to do with it". I believe the latter but the former is not true. The publishers working in unison, and using the threat of Apple as a competitor as leverage were able to change their terms with Amazon.
Because the general public doesn't see it that way. A settlement is just as good as admitting guilt. They could've at least waited to see what evidence the DoJ had on them, but they decided to fall on their swords when the suit was announced. Public perception means much and many companies spend a kings ramson to preserve it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
There's a big difference between "it had nothing to do with Apple" and "Apple had nothing to do with it". I believe the latter but the former is not true. The publishers working in unison, and using the threat of Apple as a competitor as leverage were able to change their terms with Amazon.
So you think Apple was in collusion with Amazon in order to force Amazon to sign the individual agency agreements that the publishers proposed when their contracts came up for renewal?
It had nothing to do with Apple.
Huh? Proofread before you hit submit. I said I believed Apple had nothing to do with it but now that they were onboard with Apple as a viable competitor they were able to dictate new terms with Amazon. If they went to Amazon and said "well if you don't like our terms we'll do all our business with Apple". In that case Apple was used as leverage, did Apple have anything to do with it willfully? No, but Amazon agreeing to their term had everything to do with Apple being a threat to take Amazons business away. Understand? Apple did what's best for them and rightly so and the publishers used Apple against Amazon to do what's best for them. Simply I believe Apple is not guilty but the publishers are. Is that easy enough for you to understand?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Huh? Proofread before you hit submit. I said I believed Apple had nothing to do with it but now that they were onboard with Apple as a viable competitor they were able to dictate new terms with Amazon. If they went to Amazon and said "well if you don't like our terms we'll do all our business with Apple". In that case Apple was used as leverage, did Apple have anything to do with it willfully? No, but Amazon agreeing to their term had everything to do with Apple being a threat to take Amazons business away. Understand? Apple did what's best for them and rightly so and the publishers used Apple against Amazon to do what's best for them. Simply I believe Apple is not guilty but the publishers are. Is that easy enough for you to understand?
"the guy in the shop down the road has that thing there, for $X, will you match it"
Whether you accept or not has nothing to do with the guy in the shop down the road.
Basic business.
Sure it does because if weren't for that guy down the road you wouldn't be coming to me with some bullshit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Sure it does because if weren't for that guy down the road you wouldn't be coming to me with some bullshit.
Nope, whether you accept or not has to do with you accepting my bullshit...
...not the guy down the road.
Amazon's decision to accept the individual publishers' offers, had nothing to do with Apple.
You wouldn't have any bullshit to accept if it weren't for the guy down the road. Collusion doesnt need acceptance to be w crime. Gosh you're dumb.
Nonsense. The general public has no idea that the suit is even going on. In fact, it may well be that settling it at this stage (before a trial even begins) has less negative repercussions than having the public see the media circus that goes with a trial.
Still waiting for feedback from you from my post on the previous page in reference to your statements.
Of course they do its been in all the newspapers, news shows, etc...
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
...
But, then, it's not surprising since you never support your arguments.
...
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio
Jragosta, you are a shameless liar!
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
...
So you respond to my statement that you never support your arguments by...... making another unsupported argument.
Figures.
I have supported my arguments many times providing links to sources or detailed explanations of my reasoning. Everyone can see that by following my post history, or even just by examining this thread. In fact, taking the time to post now is yet another example that I support my arguments.
It is therefore an indisputable fact that jragosta's claim, quoted above, is a blatant lie. That, and similar statements from the past, makes jragosta a liar.
Regarding the qualifier "shameless", we have the proof in the response to my statement: instead of trying to refute it, jragosta acted as if it was expected. There was no indication of embarrassment, no attempt to have the post deleted or modified. Clearly, jragosta is not ashamed to be a liar and is fine with me saying it loud and clear.
Having said that, I'm done with arguing with one of the most narrow-minded people on this forum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio
I have supported my arguments many times providing links to sources or detailed explanations of my reasoning. Everyone can see that by following my post history, or even just by examining this thread. In fact, taking the time to post now is yet another example that I support my arguments.
It is therefore an indisputable fact that jragosta's claim, quoted above, is a blatant lie. That, and similar statements from the past, makes jragosta a liar.
Regarding the qualifier "shameless", we have the proof in the response to my statement: instead of trying to refute it, jragosta acted as if it was expected. There was no indication of embarrassment, no attempt to have the post deleted or modified. Clearly, jragosta is not ashamed to be a liar and is fine with me saying it loud and clear.
Having said that, I'm done with arguing with one of the most narrow-minded people on this forum.
He knows that. It's just a common claim he uses, and no it's very honest. It's typically a tactic used by those losing an argument. Better just to ignore it, realizing when he stoops to it it's probably a sign you won.