I read it through and had to check twice (I was on my 5s) that is really WAS the WSJ. Pretty take no prisoners scathing.
Ripped both the judge and the monitor big time. The zero antitrust experience and having to hire a "helper" law firm to back up his ignorance at the same rate he's billing was pitiful.
Quote: "Not ordinarily in such an incendiary mood, the Journal may be coming to the aid of its News Corp. stablemate and Apple's fellow antitrust defendant, publisher HarperCollins..."
What a silly comment! You don't know squat about the WSJ, News Corp, Apple or HarperCollins. Report the news, stick to the story and don't add any ridiculous embellishments.
Apple's getting stuck with huge fees for an intrusive lawyer who knows almost nothing about anti-trust law and who is a friend of the judge is more than enough reason for the WSJ to be ticked off. It is, after all, a business friendly publication that means it's hostile toward out of control lawyers like this one.
I believe there are ways for Apple to file legal actions against both this judge and this lawyer. And both seem far enough out of line, they may have hung themselves including, as another poster noted, the judge claiming to have decided how the case should be settled before the trial even began. (So much for 'innocent until proven guilty.') I certainly hope Apple's lawyers are considering taking those steps. With this judge and this lawyer, they have nothing to lose.
It's a money grab. I'd love someone working for the US gov to go to jail over this.
Because we as American, at least some, can be so envious of other's success, we'd want tear the bastards down to size. How else can you explain analists, judges, and pundits that spew such venomous hatred towards Apple?
Because we as American, at least some, can be so envious of other's success, we'd want tear the bastards down to size. How else can you explain analists, judges, and pundits that spew such venomous hatred towards Apple?
And I"ll second that as one of the Best Posts of The Year!
The post was also still in my mind when I posted on this thread earlier, to partially answer why there is so much hate... and probably a fair amount of actual fear... for and of Apple by the government.
I think it's pretty obvious by now that this particular run-in with the government isn't just about ebooks and price fixing.
So who besides the WSJ... is gonna come out and say in plain English... that Apple is being unjustly persecuted here far and beyond the scope of their supposed wrong-doing and sentance?
With all respect, Spam, the post that Phil and ThePixelDoc refer to above carries far more weight as explanation than the money grubbing you allude to.
This is way beyond the power of Holder or Obama to influence.
With all respect, Spam, the post that Phil and ThePixelDoc refer to above carries far more weight as explanation than the money grubbing you allude to.
This is way beyond the power of Holder or Obama to influence.
I respectfully submit that maintenance of state power via a massive spying apparatus is also an exercise of economic control.
I respectfully submit that maintenance of state power via a massive spying apparatus is also an exercise of economic control.
Whatever ideological language and theory you want to throw at it, go ahead. I'm just pointing out that you've fingered the wrong guy, and there are other layers more important.
In the same department as being either envious or openly hostile toward others and their successes, real or imagined, in a regard in which you are inadequate is the “you didn’t build that” mindset, in which it is perpetrated that said successful person’s successes were not a result of his work (the work that you haven’t or simply won’t do), his motivation (the motivation that you lack or simply choose not to have), or his skill, learned or inherent (the skill that you lack or simply choose not to learn), but rather a group effort.
Put in relevant terms, Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak certainly had assistance with Apple in its early years, and Steve Jobs certainly had assistance at Apple when he returned in 1996, but the suggestion that Steve Jobs, as a successful person, “did not build this” company and that his success was not his own is tantamount to slander.
Quote: "Not ordinarily in such an incendiary mood, the Journal may be coming to the aid of its News Corp. stablemate and Apple's fellow antitrust defendant, publisher HarperCollins..."
What a silly comment! You don't know squat about the WSJ, News Corp, Apple or HarperCollins. Report the news, stick to the story and don't add any ridiculous embellishments.
It is entirely possible that they don't know squat, because (as I mentioned above), this piece sounds like they took the article posted in Fortune by Philip Elmer-Dewitt (PED) and reworded it and submitted it as their own. This is what Elmer-Dewitt wrote:
If the Journal's rhetoric seems a bit over the top ("condominium"?), that may be because News Corp. (NWS), which publishes the paper, has a stick in this particular fire. It also owns HarperCollins, one of the five e-book publishers Judge Cote ruled had colluded with Apple.
It tries to show where the DoJ and the court went wrong.
That's a plausible explanation of the assumptions and mistakes that might have led to the court's basic decision, but it doesn't really shed any more light on whether this is part a larger government scheme to subdue Apple or just a few incompetents at DoJ working with a prejudiced and ignorant judge. It's very tempting, but logically untenable, to regard the recent information about NSA surveillance activities as direct evidence for this hypothesized conspiracy.
I'm always very wary of big conspiracy theories (they generally turn out, in hindsight, to be wrong), and have always agreed with Bernard Ingham when he said: 'Many journalists have fallen for the conspiracy theory of government. I do assure you that they would produce more accurate work if they adhered to the cock-up theory.'
It's very tempting, but logically untenable, to regard the recent information about NSA surveillance activities as direct evidence for this hypothesized conspiracy.
I'm always very wary of big conspiracy theories (they generally turn out, in hindsight, to be wrong), and have always agreed with Bernard Ingham when he said: 'Many journalists have fallen for the conspiracy theory of government. I do assure you that they would produce more accurate work if they adhered to the cock-up theory.'
You may be right: I may well just be the DoJ and/or the judge having lost all common sense.
But my point would be this: by looking at the DoJ, the judge and their Grand Inquisitor we are looking in the wrong direction.
The elephant in the room is Apple's ecosystem: it is rock-solid, brand new and grows at an unprecedented pace. Any of these three aspects alone would be enough of a pain for the NSA, but they could cope with each separately, provided some extra time and a couple of more B$. The thing is, the three aspects combined together is a real threat (sic) for their mission.
?They are used to deal with old and, shall I say, insecure-by-design ecosystems, e.g. Windows and its zero-day attack that they get ahead of time -- They probablyalso know a couple of tricks to break into Macs. They are used to deal with large scale systems like the telcos and their networking gear manufacturers. This is old business going back all the way to the 60' and 70'. They are used to new ecosystems: if we are to believe the press about Android malware and apps stealing personal information, breaking into it should not be a big deal -- And at least they have (1) the source code (2) the proper connection with the telcos if needed. They are also used to strong ecosystem. I guess that they break into by bullying the provider. That is probably what happened to RIM a long time ago when they started to get traction in the market.
They get none of this with Apple's ecosystem. And to make matter worse: (1) it is the first ecosystem build at a time where everybody with a brain could see the surveillance state coming -- It's design is post-9/11; (2) Apple does care about their customers and their privacy; (3) Apple designs both HW and SW, which means they can really build strong security -- Just have a look at the state-of-the-art Touch ID architecture.
How could the three-letters agencies deal with this, if not by actual threatening and plain abuse?
I read it through and had to check twice (I was on my 5s) that is really WAS the WSJ. Pretty take no prisoners scathing.
Ripped both the judge and the monitor big time. The zero antitrust experience and having to hire a "helper" law firm to back up his ignorance at the same rate he's billing was pitiful.
Comments
I read it through and had to check twice (I was on my 5s) that is really WAS the WSJ. Pretty take no prisoners scathing.
Ripped both the judge and the monitor big time. The zero antitrust experience and having to hire a "helper" law firm to back up his ignorance at the same rate he's billing was pitiful.
WSJ <-------- Rupert Murdoch -------> Harper Collins
Rupert is probably rubbing his hands together like Montgomery Burns and preparing to unleash the FOX.
Murdoch is a powerful friend.
What a silly comment! You don't know squat about the WSJ, News Corp, Apple or HarperCollins. Report the news, stick to the story and don't add any ridiculous embellishments.
Apple's getting stuck with huge fees for an intrusive lawyer who knows almost nothing about anti-trust law and who is a friend of the judge is more than enough reason for the WSJ to be ticked off. It is, after all, a business friendly publication that means it's hostile toward out of control lawyers like this one.
I believe there are ways for Apple to file legal actions against both this judge and this lawyer. And both seem far enough out of line, they may have hung themselves including, as another poster noted, the judge claiming to have decided how the case should be settled before the trial even began. (So much for 'innocent until proven guilty.') I certainly hope Apple's lawyers are considering taking those steps. With this judge and this lawyer, they have nothing to lose.
That was indeed a great post!
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160970/apple-at-odds-with-e-book-antitrust-monitor-over-70k-per-week-fee-unreasonable-demands#post_2441697
Because we as American, at least some, can be so envious of other's success, we'd want tear the bastards down to size. How else can you explain analists, judges, and pundits that spew such venomous hatred towards Apple?
That’s YDBT Syndrome, I think.
And I"ll second that as one of the Best Posts of The Year!
The post was also still in my mind when I posted on this thread earlier, to partially answer why there is so much hate... and probably a fair amount of actual fear... for and of Apple by the government.
I think it's pretty obvious by now that this particular run-in with the government isn't just about ebooks and price fixing.
So who besides the WSJ... is gonna come out and say in plain English... that Apple is being unjustly persecuted here far and beyond the scope of their supposed wrong-doing and sentance?
It's not Apple hate, it's money love.
Thanks, Obama!
With all respect, Spam, the post that Phil and ThePixelDoc refer to above carries far more weight as explanation than the money grubbing you allude to.
This is way beyond the power of Holder or Obama to influence.
I respectfully submit that maintenance of state power via a massive spying apparatus is also an exercise of economic control.
Whatever ideological language and theory you want to throw at it, go ahead. I'm just pointing out that you've fingered the wrong guy, and there are other layers more important.
Translation?
Here is a five page amicus brief that explains the situation:-
http://www.scribd.com/doc/105016617/Apple-Amicus-Brief
It tries to show where the DoJ and the court went wrong.
In the same department as being either envious or openly hostile toward others and their successes, real or imagined, in a regard in which you are inadequate is the “you didn’t build that” mindset, in which it is perpetrated that said successful person’s successes were not a result of his work (the work that you haven’t or simply won’t do), his motivation (the motivation that you lack or simply choose not to have), or his skill, learned or inherent (the skill that you lack or simply choose not to learn), but rather a group effort.
Put in relevant terms, Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak certainly had assistance with Apple in its early years, and Steve Jobs certainly had assistance at Apple when he returned in 1996, but the suggestion that Steve Jobs, as a successful person, “did not build this” company and that his success was not his own is tantamount to slander.
It is entirely possible that they don't know squat, because (as I mentioned above), this piece sounds like they took the article posted in Fortune by Philip Elmer-Dewitt (PED) and reworded it and submitted it as their own. This is what Elmer-Dewitt wrote:
So this is PED's conspiracy theory.
Here is a five page amicus brief that explains the situation:-
http://www.scribd.com/doc/105016617/Apple-Amicus-Brief
It tries to show where the DoJ and the court went wrong.
That's a plausible explanation of the assumptions and mistakes that might have led to the court's basic decision, but it doesn't really shed any more light on whether this is part a larger government scheme to subdue Apple or just a few incompetents at DoJ working with a prejudiced and ignorant judge. It's very tempting, but logically untenable, to regard the recent information about NSA surveillance activities as direct evidence for this hypothesized conspiracy.
I'm always very wary of big conspiracy theories (they generally turn out, in hindsight, to be wrong), and have always agreed with Bernard Ingham when he said: 'Many journalists have fallen for the conspiracy theory of government. I do assure you that they would produce more accurate work if they adhered to the cock-up theory.'
It's very tempting, but logically untenable, to regard the recent information about NSA surveillance activities as direct evidence for this hypothesized conspiracy.
I'm always very wary of big conspiracy theories (they generally turn out, in hindsight, to be wrong), and have always agreed with Bernard Ingham when he said: 'Many journalists have fallen for the conspiracy theory of government. I do assure you that they would produce more accurate work if they adhered to the cock-up theory.'
You may be right: I may well just be the DoJ and/or the judge having lost all common sense.
But my point would be this: by looking at the DoJ, the judge and their Grand Inquisitor we are looking in the wrong direction.
The elephant in the room is Apple's ecosystem: it is rock-solid, brand new and grows at an unprecedented pace. Any of these three aspects alone would be enough of a pain for the NSA, but they could cope with each separately, provided some extra time and a couple of more B$. The thing is, the three aspects combined together is a real threat (sic) for their mission.
?They are used to deal with old and, shall I say, insecure-by-design ecosystems, e.g. Windows and its zero-day attack that they get ahead of time -- They probably also know a couple of tricks to break into Macs. They are used to deal with large scale systems like the telcos and their networking gear manufacturers. This is old business going back all the way to the 60' and 70'. They are used to new ecosystems: if we are to believe the press about Android malware and apps stealing personal information, breaking into it should not be a big deal -- And at least they have (1) the source code (2) the proper connection with the telcos if needed. They are also used to strong ecosystem. I guess that they break into by bullying the provider. That is probably what happened to RIM a long time ago when they started to get traction in the market.
They get none of this with Apple's ecosystem. And to make matter worse: (1) it is the first ecosystem build at a time where everybody with a brain could see the surveillance state coming -- It's design is post-9/11; (2) Apple does care about their customers and their privacy; (3) Apple designs both HW and SW, which means they can really build strong security -- Just have a look at the state-of-the-art Touch ID architecture.
How could the three-letters agencies deal with this, if not by actual threatening and plain abuse?
Amazon's lobbyists.