The Justice Department filed a federal antitrust lawsuit against Apple (AAPL), alleging that the tech giant illegally maintains its dominance<snip>
over its iPhone ecosystem by boxing out competing services from other companies.
On 2024-03-21 16:44:07 +0000, badgolferman said:
<snip>
The Justice Department filed a federal antitrust lawsuit against Apple
(AAPL), alleging that the tech giant illegally maintains its dominance
over its iPhone ecosystem by boxing out competing services from other
companies.
What utter nonsense. It's not like any other company is any different,
and apart from a few loud-mouthed morons who want to fill their own
pockets at Apple's expense, nobody gives a flying crap that you can
only install iOS apps from teh Apple App Store.
Epic, Google, etc. were whining on about how Apple charges too much in
fees for their app store, and then has pretty much the same thing for developers wanting to use their store ... and why are they charging the
same? Simply *because* Apple does, so they equal it rather than
actually trying to compete. Just like every other business segment -
there is no real "competition" on prices because they all simply match
each other for the same price. :-\
Some of the accusations must be true if Apple can't fight them.
What utter nonsense. It's not like any other company is any different,
and apart from a few loud-mouthed morons who want to fill their own
pockets at Apple's expense, nobody gives a flying crap that you can
only install iOS apps from teh Apple App Store.
Epic, Google, etc. were whining on about how Apple charges too much in
fees for their app store, and then has pretty much the same thing for developers wanting to use their store
With Android, Windows & Linux, you can get your apps from anywhere you
want, without needing to get them from Google, Microsoft, or RedHat.
How could you not know that?
On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 10:18:15 +1300, Your Name <[email protected]> wrote
What utter nonsense. It's not like any other company is any different,
and apart from a few loud-mouthed morons who want to fill their own
pockets at Apple's expense, nobody gives a flying crap that you can
only install iOS apps from teh Apple App Store.
If you really are so clueless that you can't even tell the difference
between Apple & Google in terms of Apple's rapacious app market business model, then you will never be able to understand why Apple is being sued.
Apple will lose because Apple's business model is to be as anti-consumer as they can possibly get away with being - without being sued for it.
Only drug companies are as anti consumer as Apple is.
On 21.03.24 22:18, Your Name wrote:
On 2024-03-21 16:44:07 +0000, badgolferman said:
<snip>
The Justice Department filed a federal antitrust lawsuit against Apple
(AAPL), alleging that the tech giant illegally maintains its dominance
over its iPhone ecosystem by boxing out competing services from other
companies.
What utter nonsense. It's not like any other company is any different,
and apart from a few loud-mouthed morons who want to fill their own
pockets at Apple's expense, nobody gives a flying crap that you can
only install iOS apps from teh Apple App Store.
Epic, Google, etc. were whining on about how Apple charges too much in
fees for their app store, and then has pretty much the same thing for
developers wanting to use their store ... and why are they charging the
same? Simply *because* Apple does, so they equal it rather than
actually trying to compete. Just like every other business segment -
there is no real "competition" on prices because they all simply match
each other for the same price. :-\
Are you trolling? Things are lot more complicated and much uglier.
Apple's misbehaviour affects a lot of other industries in an unwanted
manner.
badgolferman wrote:
Some of the accusations must be true if Apple can't fight them.
Every settlement is a loss.
Poor Apple is like Trump. Whining that they "settle" criminal and civil lawsuits for doing nothing more than being so honest and nice to consumers.
badgolferman wrote:
Some of the accusations must be true if Apple can't fight
them.
Every settlement is a loss.
Poor Apple is like Trump. Whining that they "settle" criminal
and civil lawsuits for doing nothing more than being so honest
and nice to consumers.
Every settlement is a loss.
Or, every settlement is a win if going to court and losing costs
you more!!!
Poor Apple is like Trump. Whining that they "settle" criminal
and civil lawsuits for doing nothing more than being so honest
and nice to consumers.
I doubt there's one business that is honest and nice to its
consumers!
Every business going is about making as much money as you can
from your product. I wouldn't expect Apple to be any different.
On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 10:18:15 +1300, Your Name <[email protected]> wrote
What utter nonsense. It's not like any other company is any different,
and apart from a few loud-mouthed morons who want to fill their own
pockets at Apple's expense, nobody gives a flying crap that you can
only install iOS apps from teh Apple App Store.
If you really are so clueless that you can't even tell the difference
between Apple & Google in terms of Apple's rapacious app market business model, then you will never be able to understand why Apple is being sued.
Apple will lose because Apple's business model is to be as anti-consumer as they can possibly get away with being - without being sued for it.
Only drug companies are as anti consumer as Apple is.
Epic, Google, etc. were whining on about how Apple charges too much in
fees for their app store, and then has pretty much the same thing for
developers wanting to use their store
With Android, Windows & Linux, you can get your apps from anywhere you
want, without needing to get them from Google, Microsoft, or RedHat.
How could you not know that?
On 2024-03-22 14:23:22 +0000, Oliver said:
On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 10:18:15 +1300, Your Name <[email protected]> wrote >>> What utter nonsense. It's not like any other company is any different,
and apart from a few loud-mouthed morons who want to fill their own
pockets at Apple's expense, nobody gives a flying crap that you can only >>> install iOS apps from teh Apple App Store.
If you really are so clueless that you can't even tell the difference
between Apple & Google in terms of Apple's rapacious app market business
model, then you will never be able to understand why Apple is being sued.
Apple will lose because Apple's business model is to be as anti-consumer as >> they can possibly get away with being - without being sued for it.
Only drug companies are as anti consumer as Apple is.
Why?? Because only Apple makes an iPhone? What complete crap.
What about Toyota being the only ones making a Corolla? What about
McDonalds only making Big Macs? What about... Every company on the planet
has their own copyrighted products.
So you can only install iPhone apps from the Apple App Store ... 99.9% of their customers couldn't give a flying crap. It's only the whining greedy scumbags and the conspiracy nutters who are complaing about it.
Epic, Google, etc. were whining on about how Apple charges too much in
fees for their app store, and then has pretty much the same thing for
developers wanting to use their store
With Android, Windows & Linux, you can get your apps from anywhere you
want, without needing to get them from Google, Microsoft, or RedHat.
How could you not know that?
That wasn't the point. If you want to sell your app on the Google Play
Store or the Epic Store, then you'll have to pay them for the privlege ... just like they were complaining about Apple making them pay to have their apps on the Apple App Store. It's the usual two-faced bullshit we've come
to expect from these greedy scum who complain about Apple only to then do exactly the same thing.
Apple has basically become the fall guy and is sued by every idiot simply because Apple has a lot of money that every greedy scumbag on the planet wants to try and grab a handful off, no matter what idiotic reason they can dredge up.� :-(
Blueshirt wrote:
Every settlement is a loss.
Or, every settlement is a win if going to court and losing costs
you more!!!
Most of Apple's lawsuits are for Apple's lies that were very well proven.
Only the fanaticals who think Tim Cook is a God would think that settling lawsuits based on Apple's proven lies is an indication they were innocent.
Blueshirt wrote:
Every settlement is a loss.
Or, every settlement is a win if going to court and losing costs
you more!!!
Most of Apple's lawsuits are for Apple's lies that were very well proven.
Your Name wrote:
On 2024-03-22 14:23:22 +0000, Oliver said:
On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 10:18:15 +1300, Your Name <[email protected]> wrote >>>> What utter nonsense. It's not like any other company is any different, >>>> and apart from a few loud-mouthed morons who want to fill their own
pockets at Apple's expense, nobody gives a flying crap that you can only >>>> install iOS apps from teh Apple App Store.
If you really are so clueless that you can't even tell the difference
between Apple & Google in terms of Apple's rapacious app market business >>> model, then you will never be able to understand why Apple is being sued. >>>
Apple will lose because Apple's business model is to be as anti-consumer as >>> they can possibly get away with being - without being sued for it.
Only drug companies are as anti consumer as Apple is.
Why?? Because only Apple makes an iPhone? What complete crap.
What about Toyota being the only ones making a Corolla? What about
McDonalds only making Big Macs? What about... Every company on the planet
has their own copyrighted products.
So you can only install iPhone apps from the Apple App Store ... 99.9% of
their customers couldn't give a flying crap. It's only the whining greedy
scumbags and the conspiracy nutters who are complaing about it.
Epic, Google, etc. were whining on about how Apple charges too much in >>>> fees for their app store, and then has pretty much the same thing for
developers wanting to use their store
With Android, Windows & Linux, you can get your apps from anywhere you
want, without needing to get them from Google, Microsoft, or RedHat.
How could you not know that?
That wasn't the point. If you want to sell your app on the Google Play
Store or the Epic Store, then you'll have to pay them for the privlege ... >> just like they were complaining about Apple making them pay to have their
apps on the Apple App Store. It's the usual two-faced bullshit we've come
to expect from these greedy scum who complain about Apple only to then do
exactly the same thing.
Apple has basically become the fall guy and is sued by every idiot simply
because Apple has a lot of money that every greedy scumbag on the planet
wants to try and grab a handful off, no matter what idiotic reason they can >> dredge up.� :-(
Not to worry. Relax. Apple has lots of greedy scumbag lawyers too! Apple
also has a HUGE amount of money at their disposal (that's how they can
afford those scumbag lawyers). They'll simply peel off a few million and
pay some fines and settlement cash, then back to business as usual. In a month, they'll have even more money than they started with.
It's been done many times in their past.
On this Fri, 22 Mar 2024 17:09:40 -0500, Hank Rogers wrote:
Your Name wrote:
On 2024-03-22 14:23:22 +0000, Oliver said:
On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 10:18:15 +1300, Your Name <[email protected]> wrote >>>>> What utter nonsense. It's not like any other company is any different, >>>>> and apart from a few loud-mouthed morons who want to fill their own
pockets at Apple's expense, nobody gives a flying crap that you can
only install iOS apps from teh Apple App Store.
If you really are so clueless that you can't even tell the difference
between Apple & Google in terms of Apple's rapacious app market business >>>> model, then you will never be able to understand why Apple is being sued. >>>>
Apple will lose because Apple's business model is to be as
anti-consumer as
they can possibly get away with being - without being sued for it.
Only drug companies are as anti consumer as Apple is.
Why?? Because only Apple makes an iPhone? What complete crap.
What about Toyota being the only ones making a Corolla? What about
McDonalds only making Big Macs? What about... Every company on the
planet has their own copyrighted products.
So you can only install iPhone apps from the Apple App Store ... 99.9%
of their customers couldn't give a flying crap. It's only the whining
greedy scumbags and the conspiracy nutters who are complaing about it.
Epic, Google, etc. were whining on about how Apple charges too much in >>>>> fees for their app store, and then has pretty much the same thing for >>>>> developers wanting to use their store
With Android, Windows & Linux, you can get your apps from anywhere you >>>> want, without needing to get them from Google, Microsoft, or RedHat.
How could you not know that?
That wasn't the point. If you want to sell your app on the Google Play
Store or the Epic Store, then you'll have to pay them for the privlege
... just like they were complaining about Apple making them pay to have
their apps on the Apple App Store. It's the usual two-faced bullshit
we've come to expect from these greedy scum who complain about Apple
only to then do exactly the same thing.
Apple has basically become the fall guy and is sued by every idiot
simply because Apple has a lot of money that every greedy scumbag on the >>> planet wants to try and grab a handful off, no matter what idiotic
reason they can dredge up.� :-(
Not to worry. Relax. Apple has lots of greedy scumbag lawyers too! Apple
also has a HUGE amount of money at their disposal (that's how they can
afford those scumbag lawyers). They'll simply peel off a few million and
pay some fines and settlement cash, then back to business as usual. In a
month, they'll have even more money than they started with.
It's been done many times in their past.
You hit upon why Apple gets caught in so many heinous lies.
Lying is part of Apple's overall business plan.
They have the money to settle the lawsuits arising from their lies.
Smaller companies can't afford to lie.
One lie could put smaller companies out of business.
For Apple, lying about what they did is just part of their business plan.
On 2024-03-22 15:00, Indira wrote:
Blueshirt wrote:
Every settlement is a loss.
Or, every settlement is a win if going to court and losing costs
you more!!!
Most of Apple's lawsuits are for Apple's lies that were very well proven.
Arlen!
How's the new nym going?
:-)
On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 10:18:15 +1300, Your Name <[email protected]> wrote
What utter nonsense. It's not like any other company is any different,
and apart from a few loud-mouthed morons who want to fill their own
pockets at Apple's expense, nobody gives a flying crap that you can
only install iOS apps from teh Apple App Store.
If you really are so clueless that you can't even tell the difference
between Apple & Google in terms of Apple's rapacious app market business model, then you will never be able to understand why Apple is being sued.
Apple will lose because Apple's business model is to be as anti-consumer as they can possibly get away with being - without being sued for it.
Only drug companies are as anti consumer as Apple is.
Epic, Google, etc. were whining on about how Apple charges too much in
fees for their app store, and then has pretty much the same thing for
developers wanting to use their store
With Android, Windows & Linux, you can get your apps from anywhere you
want, without needing to get them from Google, Microsoft, or RedHat.
How could you not know that?
david wrote:
On this Fri, 22 Mar 2024 17:09:40 -0500, Hank Rogers wrote:
Your Name wrote:
On 2024-03-22 14:23:22 +0000, Oliver said:
On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 10:18:15 +1300, Your Name <[email protected]> wrote
What utter nonsense. It's not like any other company is any different, >>>>>> and apart from a few loud-mouthed morons who want to fill their own >>>>>> pockets at Apple's expense, nobody gives a flying crap that you can >>>>>> only install iOS apps from teh Apple App Store.
If you really are so clueless that you can't even tell the difference >>>>> between Apple & Google in terms of Apple's rapacious app market
business model, then you will never be able to understand why Apple is >>>>> being sued.
Apple will lose because Apple's business model is to be as
anti-consumer as they can possibly get away with being - without being >>>>> sued for it.
Only drug companies are as anti consumer as Apple is.
Why?? Because only Apple makes an iPhone? What complete crap.
What about Toyota being the only ones making a Corolla? What about
McDonalds only making Big Macs? What about... Every company on the
planet has their own copyrighted products.
So you can only install iPhone apps from the Apple App Store ... 99.9% >>>> of their customers couldn't give a flying crap. It's only the whining
greedy scumbags and the conspiracy nutters who are complaing about it. >>>>
Epic, Google, etc. were whining on about how Apple charges too much in >>>>>> fees for their app store, and then has pretty much the same thing for >>>>>> developers wanting to use their store
With Android, Windows & Linux, you can get your apps from anywhere you >>>>> want, without needing to get them from Google, Microsoft, or RedHat. >>>>>
How could you not know that?
That wasn't the point. If you want to sell your app on the Google Play >>>> Store or the Epic Store, then you'll have to pay them for the privlege >>>> ... just like they were complaining about Apple making them pay to have >>>> their apps on the Apple App Store. It's the usual two-faced bullshit
we've come to expect from these greedy scum who complain about Apple
only to then do exactly the same thing.
Apple has basically become the fall guy and is sued by every idiot
simply because Apple has a lot of money that every greedy scumbag on
the planet wants to try and grab a handful off, no matter what idiotic >>>> reason they can dredge up.� :-(
Not to worry. Relax. Apple has lots of greedy scumbag lawyers too!
Apple also has a HUGE amount of money at their disposal (that's how
they can afford those scumbag lawyers). They'll simply peel off a few
million and pay some fines and settlement cash, then back to business
as usual. In a month, they'll have even more money than they started
with.
It's been done many times in their past.
You hit upon why Apple gets caught in so many heinous lies.
Lying is part of Apple's overall business plan.
They have the money to settle the lawsuits arising from their lies.
Smaller companies can't afford to lie.
One lie could put smaller companies out of business.
For Apple, lying about what they did is just part of their business plan.
Yes, it's just unbridled capitalism, and apple has managed to ascend to
the very top of the gadget pyramid. Many other companies would dearly
love to be as rich and greedy as apple, and by god, they're all trying
their best.
They are like the Ferengis in some of the old star trek programs.
They're just following the "Rules of acquisition".
Only drug companies are as anti consumer as Apple is.
Consumers have all sorts of non-Apple options.
On 2024-03-22 22:57:35 +0000, Hank Rogers said:
david wrote:
On this Fri, 22 Mar 2024 17:09:40 -0500, Hank Rogers wrote:Yes, it's just unbridled capitalism, and apple has managed to ascend to
Your Name wrote:
On 2024-03-22 14:23:22 +0000, Oliver said:
On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 10:18:15 +1300, Your Name <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote
What utter nonsense. It's not like any other company is any
different, and apart from a few loud-mouthed morons who want to fill >>>>>>> their own pockets at Apple's expense, nobody gives a flying crap >>>>>>> that you can only install iOS apps from teh Apple App Store.
If you really are so clueless that you can't even tell the difference >>>>>> between Apple & Google in terms of Apple's rapacious app market
business model, then you will never be able to understand why Apple >>>>>> is being sued.
Apple will lose because Apple's business model is to be as
anti-consumer as they can possibly get away with being - without
being sued for it.
Only drug companies are as anti consumer as Apple is.
Why?? Because only Apple makes an iPhone? What complete crap.
What about Toyota being the only ones making a Corolla? What about
McDonalds only making Big Macs? What about... Every company on the
planet has their own copyrighted products.
So you can only install iPhone apps from the Apple App Store ... 99.9% >>>>> of their customers couldn't give a flying crap. It's only the whining >>>>> greedy scumbags and the conspiracy nutters who are complaing about it. >>>>>
Epic, Google, etc. were whining on about how Apple charges too much >>>>>>> in fees for their app store, and then has pretty much the same thing >>>>>>> for developers wanting to use their store
With Android, Windows & Linux, you can get your apps from anywhere you >>>>>> want, without needing to get them from Google, Microsoft, or RedHat. >>>>>>
How could you not know that?
That wasn't the point. If you want to sell your app on the Google Play >>>>> Store or the Epic Store, then you'll have to pay them for the privlege >>>>> ... just like they were complaining about Apple making them pay to
have their apps on the Apple App Store. It's the usual two-faced
bullshit we've come to expect from these greedy scum who complain
about Apple only to then do exactly the same thing.
Apple has basically become the fall guy and is sued by every idiot
simply because Apple has a lot of money that every greedy scumbag on >>>>> the planet wants to try and grab a handful off, no matter what idiotic >>>>> reason they can dredge up.� :-(
Not to worry. Relax. Apple has lots of greedy scumbag lawyers too!
Apple also has a HUGE amount of money at their disposal (that's how
they can afford those scumbag lawyers). They'll simply peel off a few
million and pay some fines and settlement cash, then back to business
as usual. In a month, they'll have even more money than they started with. >>>>
It's been done many times in their past.
You hit upon why Apple gets caught in so many heinous lies.
Lying is part of Apple's overall business plan.
They have the money to settle the lawsuits arising from their lies.
Smaller companies can't afford to lie.
One lie could put smaller companies out of business.
For Apple, lying about what they did is just part of their business plan. >>
the very top of the gadget pyramid. Many other companies would dearly
love to be as rich and greedy as apple, and by god, they're all trying
their best.
They are like the Ferengis in some of the old star trek programs. They're
just following the "Rules of acquisition".
Many things that Apple does are jeered at by Samsung ... only for Samsung
to do the exact same thing a few months later.�� :-\
On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 19:47:02 -0400, Alan Browne <[email protected]> wrote
Only drug companies are as anti consumer as Apple is.
Consumers have all sorts of non-Apple options.
Consumers have all sorts of non Big-Pharma options too. https://www.enjuris.com/blog/resources/largest-pharmaceutical-settlements-lawsuits/
Apple is no different from Big Pharma in taking cynical advantage of the customers who are trusting them most to provide products to their benefit.
Both business models are that they can make more money from lying to the customer than what the billion dollar lawsuits will eventually cost them.
On Mar 22, 2024 at 10:23:22 AM EDT, "Oliver" <[email protected]> wrote:
Apple will lose because Apple's business model is to be as anti-consumer as >> they can possibly get away with being - without being sued for it.
Yeah man. The world's most successful consumer products company is "anti-consumer".
Congratulations, you are an idiot.
And even if they WERE "anti-consumer" (whatever you imagine that means), what law does that break?
Apple will lose because Apple's business model is to be as anti-consumer as they can possibly get away with being - without being sued for it.
Both business models are that they can make more money from lying to the >>> customer than what the billion dollar lawsuits will eventually cost them. >>Apple doesn't sell anything that you cannot buy from some other company.
Blue bubbles.
And even if they WERE "anti-consumer" (whatever you imagine that means), what
law does that break?
Yep. And for those who don't like Apple's devices or rules, there are
plenty of other companies out there selling similar products - just
shut your big mouths and go and buy one of those instead.
Apple will lose because Apple's business model is to be as anti-consumer as >> they can possibly get away with being - without being sued for it.
Yeah man. The world's most successful consumer products company is "anti-consumer".
Congratulations, you are an idiot.
And even if they WERE "anti-consumer" (whatever you imagine that means), what law does that break?
On Sat, 23 Mar 2024 18:23:05 +1300, Your Name
<[email protected]> wrote
And even if they WERE "anti-consumer" (whatever you
imagine that means), what law does that break?
Yep. And for those who don't like Apple's devices or rules,
there are plenty of other companies out there selling
similar products - just shut your big mouths and go and buy
one of those instead.
Apple makes far more money by being anti-consumer than by
abiding by laws.
On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 19:47:02 -0400, Alan Browne <[email protected]> wrote
Only drug companies are as anti consumer as Apple is.
Consumers have all sorts of non-Apple options.
Consumers have all sorts of non Big-Pharma options too. https://www.enjuris.com/blog/resources/largest-pharmaceutical-settlements-lawsuits/
Apple is no different from Big Pharma in taking cynical advantage of the customers who are trusting them most to provide products to their benefit.
Both business models are that they can make more money from lying to the customer than what the billion dollar lawsuits will eventually cost them.
W Sat, 23 Mar 2024 05:18:23 +0000, Tyrone napisal:
Apple will lose because Apple's business model is to be as
anti-consumer as
they can possibly get away with being - without being sued for it.
Yeah man. The world's most successful consumer products company is
"anti-consumer".
Congratulations, you are an idiot.
And even if they WERE "anti-consumer" (whatever you imagine that
means), what
law does that break?
Your argument that the very successful tobacco companies would go out of business simply because they lied about cigarettes, is fundamentally wrong.
On Sat, 23 Mar 2024 18:23:05 +1300, Your Name <[email protected]> wrote
And even if they WERE "anti-consumer" (whatever you imagine that
means), what
law does that break?
Yep. And for those who don't like Apple's devices or rules, there are
plenty of other companies out there selling similar products - just
shut your big mouths and go and buy one of those instead.
Apple makes far more money by being anti-consumer than by abiding by laws.
On Sat, 23 Mar 2024 18:23:05 +1300, Your Name <[email protected]> wrote
And even if they WERE "anti-consumer" (whatever you imagine that means), what
law does that break?
Yep. And for those who don't like Apple's devices or rules, there are
plenty of other companies out there selling similar products - just
shut your big mouths and go and buy one of those instead.
Apple makes far more money by being anti-consumer than by abiding by laws.
On Mar 23, 2024 at 8:04:08 AM EDT, "Oliver" <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 23 Mar 2024 18:23:05 +1300, Your Name <[email protected]> wrote >>
And even if they WERE "anti-consumer" (whatever you imagine that means), what
law does that break?
Yep. And for those who don't like Apple's devices or rules, there are
plenty of other companies out there selling similar products - just
shut your big mouths and go and buy one of those instead.
Apple makes far more money by being anti-consumer than by abiding by laws.
You keep saying that, but it makes no sense. And AGAIN, what laws is Apple not
abiding? Because YOU don't like Apple does not mean they are breaking any laws.
Apple is a consumer products company. They are selling directly to consumers.
How do you sell consumer products to consumers (who line up to buy your products, BTW) AND be "anti-consumer" at the same time?
If Apple truly WAS "anti-consumer", then NO ONE WOULD BUY THE PRODUCTS. Do you
understand simple logic?
This DOJ case is all based on competitors whining that it is too difficult for
them to make money selling software/whatever to Apple's customers. Well boo hoo. Apple is like 25% of the global market for phones and PCs. Try selling your stuff to the 75% of the market.
Or feel free to create your own phones/tablets/desktops/ecosystem and make your money from your own products. Not just leeching from other company's products.
U.S. anti-trust laws exist to protect consumers. Not competitors. So this case actually has no merit at all. Apple is NOT a "monopoly" in any market it competes in. There are PLENTY of choices besides Apple. Competitors whining that "Apple is not playing fair" is going to go nowhere. Remember, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to even hear the appeal in the Epic/Apple trial. Because it amounted to 1 company (Epic) whining about the contract THAT THEY SIGNED with Apple.
If you don't like the terms and conditions of the contract, THEN DON'T SIGN IT. If you don't like Apple THEN DON'T BUY AN IPHONE. Neither is grounds for a
lawyers to get involved.
Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2024-03-22 17:47, Oliver wrote:
On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 19:47:02 -0400, Alan Browne <[email protected]> >>> wroteApple doesn't sell anything that you cannot buy from some other company.
Only drug companies are as anti consumer as Apple is.
Consumers have all sorts of non-Apple options.
Consumers have all sorts of non Big-Pharma options too.
https://www.enjuris.com/blog/resources/largest-pharmaceutical-settlements-lawsuits/
Apple is no different from Big Pharma in taking cynical advantage of the >>> customers who are trusting them most to provide products to their benefit. >>>
Both business models are that they can make more money from lying to the >>> customer than what the billion dollar lawsuits will eventually cost them. >>
Blue bubbles.
On Mar 23, 2024 at 8:04:08 AM EDT, "Oliver" <[email protected]> wrote:
Do you understand simple logic?
Epic wants to sell to Apple users on Apple's App Store
Apple makes far more money by being anti-consumer than by abiding by laws.
You keep saying that, but it makes no sense. And AGAIN, what laws is Apple not
abiding? Because YOU don't like Apple does not mean they are breaking any laws.
This DOJ case is all based on competitors whining that it is too difficult for
them to make money selling software/whatever to Apple's customers. Well boo hoo. Apple is like 25% of the global market for phones and PCs. Try selling your stuff to the 75% of the market.
U.S. anti-trust laws exist to protect consumers. Not competitors.
If you don't like the terms and conditions of the contract, THEN DON'T SIGN IT. If you don't like Apple THEN DON'T BUY AN IPHONE. Neither is grounds for a
lawyers to get involved.
On Sun, 24 Mar 2024 11:08:01 +1300, Your Name wrote:
Epic wants to sell to Apple users on Apple's App Store
The DOJ's lawsuit is not about Epic no matter how much you wish the DOJ lawsuit was all about Epic.
The DOJ's lawsuit is about Apple following the law.
The DOJ's lawsuit is about Apple following the law.
The DOJ's lawsuit is due to yet more greedy idiots (including Epic)
whining that Apple has a supposed monopoly, which it doesn't (there are plenty of other options for the whining idiots to choose from). It has absolutely nothing to do with any actual laws and Apple has NOT broken
any actual laws.
It's the same with the morons who whine on about Apple (and Google, Microsoft, etc.) not paying enough local taxes, depsite the fact that
these companies already do pay all the taxes they are legally meant to.
It's all just greedy braindeads in the local governments who have zero understanding of anything at all, especially when it comes to tech.
On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 11:48:14 +1300, Your Name wrote:
The DOJ's lawsuit is about Apple following the law.
The DOJ's lawsuit is due to yet more greedy idiots (including Epic)
whining that Apple has a supposed monopoly, which it doesn't (there are
plenty of other options for the whining idiots to choose from). It has
absolutely nothing to do with any actual laws and Apple has NOT broken
any actual laws.
The court will decide whether or not Apple has broken any laws, not Epic.
It's the same with the morons who whine on about Apple (and Google,
Microsoft, etc.) not paying enough local taxes, depsite the fact that
these companies already do pay all the taxes they are legally meant to.
Google and Linux and Windows and even Apple's mac all allow apps to be installed from anywhere the user wants to install those apps from.
By contrast, the DOJ lawsuit alleges that Apple "illegally maintains its dominance over the smartphone market by boxing out competing apps".
The question for the courts is does Apple do exactly that, or not?
It's all just greedy braindeads in the local governments who have zero
understanding of anything at all, especially when it comes to tech.
I'm not going to disagree that the government always wants to tax the companies and individuals who make the most money - that's always the case.
In this DOJ suit, the courts will have to decide if the DOJ is correct when the DOJ claimed "Apple has maintained its power not because of its superiority, but because of its unlawful exclusionary behavior", or not.
On Mar 23, 2024 at 8:04:08 AM EDT, "Oliver" <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 23 Mar 2024 18:23:05 +1300, Your Name <[email protected]> wrote >>
And even if they WERE "anti-consumer" (whatever you imagine that means), what
law does that break?
Yep. And for those who don't like Apple's devices or rules, there are
plenty of other companies out there selling similar products - just
shut your big mouths and go and buy one of those instead.
Apple makes far more money by being anti-consumer than by abiding by laws.
You keep saying that, but it makes no sense. And AGAIN, what laws is Apple not
abiding? Because YOU don't like Apple does not mean they are breaking any laws.
Apple is a consumer products company. They are selling directly to consumers.
How do you sell consumer products to consumers (who line up to buy your products, BTW) AND be "anti-consumer" at the same time?
If Apple truly WAS "anti-consumer", then NO ONE WOULD BUY THE PRODUCTS. Do you
understand simple logic?
This DOJ case is all based on competitors whining that it is too difficult for
them to make money selling software/whatever to Apple's customers. Well boo hoo. Apple is like 25% of the global market for phones and PCs. Try selling your stuff to the 75% of the market.
Or feel free to create your own phones/tablets/desktops/ecosystem and make your money from your own products. Not just leeching from other company's products.
U.S. anti-trust laws exist to protect consumers. Not competitors.
The court will decide whether or not Apple has broken any laws, not Epic.
Of course the court will decide (baring in mind that "the law is an
ass"), after a massive waste of tiem and money, and numerous appeals
and counter-appeals, but the whole thing was initiated by the whiners
at Epic, Google, Microsoft, etc. ... all of which do exactly the same
thing.
It's the same with the morons who whine on about Apple (and Google,
Microsoft, etc.) not paying enough local taxes, depsite the fact that
these companies already do pay all the taxes they are legally meant to.
Google and Linux and Windows and even Apple's mac all allow apps to be
installed from anywhere the user wants to install those apps from.
By contrast, the DOJ lawsuit alleges that Apple "illegally maintains its
dominance over the smartphone market by boxing out competing apps".
The question for the courts is does Apple do exactly that, or not?
That's two entirely separate "issues".
Apple certainly does not "illegally maintains its dominance over the smartphone market by boxing out competing apps" ... there are plenty of
other smartphones people can buy.
As for only being able to install apps from Apple's App Store, 99.9% of
users couldn't give a flying crap anyway. That's what makes Apple's
devices better in the first place, rather than having to put up with
all the malware and garbage-quality apps that infest Windows and
Android.
Plus it's no different to only being able to buy the "secret recipe"
chicken from KFC, or the "secret recipe" drinks from Coca-Cola, among billions of other such examples. Companies having their own
closely-guarded products and services is how businesses work and have
done since businesses first began millennia ago.
It's all just greedy braindeads in the local governments who have zero
understanding of anything at all, especially when it comes to tech.
I'm not going to disagree that the government always wants to tax the
companies and individuals who make the most money - that's always the case. >>
In this DOJ suit, the courts will have to decide if the DOJ is correct when >> the DOJ claimed "Apple has maintained its power not because of its
superiority, but because of its unlawful exclusionary behavior", or not.
Which is a claim that is complete and utter nonsense.
U.S. anti-trust laws exist to protect consumers. Not competitors.
I'm not a lawyer, but the government can claim that Apple is engaging
in conspiracy to restrain trade and commerce, which is broadly illegal
and does not require Apple to actually be a monopoly.
And forget suing;
Tim Cook himself can be arrested and tried criminally for this if the government ever decided to actually enforce the law.
On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 18:28:56 +1300, Your Name wrote:
The court will decide whether or not Apple has broken any laws, not Epic. >>Of course the court will decide (baring in mind that "the law is an
ass"), after a massive waste of tiem and money, and numerous appeals
and counter-appeals, but the whole thing was initiated by the whiners
at Epic, Google, Microsoft, etc. ... all of which do exactly the same
thing.
It should be noted, whether or not the law is an ass, that Apple loses
most of these cases to the tune of billions of dollars, year after
year.
Tim Cook recently settled a half billion dollar lawsuit for lying to investors, where Apple's sordid reputation for lying is well founded.
Tyrone wrote:
You keep saying that, but it makes no sense. And AGAIN, what laws is
Apple not
abiding? Because YOU don't like Apple does not mean they are breaking any
laws.
Apple is a consumer products company. They are selling directly to
consumers.
How do you sell consumer products to consumers (who line up to buy your >> products, BTW) AND be "anti-consumer" at the same time?
If Apple truly WAS "anti-consumer", then NO ONE WOULD BUY THE
PRODUCTS. Do you
understand simple logic?
This DOJ case is all based on competitors whining that it is too
difficult for
them to make money selling software/whatever to Apple's customers.
Well boo
hoo. Apple is like 25% of the global market for phones and PCs. Try
selling
your stuff to the 75% of the market.
Or feel free to create your own phones/tablets/desktops/ecosystem and
make
your money from your own products. Not just leeching from other company's
products.
U.S. anti-trust laws exist to protect consumers. Not competitors.
I'm not a lawyer, but the government can claim that Apple is engaging
in conspiracy to restrain trade and commerce, which is broadly illegal
and does not require Apple to actually be a monopoly. And forget suing;
Tim Cook himself can be arrested and tried criminally for this if the government ever decided to actually enforce the law.
Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2024-03-22 17:47, Oliver wrote:
On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 19:47:02 -0400, Alan Browne <[email protected]> >>> wroteApple doesn't sell anything that you cannot buy from some other company.
Only drug companies are as anti consumer as Apple is.
Consumers have all sorts of non-Apple options.
Consumers have all sorts of non Big-Pharma options too.
https://www.enjuris.com/blog/resources/largest-pharmaceutical-settlements-lawsuits/
Apple is no different from Big Pharma in taking cynical advantage of the >>> customers who are trusting them most to provide products to their benefit. >>>
Both business models are that they can make more money from lying to the >>> customer than what the billion dollar lawsuits will eventually cost them. >>
Blue bubbles.
On Sat, 23 Mar 2024 10:11:14 -0000 (UTC), badgolferman wrote:
Both business models are that they can make more money from lying to the >>>> customer than what the billion dollar lawsuits will eventually cost them. >>>Apple doesn't sell anything that you cannot buy from some other company. >>>
Blue bubbles.
There are very few companies who are less ethical than Apple proves to be.
Fully in character, Alan Baker (whom presumably you had responded to) has
no intelligent thought processes no matter how hard he tries to form one.
Alan Baker's argument that the iPhone is trademarked & hence Apple isn't bound by law is about as sensical as Trump's claim that he's also immune.
Ask Volkswagen how well Apple's business strategy of lying until Apple gets caught in a court of law worked out for them on similarly trademarked cars.
On Sat, 23 Mar 2024 18:23:05 +1300, Your Name <[email protected]> wrote
And even if they WERE "anti-consumer" (whatever you imagine that
means), what
law does that break?
Yep. And for those who don't like Apple's devices or rules, there are
plenty of other companies out there selling similar products - just
shut your big mouths and go and buy one of those instead.
Apple makes far more money by being anti-consumer than by abiding by laws.
On Sun, 24 Mar 2024 11:08:01 +1300, Your Name wrote:
Epic wants to sell to Apple users on Apple's App Store
The DOJ's lawsuit is not about Epic no matter how much you wish the DOJ lawsuit was all about Epic.
The DOJ's lawsuit is about Apple following the law.
W Mon, 25 Mar 2024 02:45:15 -0400, Anonymous napisal:
U.S. anti-trust laws exist to protect consumers. Not competitors.
I'm not a lawyer, but the government can claim that Apple is engaging
in conspiracy to restrain trade and commerce, which is broadly illegal
and does not require Apple to actually be a monopoly.
Almost nobody believes Apple, just like almost nobody believes Trump, when they both loudly claim that the courts are out to get them for no reason.
Everyone sensible has always known exactly why Apple excludes competition from their app store,
especially since nobody else does this but Apple.
The question therefore, will be left to the courts to decide Apple's fate just as the courts are currently left to decide Trump's fate in many cases.
And forget suing;
Tim Cook himself can be arrested and tried criminally for this if the
government ever decided to actually enforce the law.
Tim Cook recently settled a half billion dollar lawsuit for lying to investors, where Apple's sordid reputation for lying is well founded.
Given Apple has been caught in so many lies recently, what gives you so
much confidence that Apple is finally coming clean by telling the truth?
On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 18:28:56 +1300, Your Name wrote:
Of course the court will decide (baring in mind that "the law is an
The court will decide whether or not Apple has broken any laws, not Epic. >>
ass"), after a massive waste of tiem and money, and numerous appeals
and counter-appeals, but the whole thing was initiated by the whiners
at Epic, Google, Microsoft, etc. ... all of which do exactly the same
thing.
It should be noted, whether or not the law is an ass, that Apple loses most of these cases to the tune of billions of dollars, year after year.
It's the same with the morons who whine on about Apple (and Google,Google and Linux and Windows and even Apple's mac all allow apps to be
Microsoft, etc.) not paying enough local taxes, depsite the fact that
these companies already do pay all the taxes they are legally meant to. >>>
installed from anywhere the user wants to install those apps from.
By contrast, the DOJ lawsuit alleges that Apple "illegally maintains its >>> dominance over the smartphone market by boxing out competing apps".
The question for the courts is does Apple do exactly that, or not?
That's two entirely separate "issues".
Apple certainly does not "illegally maintains its dominance over the
smartphone market by boxing out competing apps" ... there are plenty of
other smartphones people can buy.
That's like saying it doesn't matter that Volkswagen broke the laws simply because there are plenty of other vehicles for consumers to choose from.
As for only being able to install apps from Apple's App Store, 99.9% of
users couldn't give a flying crap anyway. That's what makes Apple's
devices better in the first place, rather than having to put up with
all the malware and garbage-quality apps that infest Windows and
Android.
While I'm sure there are "garbage-quality apps" that infest all other operating systems, nobody who is sensible has ever believed what Apple says is the reason they restrict there ecosystem to only the Apple app store.
Even Apple has said you're not supposed to actually believe what they say. https://www.wired.com/2008/12/apple-says-cust
Plus it's no different to only being able to buy the "secret recipe"
chicken from KFC, or the "secret recipe" drinks from Coca-Cola, among
billions of other such examples. Companies having their own
closely-guarded products and services is how businesses work and have
done since businesses first began millennia ago.
You mean like how Volkswagen kept their closely guarded secrets for years?
It's all just greedy braindeads in the local governments who have zero >>>> understanding of anything at all, especially when it comes to tech.
I'm not going to disagree that the government always wants to tax the
companies and individuals who make the most money - that's always the case. >>>
In this DOJ suit, the courts will have to decide if the DOJ is correct when >>> the DOJ claimed "Apple has maintained its power not because of its
superiority, but because of its unlawful exclusionary behavior", or not.
Which is a claim that is complete and utter nonsense.
You've declared Apple didn't break any laws but the DOJ begs to differ.
At this point, what's left for us is to merely understand what each says.
The DOJ will allege that Apple broke the existing laws of the land.
Apple, in turn, will protest vehemently, much like Trump is doing today.
The court will decide whether the DOJ or Apple's arguments are correct.
On 2024-03-25 07:45:53 +0000, Jan K. said:
W Mon, 25 Mar 2024 02:45:15 -0400, Anonymous napisal:
U.S. anti-trust laws exist to protect consumers.� Not competitors.
I'm not a lawyer, but the government can claim that Apple is engaging
in conspiracy to restrain trade and commerce, which is broadly illegal
and does not require Apple to actually be a monopoly.
Almost nobody believes Apple, just like almost nobody believes Trump, when >> they both loudly claim that the courts are out to get them for no reason.
Everyone sensible has always known exactly why Apple excludes competition
from their app store,
Wrong. Anyone can use the App Store to sell their products. The problem is the greedy scum at Epic, etc. simply don't want to pay to do so - they want Apple to do the hosting, prmotion, etc. for free.
especially since nobody else does this but Apple.
Wrong. Every other app store out there is exactly the same. Even Epic's own app store hypocritically charges to sell apps on there.
It should be noted, whether or not the law is an ass, that Apple loses most >> of these cases to the tune of billions of dollars, year after year.
Actually they don't. They lose a few, they win a few, they settle a
few, and they continually appeal against a few. Like any other big
business company that greedy scum keep taking to court for mostly
idiotic reasons.
Apple admitted no wrongdoing.
Tim Cook recently settled a half billion dollar lawsuit for lying to
investors, where Apple's sordid reputation for lying is well founded.
That's spinning facts a little hard with skew salad and misinformation dressing.
On 25 Mar 2024 15:37:34 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
Apple admitted no wrongdoing.
While it's common for even the most heinous cases to be settled
"without admission of guilt", you are a damn fool
if you think Apple settling all these billion dollar lawsuits means
Apple wasn't found guilty as charged.
W Mon, 25 Mar 2024 13:34:00 -0400, Alan Browne napisal:
Tim Cook recently settled a half billion dollar lawsuit for lying to
investors, where Apple's sordid reputation for lying is well
founded.
That's spinning facts a little hard with skew salad and
misinformation dressing.
Why do you think Apple settled that half a billion dollar legal case
last week?
Alan wrote:
Apple doesn't sell anything that you cannot buy from some other
company.
Blue bubbles.
Apple doesn't SELL blue bubbles, and any company that wants to colour
their bubbles blue is free to do so.
A 747 just flew over your head.
Your Name <[email protected]> wrote:
It should be noted, whether or not the law is an ass, that Apple
loses most of these cases to the tune of billions of dollars, year
after year.
Actually they don't. They lose a few, they win a few, they settle a
few, and they continually appeal against a few. Like any other big
business company that greedy scum keep taking to court for mostly
idiotic reasons.
Apple loses all these legal casesi
On 2024-03-25 02:45, Anonymous wrote:
Tyrone wrote:
You keep saying that, but it makes no sense. And AGAIN, what laws is Apple not
abiding? Because YOU don't like Apple does not mean they are breaking any >>> laws.
Apple is a consumer products company. They are selling directly to consumers.
How do you sell consumer products to consumers (who line up to buy your >>> products, BTW) AND be "anti-consumer" at the same time?
If Apple truly WAS "anti-consumer", then NO ONE WOULD BUY THE PRODUCTS. Do you
understand simple logic?
This DOJ case is all based on competitors whining that it is too difficult for
them to make money selling software/whatever to Apple's customers. Well boo >>> hoo. Apple is like 25% of the global market for phones and PCs. Try selling >>> your stuff to the 75% of the market.
Or feel free to create your own phones/tablets/desktops/ecosystem and make >>> your money from your own products. Not just leeching from other company's >>> products.
U.S. anti-trust laws exist to protect consumers. Not competitors.
I'm not a lawyer, but the government can claim that Apple is engaging
in conspiracy to restrain trade and commerce, which is broadly illegal
Apple has plenty of competition.
and does not require Apple to actually be a monopoly. And forget suing;
Tim Cook himself can be arrested and tried criminally for this if the
government ever decided to actually enforce the law.
ROFL. At least you got the "I'm not a lawyer" part right.
Alan wrote:
Apple doesn't sell anything that you cannot buy from some other
company.
Blue bubbles.
Apple doesn't SELL blue bubbles, and any company that wants to colour
their bubbles blue is free to do so.
A 747 just flew over your head.
On 25 Mar 2024 15:37:34 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
Apple admitted no wrongdoing.
While it's common for even the most heinous cases to be settled "without admission of guilt", you are a damn fool if you think Apple settling all these billion dollar lawsuits means Apple wasn't found guilty as charged.
Your Name <[email protected]> wrote:
It should be noted, whether or not the law is an ass, that Apple loses most >>> of these cases to the tune of billions of dollars, year after year.
Actually they don't. They lose a few, they win a few, they settle a
few, and they continually appeal against a few. Like any other big
business company that greedy scum keep taking to court for mostly
idiotic reasons.
Apple loses all these legal cases because Apple habitually breaks the law.
Nah. You trolls are hopelessly fixated on colors: bubble colors, iPhone colors, the color of your own colons, you're ridiculous clowns.
Apple admitting no guilt means exactly that
Why do you think Apple settled that half a billion dollar legal case
last week?
The same reason most lawsuits get settled: It's cheaper than dragging it
out through court, and Apple has admitted no wrongdoing. Win win.
On 3/25/2024 8:51 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
Apple admitting no guilt means exactly that
The oddest thing is you actually believe what you just wrote.
On 26 Mar 2024 00:56:29 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
Why do you think Apple settled that half a billion dollar legal case
last week?
The same reason most lawsuits get settled: It's cheaper than dragging
it out through court, and Apple has admitted no wrongdoing. Win win.
Poor little tiny defenseless
Apple repeatedly being forced to settle
On 26 Mar 2024 00:57:34 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
Nah. You trolls are hopelessly fixated on colors: bubble colors,
iPhone colors, the color of your own colons, you're ridiculous
clowns.
all you can think of is bubbles?
On 26 Mar 2024 00:58:45 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
Apple admitted no wrongdoing in each one.
Apple loses in court
Apple admitted no wrongdoing in each one.
Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-03-25 02:45, Anonymous wrote:
Tyrone wrote:
You keep saying that, but it makes no sense. And AGAIN, what laws is
Apple not
abiding? Because YOU don't like Apple does not mean they are
breaking any
laws.
Apple is a consumer products company. They are selling directly to
consumers.
How do you sell consumer products to consumers (who line up to buy
your
products, BTW) AND be "anti-consumer" at the same time?
If Apple truly WAS "anti-consumer", then NO ONE WOULD BUY THE
PRODUCTS. Do you
understand simple logic?
This DOJ case is all based on competitors whining that it is too
difficult for
them to make money selling software/whatever to Apple's customers.
Well boo
hoo. Apple is like 25% of the global market for phones and PCs. Try
selling
your stuff to the 75% of the market.
Or feel free to create your own phones/tablets/desktops/ecosystem
and make
your money from your own products. Not just leeching from other
company's
products.
U.S. anti-trust laws exist to protect consumers. Not competitors.
I'm not a lawyer, but the government can claim that Apple is engaging
in conspiracy to restrain trade and commerce, which is broadly illegal
Apple has plenty of competition.
According to the law, that doesn't matter as far as conspiracy is
concerned.
and does not require Apple to actually be a monopoly. And forget suing;
Tim Cook himself can be arrested and tried criminally for this if the [AAA] <---
government ever decided to actually enforce the law.
ROFL. At least you got the "I'm not a lawyer" part right.
15 U.S. Code § 1:
"Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal. Every person who shall
make
any contract or engage in any combination or conspiracy hereby declared to
be illegal shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $100,000,000 if a corporation, or,
if any other person, $1,000,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1
W Mon, 25 Mar 2024 13:34:00 -0400, Alan Browne napisal:
Tim Cook recently settled a half billion dollar lawsuit for lying to
investors, where Apple's sordid reputation for lying is well founded.
That's spinning facts a little hard with skew salad and misinformation
dressing.
Why do you think Apple settled that half a billion dollar legal case last week?
Alan wrote:
On 2024-03-25 17:18, badgolferman wrote:
Alan wrote:
Apple doesn't sell anything that you cannot buy from some other
company.
Blue bubbles.
Apple doesn't SELL blue bubbles, and any company that wants to
colour their bubbles blue is free to do so.
A 747 just flew over your head.
Nope. You just made up something you THOUGHT was clever.
Blue bubbles refers to the capabilities of iMessage which Apple
protects from competitors. They sell iMessage which no one else but
Apple customers can use.
You said Apple doesn't sell anything you cannot buy from others. I
just gave you the answer. Do you finally understand?
Blue bubbles refers to the capabilities of iMessage which Apple
protects from competitors. They sell iMessage which no one else but
Apple customers can use.
Liar. Signal, WhatsApp, and other iPhone apps/services have similar
features - and they have bigger market share worldwide in some cases
than iMessage. A company is under no obligation to make apps for other platforms.
You said Apple doesn't sell anything you cannot buy from others. I
just gave you the answer. Do you finally understand?
Apple doesn't sell iMessage. It's free with the purchase of any Apple
device. Do you understand the difference, or is nuance too far a leap
for those with troll brains?
Alan wrote:
On 2024-03-25 17:18, badgolferman wrote:
Alan wrote:
Apple doesn't sell anything that you cannot buy from some
other company.
Blue bubbles.
Apple doesn't SELL blue bubbles, and any company that wants to
colour their bubbles blue is free to do so.
A 747 just flew over your head.
Nope. You just made up something you THOUGHT was clever.
Blue bubbles refers to the capabilities of iMessage which Apple
protects from competitors. They sell iMessage which no one else but
Apple customers can use.
You said Apple doesn't sell anything you cannot buy from others. I
just gave you the answer. Do you finally understand?
On this 26 Mar 2024 14:56:16 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
Blue bubbles refers to the capabilities of iMessage which Apple
protects from competitors. They sell iMessage which no one else but
Apple customers can use.
Liar. Signal, WhatsApp, and other iPhone apps/services have similar
features - and they have bigger market share worldwide in some cases
than iMessage. A company is under no obligation to make apps for other
platforms.
I wonder if these Apple deniers have read the 62 pages of the DOJ case? Clearly not because the simplistic argument above is EXACTLY the
argument from Apple that the DOJ had expected, which, since it's so easy
to counter, that the DOJ literally DESTROYED that argument when they
filed their case.
You said Apple doesn't sell anything you cannot buy from others. I
just gave you the answer. Do you finally understand?
Apple doesn't sell iMessage. It's free with the purchase of any Apple
device. Do you understand the difference, or is nuance too far a leap
for those with troll brains?
Again, you seem to not understand the DOJ's case and you do not
understand how an iPhone works in terms of swapping out the default
messaging app.
You know nothing about the case nor about Apple & yet you deny everything.
Alan wrote:
On 2024-03-25 17:18, badgolferman wrote:
Alan wrote:
Apple doesn't sell anything that you cannot buy from some
other company.
Blue bubbles.
Apple doesn't SELL blue bubbles, and any company that wants to
colour their bubbles blue is free to do so.
A 747 just flew over your head.
Nope. You just made up something you THOUGHT was clever.
Blue bubbles refers to the capabilities of iMessage which Apple
protects from competitors. They sell iMessage which no one else but
Apple customers can use.
You said Apple doesn't sell anything you cannot buy from others. I
just gave you the answer. Do you finally understand?
Your Name <[email protected]> wrote:
Almost every company on the planet has their own intellectual property
(IP) that you can't get from any other company ... that's how business
works and always has worked since the year dot (or at least when
trademarks, registration, and copyright was invented). :-\
Maybe so, but I guess the courts will be the ultimate judge of that.
On 2024-03-25 21:16, Anonymous wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-03-25 02:45, Anonymous wrote:
Tyrone wrote:
You keep saying that, but it makes no sense. And AGAIN, what laws is Apple not
abiding? Because YOU don't like Apple does not mean they are breaking any >>>>> laws.
Apple is a consumer products company. They are selling directly to consumers.
How do you sell consumer products to consumers (who line up to buy your
products, BTW) AND be "anti-consumer" at the same time?
If Apple truly WAS "anti-consumer", then NO ONE WOULD BUY THE PRODUCTS. Do you
understand simple logic?
This DOJ case is all based on competitors whining that it is too difficult for
them to make money selling software/whatever to Apple's customers. Well boo
hoo. Apple is like 25% of the global market for phones and PCs. Try selling
your stuff to the 75% of the market.
Or feel free to create your own phones/tablets/desktops/ecosystem and make
your money from your own products. Not just leeching from other company's >>>>> products.
U.S. anti-trust laws exist to protect consumers. Not competitors.
I'm not a lawyer, but the government can claim that Apple is engaging
in conspiracy to restrain trade and commerce, which is broadly illegal
Apple has plenty of competition.
According to the law, that doesn't matter as far as conspiracy is concerned. >>
and does not require Apple to actually be a monopoly. And forget suing; >>>> Tim Cook himself can be arrested and tried criminally for this if the [AAA]
<---
government ever decided to actually enforce the law.
ROFL. At least you got the "I'm not a lawyer" part right.
15 U.S. Code § 1:
"Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or
conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or >> with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make >> any contract or engage in any combination or conspiracy hereby declared to >> be illegal shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, >> shall be punished by fine not exceeding $100,000,000 if a corporation, or, >> if any other person, $1,000,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, >> or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1
That "if a corporation" part sailed right over your head ... [AAA] above
Sheesh. Don't state what you don't understand, and certainly don't quote what
you understand even less.
Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-03-25 21:16, Anonymous wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-03-25 02:45, Anonymous wrote:
Tyrone wrote:Apple has plenty of competition.
You keep saying that, but it makes no sense. And AGAIN, what lawsI'm not a lawyer, but the government can claim that Apple is engaging >>>>> in conspiracy to restrain trade and commerce, which is broadly illegal >>>>
is Apple not
abiding? Because YOU don't like Apple does not mean they are
breaking any
laws.
Apple is a consumer products company. They are selling directly
to consumers.
How do you sell consumer products to consumers (who line up to
buy your
products, BTW) AND be "anti-consumer" at the same time?
If Apple truly WAS "anti-consumer", then NO ONE WOULD BUY THE
PRODUCTS. Do you
understand simple logic?
This DOJ case is all based on competitors whining that it is too
difficult for
them to make money selling software/whatever to Apple's customers. >>>>>> Well boo
hoo. Apple is like 25% of the global market for phones and PCs.
Try selling
your stuff to the 75% of the market.
Or feel free to create your own phones/tablets/desktops/ecosystem
and make
your money from your own products. Not just leeching from other
company's
products.
U.S. anti-trust laws exist to protect consumers. Not competitors. >>>>>
According to the law, that doesn't matter as far as conspiracy is
concerned.
and does not require Apple to actually be a monopoly. And forget
suing;
Tim Cook himself can be arrested and tried criminally for this if
the [AAA] <---
government ever decided to actually enforce the law.
ROFL. At least you got the "I'm not a lawyer" part right.
15 U.S. Code § 1:
"Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or
conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several
States, or
with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal. Every person who
shall make
any contract or engage in any combination or conspiracy hereby
declared to
be illegal shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction
thereof,
shall be punished by fine not exceeding $100,000,000 if a
corporation, or,
if any other person, $1,000,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding 10
years,
or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1
That "if a corporation" part sailed right over your head ... [AAA] above
Sheesh. Don't state what you don't understand, and certainly don't
quote what you understand even less.
You can't throw a corporation in prison, genius.
On 2024-03-26 19:48, Anonymous wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-03-25 21:16, Anonymous wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-03-25 02:45, Anonymous wrote:
Tyrone wrote:Apple has plenty of competition.
You keep saying that, but it makes no sense. And AGAIN, what laws is >>>>>>> Apple notI'm not a lawyer, but the government can claim that Apple is engaging >>>>>> in conspiracy to restrain trade and commerce, which is broadly illegal >>>>>
abiding? Because YOU don't like Apple does not mean they are breaking any
laws.
Apple is a consumer products company. They are selling directly to >>>>>>> consumers.
How do you sell consumer products to consumers (who line up to buy your
products, BTW) AND be "anti-consumer" at the same time?
If Apple truly WAS "anti-consumer", then NO ONE WOULD BUY THE PRODUCTS. >>>>>>> Do you
understand simple logic?
This DOJ case is all based on competitors whining that it is too >>>>>>> difficult for
them to make money selling software/whatever to Apple's customers. Well boo
hoo. Apple is like 25% of the global market for phones and PCs. Try selling
your stuff to the 75% of the market.
Or feel free to create your own phones/tablets/desktops/ecosystem and make
your money from your own products. Not just leeching from other company's
products.
U.S. anti-trust laws exist to protect consumers. Not competitors. >>>>>>
According to the law, that doesn't matter as far as conspiracy is concerned.
and does not require Apple to actually be a monopoly. And forget suing; >>>>>> Tim Cook himself can be arrested and tried criminally for this if the >>>>>> [AAA] <---
government ever decided to actually enforce the law.
ROFL. At least you got the "I'm not a lawyer" part right.
15 U.S. Code § 1:
"Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or
conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or >>>> with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make
any contract or engage in any combination or conspiracy hereby declared to >>>> be illegal shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, >>>> shall be punished by fine not exceeding $100,000,000 if a corporation, or, >>>> if any other person, $1,000,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding 10 years,
or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1
That "if a corporation" part sailed right over your head ... [AAA] above >>>
Sheesh. Don't state what you don't understand, and certainly don't quote >>> what you understand even less.
You can't throw a corporation in prison, genius.
Exactly what I was pointing out, you dunce. I didn't make the assertion that
Tim Cook can be arrested [AAA] above. That was you.
Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-03-26 19:48, Anonymous wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-03-25 21:16, Anonymous wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-03-25 02:45, Anonymous wrote:
Tyrone wrote:
You keep saying that, but it makes no sense. And AGAIN, whatI'm not a lawyer, but the government can claim that Apple is
laws is Apple not
abiding? Because YOU don't like Apple does not mean they are
breaking any
laws.
Apple is a consumer products company. They are selling directly >>>>>>>> to consumers.
How do you sell consumer products to consumers (who line up to >>>>>>>> buy your
products, BTW) AND be "anti-consumer" at the same time?
If Apple truly WAS "anti-consumer", then NO ONE WOULD BUY THE
PRODUCTS. Do you
understand simple logic?
This DOJ case is all based on competitors whining that it is too >>>>>>>> difficult for
them to make money selling software/whatever to Apple's
customers. Well boo
hoo. Apple is like 25% of the global market for phones and PCs. >>>>>>>> Try selling
your stuff to the 75% of the market.
Or feel free to create your own
phones/tablets/desktops/ecosystem and make
your money from your own products. Not just leeching from other >>>>>>>> company's
products.
U.S. anti-trust laws exist to protect consumers. Not competitors. >>>>>>>
engaging
in conspiracy to restrain trade and commerce, which is broadly
illegal
Apple has plenty of competition.
According to the law, that doesn't matter as far as conspiracy is
concerned.
and does not require Apple to actually be a monopoly. And forget >>>>>>> suing;
Tim Cook himself can be arrested and tried criminally for this if >>>>>>> the [AAA] <---
government ever decided to actually enforce the law.
ROFL. At least you got the "I'm not a lawyer" part right.
15 U.S. Code § 1:
"Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or
conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several
States, or
with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal. Every person who
shall make
any contract or engage in any combination or conspiracy hereby
declared to
be illegal shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction
thereof,
shall be punished by fine not exceeding $100,000,000 if a
corporation, or,
if any other person, $1,000,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding
10 years,
or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1
That "if a corporation" part sailed right over your head ... [AAA]
above
Sheesh. Don't state what you don't understand, and certainly don't
quote what you understand even less.
You can't throw a corporation in prison, genius.
Exactly what I was pointing out, you dunce. I didn't make the
assertion that Tim Cook can be arrested [AAA] above. That was you.
Antitrust law applies to INDIVIDUALS as well, and the PLAIN TEXT OF
THE LAW I quoted above says Tim Cook can be thrown in PRISON for up
to TEN YEARS if he, and/or Apple under his direction, engages in
contract, combination or conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce.
Alan wrote:
On 2024-03-26 16:27, badgolferman wrote:
Your Name <[email protected]> wrote:
Almost every company on the planet has their own intellectual
property (IP) that you can't get from any other company ...
that's how business works and always has worked since the year
dot (or at least when trademarks, registration, and copyright was
invented). :-\
Maybe so, but I guess the courts will be the ultimate judge of that.
You're such a cultist that you can't acknowledge that Apple being the
only one allowed to sell what they've created is just normal business?
I think my irony meter just broke!
Which will never happen. While Apple may be found negligent in some
way, they (and Cook) will not be found to be committing criminal
conspiracy in any way.
If this is too confusing for you, I suggest you look up an easy case
such as Enron where deliberate fraud took place (and people ended up in prison).
You really do not understand the paragraph you cited.
On 2024-03-26 22:07, Anonymous wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-03-26 19:48, Anonymous wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-03-25 21:16, Anonymous wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-03-25 02:45, Anonymous wrote:
Tyrone wrote:Apple has plenty of competition.
You keep saying that, but it makes no sense. And AGAIN, what laws is >>>>>>>>> Apple notI'm not a lawyer, but the government can claim that Apple is engaging >>>>>>>> in conspiracy to restrain trade and commerce, which is broadly illegal >>>>>>>
abiding? Because YOU don't like Apple does not mean they are breaking any
laws.
Apple is a consumer products company. They are selling directly to >>>>>>>>> consumers.
How do you sell consumer products to consumers (who line up to buy your
products, BTW) AND be "anti-consumer" at the same time?
If Apple truly WAS "anti-consumer", then NO ONE WOULD BUY THE PRODUCTS.
Do you
understand simple logic?
This DOJ case is all based on competitors whining that it is too >>>>>>>>> difficult for
them to make money selling software/whatever to Apple's customers. Well
boo
hoo. Apple is like 25% of the global market for phones and PCs. Try >>>>>>>>> selling
your stuff to the 75% of the market.
Or feel free to create your own phones/tablets/desktops/ecosystem and make
your money from your own products. Not just leeching from other company's
products.
U.S. anti-trust laws exist to protect consumers. Not competitors. >>>>>>>>
According to the law, that doesn't matter as far as conspiracy is concerned.
and does not require Apple to actually be a monopoly. And forget suing;
Tim Cook himself can be arrested and tried criminally for this if the >>>>>>>> [AAA] <---
government ever decided to actually enforce the law.
ROFL. At least you got the "I'm not a lawyer" part right.
15 U.S. Code § 1:
"Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or >>>>>> conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or
with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make
any contract or engage in any combination or conspiracy hereby declared to
be illegal shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof,
shall be punished by fine not exceeding $100,000,000 if a corporation, or,
if any other person, $1,000,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding 10 years,
or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1
That "if a corporation" part sailed right over your head ... [AAA] above >>>>>
Sheesh. Don't state what you don't understand, and certainly don't quote
what you understand even less.
You can't throw a corporation in prison, genius.
Exactly what I was pointing out, you dunce. I didn't make the assertion that
Tim Cook can be arrested [AAA] above. That was you.
Antitrust law applies to INDIVIDUALS as well, and the PLAIN TEXT OF
THE LAW I quoted above says Tim Cook can be thrown in PRISON for up
to TEN YEARS if he, and/or Apple under his direction, engages in
contract, combination or conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce.
Which will never happen. While Apple may be found negligent in some way, they
(and Cook) will not be found to be committing criminal conspiracy in any way.
If this is too confusing for you, I suggest you look up an easy case such as Enron where deliberate fraud took place (and people ended up in prison).
You really do not understand the paragraph you cited.
Alan Browne wrote on Wed, 27 Mar 2024 14:04:20 -0400 :
Which will never happen. While Apple may be found negligent in some
way, they (and Cook) will not be found to be committing criminal
conspiracy in any way.
If this is too confusing for you, I suggest you look up an easy case
such as Enron where deliberate fraud took place (and people ended up in
prison).
You really do not understand the paragraph you cited.
Apple loses plenty of legal court cases but pays their way out of them.
For example, Apple was criminally charged in Paris, you know. <https://duckduckgo.com/?va=i&t=hb&q=apple+charged+criminal+france+paris+prosecutor>
What's different is Apple paid their way out of it, where the French prosecutors office received the payment in lieu of a guilty plea.
Over just the past few years, Apple has lost so many cases that they've
paid billions of dollars in resulting "settlements" just so that they don't have to publicly admit they are guilty - but in the French case - part of
the deal was Apple had to publicly admit their guilt for 30 days.
One cynical result is that it was the only 30 days in Apple's history that Apple was honest about their many purposeful crimes against the consumer.
Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2024-03-27 07:13, badgolferman wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2024-03-26 16:27, badgolferman wrote:
Your Name <[email protected]> wrote:
Almost every company on the planet has their own intellectual
property (IP) that you can't get from any other company ...
that's how business works and always has worked since the year
dot (or at least when trademarks, registration, and copyright was
invented). :-\
Maybe so, but I guess the courts will be the ultimate judge of that. >>>>>
You're such a cultist that you can't acknowledge that Apple being the
only one allowed to sell what they've created is just normal business?
I think my irony meter just broke!
In what way, sunshine?
See if you can articulate it. I'm betting you can't.
You calling me a cultist! LOL!
Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-03-26 22:07, Anonymous wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-03-26 19:48, Anonymous wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-03-25 21:16, Anonymous wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-03-25 02:45, Anonymous wrote:
Tyrone wrote:
You keep saying that, but it makes no sense. And AGAIN, what >>>>>>>>>> laws is Apple not
abiding? Because YOU don't like Apple does not mean they are >>>>>>>>>> breaking any
laws.
Apple is a consumer products company. They are selling
directly to consumers.
How do you sell consumer products to consumers (who line up >>>>>>>>>> to buy your
products, BTW) AND be "anti-consumer" at the same time?
If Apple truly WAS "anti-consumer", then NO ONE WOULD BUY THE >>>>>>>>>> PRODUCTS. Do you
understand simple logic?
This DOJ case is all based on competitors whining that it is >>>>>>>>>> too difficult for
them to make money selling software/whatever to Apple's
customers. Well boo
hoo. Apple is like 25% of the global market for phones and >>>>>>>>>> PCs. Try selling
your stuff to the 75% of the market.
Or feel free to create your own
phones/tablets/desktops/ecosystem and make
your money from your own products. Not just leeching from
other company's
products.
U.S. anti-trust laws exist to protect consumers. Not
competitors.
I'm not a lawyer, but the government can claim that Apple is >>>>>>>>> engaging
in conspiracy to restrain trade and commerce, which is broadly >>>>>>>>> illegal
Apple has plenty of competition.
According to the law, that doesn't matter as far as conspiracy is >>>>>>> concerned.
and does not require Apple to actually be a monopoly. And
forget suing;
Tim Cook himself can be arrested and tried criminally for this >>>>>>>>> if the [AAA] <---
government ever decided to actually enforce the law.
ROFL. At least you got the "I'm not a lawyer" part right.
15 U.S. Code § 1:
"Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or >>>>>>> conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several
States, or
with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal. Every person who >>>>>>> shall make
any contract or engage in any combination or conspiracy hereby
declared to
be illegal shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction >>>>>>> thereof,
shall be punished by fine not exceeding $100,000,000 if a
corporation, or,
if any other person, $1,000,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding >>>>>>> 10 years,
or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1
That "if a corporation" part sailed right over your head ... [AAA] >>>>>> above
Sheesh. Don't state what you don't understand, and certainly
don't quote what you understand even less.
You can't throw a corporation in prison, genius.
Exactly what I was pointing out, you dunce. I didn't make the
assertion that Tim Cook can be arrested [AAA] above. That was you.
Antitrust law applies to INDIVIDUALS as well, and the PLAIN TEXT OF
THE LAW I quoted above says Tim Cook can be thrown in PRISON for up
to TEN YEARS if he, and/or Apple under his direction, engages in
contract, combination or conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce.
Which will never happen. While Apple may be found negligent in some
way, they (and Cook) will not be found to be committing criminal
conspiracy in any way.
If this is too confusing for you, I suggest you look up an easy case
such as Enron where deliberate fraud took place (and people ended up
in prison).
You really do not understand the paragraph you cited.
No, you don't understand it. Just because the government refuses to
enforce the law as written does not mean it can't, and it certainly
doesn't change the law's meaning. I'm not saying Cook is guilty of conspiracy, but if the government found evidence of such by Apple
under his direction, he could face criminal penalties as an individual.
No, you don't understand it. Just because the government refuses to
enforce the law as written does not mean it can't, and it certainly
doesn't change the law's meaning. I'm not saying Cook is guilty of
conspiracy, but if the government found evidence of such by Apple
under his direction, he could face criminal penalties as an individual.
I understood it all too well. Your weak attempt to paint Cook and Apple
as criminals has fallen apart and now you're in withering retreat mode.
Alan Browne wrote:
No, you don't understand it. Just because the government refuses to
enforce the law as written does not mean it can't, and it certainly
doesn't change the law's meaning. I'm not saying Cook is guilty of
conspiracy, but if the government found evidence of such by Apple
under his direction, he could face criminal penalties as an individual.
I understood it all too well. Your weak attempt to paint Cook and Apple
as criminals has fallen apart and now you're in withering retreat mode.
Apple did settle the fraud case against Tim Cook's statements recently.
A settlement, despite what you think, is a loss because nobody settles who can win the case
Alan Browne wrote:
No, you don't understand it. Just because the government refuses to
enforce the law as written does not mean it can't, and it certainly
doesn't change the law's meaning. I'm not saying Cook is guilty of
conspiracy, but if the government found evidence of such by Apple
under his direction, he could face criminal penalties as an individual.
I understood it all too well. Your weak attempt to paint Cook and
Apple as criminals has fallen apart and now you're in withering
retreat mode.
Apple did settle the fraud case against Tim Cook's statements recently.
A settlement, despite what you think, is a loss because nobody settles who can win the case, and certainly not for half a billion dollars per case.
Jolly Roger wrote:
In the vast majority of
Apple's settlements, they admit no wrongdoing. That's a legal FACT
(something you hate).
This is a perfect example why no one can take you seriously. No one
would settle for half a billion dollars if they were right. Use some
common sense rather than defending Apple to the death. Even nospam
wouldn't go this far.
Alan wrote:
On 2024-03-28 09:24, badgolferman wrote:
Jolly Roger wrote:
In the vast majority of
Apple's settlements, they admit no wrongdoing. That's a legal FACT
(something you hate).
This is a perfect example why no one can take you seriously. No one
would settle for half a billion dollars if they were right. Use
some common sense rather than defending Apple to the death. Even
nospam wouldn't go this far.
Sure they would.
Because there are other costs to consider beyond the cost of winning
the case.
Or hadn't that occurred to you?
What about the cost of their reputation?
Jolly Roger wrote:
In the vast majority of Apple's settlements, they admit no
wrongdoing. That's a legal FACT (something you hate).
This is a perfect example why no one can take you seriously.
No one would settle for half a billion dollars if they were right.
Alan wrote:
On 2024-03-28 09:24, badgolferman wrote:
Jolly Roger wrote:
In the vast majority of Apple's settlements, they admit no
wrongdoing. That's a legal FACT (something you hate).
This is a perfect example why no one can take you seriously. No one
would settle for half a billion dollars if they were right. Use
some common sense rather than defending Apple to the death. Even
nospam wouldn't go this far.
Sure they would.
Because there are other costs to consider beyond the cost of winning
the case.
Or hadn't that occurred to you?
What about the cost of their reputation?
On 2024-03-28 07:38, Indira wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
No, you don't understand it. Just because the government refuses to
enforce the law as written does not mean it can't, and it certainly
doesn't change the law's meaning. I'm not saying Cook is guilty of
conspiracy, but if the government found evidence of such by Apple
under his direction, he could face criminal penalties as an
individual.
I understood it all too well. Your weak attempt to paint Cook and
Apple as criminals has fallen apart and now you're in withering
retreat mode.
Apple did settle the fraud case against Tim Cook's statements
recently.
A settlement, despite what you think, is a loss because nobody
settles who can win the case, and certainly not for half a billion
dollars per case.
Would I settle a case for that much? Certainly not.
But it's all about proportionality, isn't it?
Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2024-03-28 14:56, badgolferman wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2024-03-28 09:24, badgolferman wrote:
Jolly Roger wrote:
In the vast majority of
Apple's settlements, they admit no wrongdoing. That's a legal FACT >>>>>> (something you hate).
This is a perfect example why no one can take you seriously. No one >>>>> would settle for half a billion dollars if they were right. Use
some common sense rather than defending Apple to the death. Even
nospam wouldn't go this far.
Sure they would.
Because there are other costs to consider beyond the cost of winning
the case.
Or hadn't that occurred to you?
What about the cost of their reputation?
My, my...
...you got it...
...but don't understand it.
:-)
Yeah, I guess it’s better to let people think you’re hiding something and guilty than for a court to find you hiding something and be guilty.
What about the cost of their reputation?
If you cared about reputation, you wouldn't be here trolling day in and
day out and getting your asses handed to you. Also, reputation isn't
what matters in a court of law. That's not how it works in the real
world.
This is a perfect example why no one can take you seriously.
Plenty take me seriously - and you're projecting: nobody takes *you* seriously, because all you do here is troll and defend trolls.
No one would settle for half a billion dollars if they were right.
Wrong. Corporations settle all of the time without admitting wrongdoing.
In these cases, in the eyes of the law, legally Apple has done nothing
wrong. Your continuous cries about it mean nothing in the real world.
On 2024-03-27 20:01, Anonymous wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-03-26 22:07, Anonymous wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-03-26 19:48, Anonymous wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-03-25 21:16, Anonymous wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-03-25 02:45, Anonymous wrote:
Tyrone wrote:
You keep saying that, but it makes no sense. And AGAIN, what laws isI'm not a lawyer, but the government can claim that Apple is engaging
Apple not
abiding? Because YOU don't like Apple does not mean they are breaking
any
laws.
Apple is a consumer products company. They are selling directly to
consumers.
How do you sell consumer products to consumers (who line up to buy
your
products, BTW) AND be "anti-consumer" at the same time?
If Apple truly WAS "anti-consumer", then NO ONE WOULD BUY THE >>>>>>>>>>> PRODUCTS. Do you
understand simple logic?
This DOJ case is all based on competitors whining that it is too >>>>>>>>>>> difficult for
them to make money selling software/whatever to Apple's customers. >>>>>>>>>>> Well boo
hoo. Apple is like 25% of the global market for phones and PCs. Try >>>>>>>>>>> selling
your stuff to the 75% of the market.
Or feel free to create your own phones/tablets/desktops/ecosystem and
make
your money from your own products. Not just leeching from other >>>>>>>>>>> company's
products.
U.S. anti-trust laws exist to protect consumers. Not competitors. >>>>>>>>>>
in conspiracy to restrain trade and commerce, which is broadly illegal
Apple has plenty of competition.
According to the law, that doesn't matter as far as conspiracy is >>>>>>>> concerned.
and does not require Apple to actually be a monopoly. And forget suing;
Tim Cook himself can be arrested and tried criminally for this if the
[AAA] <---
government ever decided to actually enforce the law.
ROFL. At least you got the "I'm not a lawyer" part right.
15 U.S. Code § 1:
"Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or >>>>>>>> conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or
with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal. Every person who shall
make
any contract or engage in any combination or conspiracy hereby declared to
be illegal shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof,
shall be punished by fine not exceeding $100,000,000 if a corporation, or,
if any other person, $1,000,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding 10 years,
or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1
That "if a corporation" part sailed right over your head ... [AAA] above
Sheesh. Don't state what you don't understand, and certainly don't quote
what you understand even less.
You can't throw a corporation in prison, genius.
Exactly what I was pointing out, you dunce. I didn't make the assertion >>>>> that Tim Cook can be arrested [AAA] above. That was you.
Antitrust law applies to INDIVIDUALS as well, and the PLAIN TEXT OF
THE LAW I quoted above says Tim Cook can be thrown in PRISON for up
to TEN YEARS if he, and/or Apple under his direction, engages in
contract, combination or conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce.
Which will never happen. While Apple may be found negligent in some way, >>> they (and Cook) will not be found to be committing criminal conspiracy in any
way.
If this is too confusing for you, I suggest you look up an easy case such as
Enron where deliberate fraud took place (and people ended up in prison). >>>
You really do not understand the paragraph you cited.
No, you don't understand it. Just because the government refuses to
enforce the law as written does not mean it can't, and it certainly
doesn't change the law's meaning. I'm not saying Cook is guilty of
conspiracy, but if the government found evidence of such by Apple
under his direction, he could face criminal penalties as an individual.
I understood it all too well.
Jolly Roger wrote:
What about the cost of their reputation?
If you cared about reputation, you wouldn't be here trolling day in and
day out and getting your asses handed to you. Also, reputation isn't
what matters in a court of law. That's not how it works in the real
world.
blah blah blah half a billion dollars blah blah blah
Jolly Roger wrote:
This is a perfect example why no one can take you seriously.
Plenty take me seriously - and you're projecting: nobody takes *you*
seriously, because all you do here is troll and defend trolls.
Nobody but you thinks paying a half billion dollars is "winning" a case.
Alan wrote:
Yeah, I guess it’s better to let people think you’re hiding
something and guilty than for a court to find you hiding something
and be guilty.
It's better with the vast majority of people to get out of the news
cycle.
A tiny minority will "think you're hiding something".
The rest won't just not care: they won't even be aware.
Yes, they won't be aware you're hiding something.
Alan wrote:
Yeah, I guess it’s better to let people think you’re hiding
something and guilty than for a court to find you hiding something
and be guilty.
It's better with the vast majority of people to get out of the news
cycle.
A tiny minority will "think you're hiding something".
The rest won't just not care: they won't even be aware.
Yes, they won't be aware you're hiding something.
Unfortunately for Apple it looks like their game has been exposed and
more people are aware of what they're doing. Even you have admitted so
much without actually saying it.
On 2024-03-29, Indira <[email protected]> wrote:
blah blah blah half a billion dollars blah blah blah
Apple rakes in almost 1 million dollars a minute.
Jolly Roger <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2024-03-29, Indira <[email protected]> wrote:
Jolly Roger wrote:
What about the cost of their reputation?
If you cared about reputation, you wouldn't be here trolling day in and >>>> day out and getting your asses handed to you. Also, reputation isn't
what matters in a court of law. That's not how it works in the real
world.
blah blah blah half a billion dollars blah blah blah
Apple rakes in almost 1 million dollars a minute.
Many successful businesses have chased the dollar and put out defective or lower quality products. Just look at Boeing.
On 2024-03-29 16:10:55 +0000, Blueshirt said:
Jolly Roger wrote:
On 2024-03-29, Indira <[email protected]> wrote:
blah blah blah half a billion dollars blah blah blah
Apple rakes in almost 1 million dollars a minute.
And that's the problem some people have... Apple make too much
money. It's a kind of jealousy.
Which is the *sole* real reason for all these idiotic lawsuits.� :-\
Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-03-27 20:01, Anonymous wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-03-26 22:07, Anonymous wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:Which will never happen. While Apple may be found negligent in some
On 2024-03-26 19:48, Anonymous wrote:Antitrust law applies to INDIVIDUALS as well, and the PLAIN TEXT OF
Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-03-25 21:16, Anonymous wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-03-25 02:45, Anonymous wrote:
Tyrone wrote:
You keep saying that, but it makes no sense. And AGAIN, what >>>>>>>>>>>> laws is Apple not
abiding? Because YOU don't like Apple does not mean they are >>>>>>>>>>>> breaking any
laws.
Apple is a consumer products company. They are selling >>>>>>>>>>>> directly to consumers.
How do you sell consumer products to consumers (who line >>>>>>>>>>>> up to buy your
products, BTW) AND be "anti-consumer" at the same time? >>>>>>>>>>>>
If Apple truly WAS "anti-consumer", then NO ONE WOULD BUY >>>>>>>>>>>> THE PRODUCTS. Do you
understand simple logic?
This DOJ case is all based on competitors whining that it is >>>>>>>>>>>> too difficult for
them to make money selling software/whatever to Apple's >>>>>>>>>>>> customers. Well boo
hoo. Apple is like 25% of the global market for phones and >>>>>>>>>>>> PCs. Try selling
your stuff to the 75% of the market.
Or feel free to create your own
phones/tablets/desktops/ecosystem and make
your money from your own products. Not just leeching from >>>>>>>>>>>> other company's
products.
U.S. anti-trust laws exist to protect consumers. Not >>>>>>>>>>>> competitors.
I'm not a lawyer, but the government can claim that Apple is >>>>>>>>>>> engaging
in conspiracy to restrain trade and commerce, which is
broadly illegal
Apple has plenty of competition.
According to the law, that doesn't matter as far as conspiracy >>>>>>>>> is concerned.
15 U.S. Code § 1:and does not require Apple to actually be a monopoly. And >>>>>>>>>>> forget suing;
Tim Cook himself can be arrested and tried criminally for >>>>>>>>>>> this if the [AAA] <---
government ever decided to actually enforce the law.
ROFL. At least you got the "I'm not a lawyer" part right. >>>>>>>>>
"Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or >>>>>>>>> conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several >>>>>>>>> States, or
with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal. Every person >>>>>>>>> who shall make
any contract or engage in any combination or conspiracy hereby >>>>>>>>> declared to
be illegal shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on
conviction thereof,
shall be punished by fine not exceeding $100,000,000 if a
corporation, or,
if any other person, $1,000,000, or by imprisonment not
exceeding 10 years,
or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court." >>>>>>>>>
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1
That "if a corporation" part sailed right over your head ...
[AAA] above
Sheesh. Don't state what you don't understand, and certainly >>>>>>>> don't quote what you understand even less.
You can't throw a corporation in prison, genius.
Exactly what I was pointing out, you dunce. I didn't make the
assertion that Tim Cook can be arrested [AAA] above. That was you. >>>>>
THE LAW I quoted above says Tim Cook can be thrown in PRISON for up
to TEN YEARS if he, and/or Apple under his direction, engages in
contract, combination or conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce. >>>>
way, they (and Cook) will not be found to be committing criminal
conspiracy in any way.
If this is too confusing for you, I suggest you look up an easy case
such as Enron where deliberate fraud took place (and people ended up
in prison).
You really do not understand the paragraph you cited.
No, you don't understand it. Just because the government refuses to
enforce the law as written does not mean it can't, and it certainly
doesn't change the law's meaning. I'm not saying Cook is guilty of
conspiracy, but if the government found evidence of such by Apple
under his direction, he could face criminal penalties as an individual.
I understood it all too well.
No you didn't, Gamma boy.
Jolly Roger wrote:
On 2024-03-29, Indira <[email protected]> wrote:
blah blah blah half a billion dollars blah blah blah
Apple rakes in almost 1 million dollars a minute.
And that's the problem some people have... Apple make too much
money. It's a kind of jealousy.
This is a perfect example why no one can take you seriously.
Plenty take me seriously - and you're projecting: nobody takes *you*
seriously, because all you do here is troll and defend trolls.
Nobody but you thinks paying a half billion dollars is "winning" a case.
Both sides settled and in the eyes of the law Apple admitted no
wrongdoing. You *hate* this fact.
No, you don't understand it. Just because the government refuses toI understood it all too well.
enforce the law as written does not mean it can't, and it certainly
doesn't change the law's meaning. I'm not saying Cook is guilty of
conspiracy, but if the government found evidence of such by Apple
under his direction, he could face criminal penalties as an individual. >>>
No you didn't, Gamma boy.
I did. I pointed out where you were over projecting. And then you
attempt to own that. Pathetic. Weak. F-off.
Jolly Roger wrote:
This is a perfect example why no one can take you seriously.
Plenty take me seriously - and you're projecting: nobody takes
*you* seriously, because all you do here is troll and defend
trolls.
Nobody but you thinks paying a half billion dollars is "winning" a
case.
Both sides settled and in the eyes of the law Apple admitted no
wrongdoing. You *hate* this fact.
Nobody but you irrational religious nut jobs believes having to pay
for about 5 brand new Francis Scott Key bridges is "winning" that
fraud case.
This is a perfect example why no one can take you seriously.
Plenty take me seriously - and you're projecting: nobody takes
*you* seriously, because all you do here is troll and defend
trolls.
Nobody but you thinks paying a half billion dollars is "winning" a
case.
Both sides settled and in the eyes of the law Apple admitted no
wrongdoing. You *hate* this fact.
Nobody but you irrational religious nut jobs believes having to pay
for about 5 brand new Francis Scott Key bridges is "winning" that
fraud case.
Neither side won, neither side lost. That's what a settlement means in
the eyes of the law. In the eyes of the law, Apple admitted no
wrongdoing, and you *hate* that fact. Only you irrational Apple haters believe otherwise. Your outright jealously forces you to view
everything related to Apple through shit-colored glasses.
Your Name wrote:
On 2024-03-29 16:10:55 +0000, Blueshirt said:
Jolly Roger wrote:
On 2024-03-29, Indira <[email protected]> wrote:
blah blah blah half a billion dollars blah blah blah
Apple rakes in almost 1 million dollars a minute.
And that's the problem some people have... Apple make too much
money. It's a kind of jealousy.
Which is the *sole* real reason for all these idiotic lawsuits.� :-\
There may be a few that don't like the fact that apple makes and sells disposable items.
They're picking on
Apple simply because Apple has a huge bank balance and they all
greedily want to try to grab a piece of it for themselves.
On Sat, 30 Mar 2024 18:57:41 +1300, Your Name wrote:
They're picking on
Apple simply because Apple has a huge bank balance and they all
greedily want to try to grab a piece of it for themselves.
The reason for Apple losing all these lawsuits is Apple is unethical.
Do you seriously think the recent settling with Apple for half a billion dollars worth of outright fraud, is the DOJ "picking on poor old Apple"?
Poor Apple commits fraud and has to pay a half billion dollars as a result.
They're picking on
Apple simply because Apple has a huge bank balance and they all
greedily want to try to grab a piece of it for themselves.
The reason for Apple losing all these lawsuits is Apple is unethical.
Do you seriously think the recent settling with Apple for half a billion
dollars worth of outright fraud, is the DOJ "picking on poor old Apple"?
Poor Apple commits fraud and has to pay a half billion dollars as a result. >>
Poor trump has the same problem.
Both sides settled and in the eyes of the law Apple admitted no
wrongdoing. You *hate* this fact.
Nobody but you irrational religious nut jobs believes having to pay
for about 5 brand new Francis Scott Key bridges is "winning" that
fraud case.
Neither side won, neither side lost. That's what a settlement means in
the eyes of the law. In the eyes of the law, Apple admitted no
wrongdoing, and you *hate* that fact. Only you irrational Apple haters
believe otherwise. Your outright jealously forces you to view
everything related to Apple through shit-colored glasses.
When you hand over millions of dollars you�ve already lost, especially in
the eyes of public opinion.
irrational
religious
nut job
The fact Apple loses all these cases shows they are an unethical company.
Let's just say what you claim is true. What next?
Do you want people to agree with you or do you want Apple to fall apart?
Please describe your goal here.
Schoolyard insults are all you have, kiddo.
Maybe Microsoft learned their lesson when they got smacked on the hand for their unethical behavior.
Ken Blake <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 30 Mar 2024 18:57:41 +1300, Your Name wrote:
They're picking on Apple simply because Apple has a huge bank balance
and they all greedily want to try to grab a piece of it for themselves.
The reason for Apple losing all these lawsuits is Apple is unethical.
Do you seriously think the recent settling with Apple for half a billion
dollars worth of outright fraud, is the DOJ "picking on poor old Apple"?
Poor Apple commits fraud and has to pay a half billion dollars as a result.
Poor trump has the same problem.
On Sat, 30 Mar 2024 18:57:41 +1300, Your Name wrote:
They're picking on Apple simply because Apple has a huge bank balance
and they all greedily want to try to grab a piece of it for themselves.
The reason for Apple losing all these lawsuits is Apple is unethical.
Do you seriously think the recent settling with Apple for half a billion dollars worth of outright fraud, is the DOJ "picking on poor old Apple"?
Poor Apple commits fraud and has to pay a half billion dollars as a result.
On 30 Mar 2024 08:22:22 GMT, Hank Rogers wrote:
Poor trump has the same problem.They're picking on
Apple simply because Apple has a huge bank balance and they all
greedily want to try to grab a piece of it for themselves.
The reason for Apple losing all these lawsuits is Apple is unethical.
Do you seriously think the recent settling with Apple for half a billion >>> dollars worth of outright fraud, is the DOJ "picking on poor old Apple"? >>>
Poor Apple commits fraud and has to pay a half billion dollars as a result. >>
Yes. Exactly. Every Trump crazy says poor old Trump is being picked on by
the people who enforce our laws and then when he loses, he blames them.
Just like all those Apple crazies do when Apple loses its fraud cases.
To them, since Apple paid a half billion dollars for the privilege of not admitting guilt, to those crazies, that means Apple was wholly innocent.
On 2024-03-30 15:14:45 +0000, Ken Blake said:
On 30 Mar 2024 08:22:22 GMT, Hank Rogers wrote:
They're picking on
Apple simply because Apple has a huge bank balance and they all
greedily want to try to grab a piece of it for themselves.
The reason for Apple losing all these lawsuits is Apple is unethical.
Do you seriously think the recent settling with Apple for half a billion >>>> dollars worth of outright fraud, is the DOJ "picking on poor old Apple"? >>>>
Poor Apple commits fraud and has to pay a half billion dollars as a
result.
Poor trump has the same problem.
Yes. Exactly. Every Trump crazy says poor old Trump is being picked on by
the people who enforce our laws and then when he loses, he blames them.
Just like all those Apple crazies do when Apple loses its fraud cases.
To them, since Apple paid a half billion dollars for the privilege of not
admitting guilt, to those crazies, that means Apple was wholly innocent.
"Innocent until proven guilty" ... since Apple (or any other company)
wasn't actually found guilty in the court, then they have to be presumed to be innocent. As others have said, an out-of-court settlement is more
usually simply the cheapest way to stop the morons who are suing them -
it's not worth wasting billions of dollars in an on-going court case with numerous appeals when you can pay a couple of million and that's it.
The reality is that anyone with more than one braincell knows the sole
reason for most of these idiotic court cases is just some greedy moron
trying to grab some money for themselves from a big company. How many "winners" donate all the money to charities?? Pretty much none of them at all. It's no different to some homeless person throwing themselves in front of a rich guy's Rolls Royce and then claiming they were run over.
On 2024-03-30 08:22:22 +0000, Hank Rogers said:
Ken Blake <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 30 Mar 2024 18:57:41 +1300, Your Name wrote:Poor trump has the same problem.
They're picking on Apple simply because Apple has a huge bank balanceThe reason for Apple losing all these lawsuits is Apple is unethical.
and they all greedily want to try to grab a piece of it for themselves. >>>
Do you seriously think the recent settling with Apple for half a billion >>> dollars worth of outright fraud, is the DOJ "picking on poor old Apple"? >>>
Poor Apple commits fraud and has to pay a half billion dollars as a result. >>
Except Trump *is* a complete moron who is solely responsible for all his
lies and activities.� :-p
"Innocent until proven guilty" ... since Apple (or any other company)
wasn't actually found guilty in the court, then they have to be presumed to >> be innocent. As others have said, an out-of-court settlement is more
usually simply the cheapest way to stop the morons who are suing them -
it's not worth wasting billions of dollars in an on-going court case with
numerous appeals when you can pay a couple of million and that's it.
The reality is that anyone with more than one braincell knows the sole
reason for most of these idiotic court cases is just some greedy moron
trying to grab some money for themselves from a big company. How many
"winners" donate all the money to charities?? Pretty much none of them at
all. It's no different to some homeless person throwing themselves in front >> of a rich guy's Rolls Royce and then claiming they were run over.
You're right. Poor Apple.
The reason for Apple losing all these lawsuits is Apple is unethical.
Do you seriously think the recent settling with Apple for half a billion >>>> dollars worth of outright fraud, is the DOJ "picking on poor old Apple"? >>>>
Poor Apple commits fraud and has to pay a half billion dollars as a result.
Poor trump has the same problem.
Except Trump *is* a complete moron who is solely responsible for all his
lies and activities.� :-p
Maybe he could team up with apple and both would benefit. Maybe a new
ORANGE iphone!
The reason for Apple losing all these lawsuits is Apple is unethical.
Do you seriously think the recent settling with Apple for half a billion
dollars worth of outright fraud, is the DOJ "picking on poor old Apple"?
Poor Apple commits fraud and has to pay a half billion dollars as a result.
If you lok hard enough, you'll find every "big business" company on the planet "commits fraud" to some degree ... it's often called "marketing"
where they tell "white lies". More usually it's simply a mistake due to having so many employees that nobody really knows what is goping on everywhere.
The most obvious example is in sales days where the business usually
says "up to 50% off storewide", but when you go into thre store most
things are only 10% reduced with one or two items that they have had
trouble selling are reduced by "50%" ... from the original
manufacturer's suggested retail price, rather than the actual price the
store was selling it for the previous day.
On Sun, 31 Mar 2024 10:44:42 +1300, Your Name wrote:
The reason for Apple losing all these lawsuits is Apple is unethical.If you lok hard enough, you'll find every "big business" company on the
Do you seriously think the recent settling with Apple for half a billion >>> dollars worth of outright fraud, is the DOJ "picking on poor old Apple"? >>>
Poor Apple commits fraud and has to pay a half billion dollars as a result. >>
planet "commits fraud" to some degree ... it's often called "marketing"
where they tell "white lies". More usually it's simply a mistake due to
having so many employees that nobody really knows what is goping on
everywhere.
The most obvious example is in sales days where the business usually
says "up to 50% off storewide", but when you go into thre store most
things are only 10% reduced with one or two items that they have had
trouble selling are reduced by "50%" ... from the original
manufacturer's suggested retail price, rather than the actual price the
store was selling it for the previous day.
You believe Trump (and Apple) when they say it's normal to commit Fraud.
Then, you complain (like Trump does) that the courts are out to get him.
It's scary how your brain works as people like you are who voted for Trump.
Jolly Roger <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2024-03-30, Indira <[email protected]> wrote:
Jolly Roger wrote:
This is a perfect example why no one can take you seriously.
Plenty take me seriously - and you're projecting: nobody takes
*you* seriously, because all you do here is troll and defend
trolls.
Nobody but you thinks paying a half billion dollars is "winning" a
case.
Both sides settled and in the eyes of the law Apple admitted no
wrongdoing. You *hate* this fact.
Nobody but you irrational religious nut jobs believes having to pay
for about 5 brand new Francis Scott Key bridges is "winning" that
fraud case.
Neither side won, neither side lost. That's what a settlement means in
the eyes of the law. In the eyes of the law, Apple admitted no
wrongdoing, and you *hate* that fact. Only you irrational Apple haters
believe otherwise. Your outright jealously forces you to view
everything related to Apple through shit-colored glasses.
When you hand over millions of dollars you’ve already lost, especially in the eyes of public opinion.
Alan Browne wrote:
No, you don't understand it. Just because the government refuses to
enforce the law as written does not mean it can't, and it certainly
doesn't change the law's meaning. I'm not saying Cook is guilty of
conspiracy, but if the government found evidence of such by Apple
under his direction, he could face criminal penalties as an
individual.
I understood it all too well.
No you didn't, Gamma boy.
I did. I pointed out where you were over projecting. And then you
attempt to own that. Pathetic. Weak. F-off.
Anyone else notice that every time these immature childish Apple religious nut jobs loses an argument, they IMMEDIATELY turn to 3rd grade insults?
Every one of the Apple religious nut jobs does it, whether that's Alan Browne, Alan Baker, Jolly Roger, Your Name, Hemactylus, Peter Piper.
They're immature children who know NOTHING about Apple products because
they bought Apple on the religious merit alone of being in the crowd.
Your Name wrote:
On 2024-03-29 16:10:55 +0000, Blueshirt said:
Jolly Roger wrote:
On 2024-03-29, Indira <[email protected]> wrote:
blah blah blah half a billion dollars blah blah blah
Apple rakes in almost 1 million dollars a minute.
And that's the problem some people have... Apple make too much
money. It's a kind of jealousy.
Which is the *sole* real reason for all these idiotic lawsuits. :-\
There may be a few that don't like the fact that apple makes and sells disposable items.
On Sat, 30 Mar 2024 18:57:41 +1300, Your Name wrote:
They're picking on
Apple simply because Apple has a huge bank balance and they all
greedily want to try to grab a piece of it for themselves.
The reason for Apple losing all these lawsuits is Apple is unethical.
Do you seriously think the recent settling with Apple for half a billion dollars worth of outright fraud, is the DOJ "picking on poor old Apple"?
Poor Apple commits fraud and has to pay a half billion dollars as a result.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 08:23:12 |
| Calls: | 12,100 |
| Files: | 15,003 |
| Messages: | 6,517,952 |