On 2024-03-23 05:18:23 +0000, Tyrone said:

> On Mar 22, 2024 at 10:23:22 AM EDT, "Oliver" <ollie@invalid.net> 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?

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.

Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
> On 2024-03-22 17:47, Oliver wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 19:47:02 -0400, Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com>
>> 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.
>
> Apple doesn't sell anything that you cannot buy from some other company.
>

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.

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.

Apple's overarching business strategy of lying until they get caught has
worked out for them just as well as it has done so for the drug companies.

Apple knows they can pay their way out of any lawsuit for their
anti-consumer actions, which is why Apple loses so many of these suits.

On Sat, 23 Mar 2024 18:23:05 +1300, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> 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.

Oliver wrote:

> On Sat, 23 Mar 2024 18:23:05 +1300, Your Name
> <YourName@YourISP.com> 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.

Some might say that's how big companies make their money... and
become BIG companies!

When the bottom line is $$ no company becomes big and successful
by being nice! (Despite what their PR depts would have everyone
believe of course.) And I'd apply that to all of them,
Apple/Google/Meta/Microsoft... (etc.)

On 2024-03-22 20:47, Oliver wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 19:47:02 -0400, Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com>
> 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.

That is a very weak comparison, but then that suits your Apple
Derangement Syndrome.

This antitrust case is driven by profit desires of other companies, not
by Apple clients.

--
“Markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent.”
- John Maynard Keynes.

On 2024-03-23 08:03, Jan K. wrote:
> 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.

You and Oliver have to go to absurd comparisons to attempt to make your
case.

You both fail. A lot.

This suit against Apple is driven by other companies hungry for a slice
of Apple's pie and it is certainly not driven by Apple clients, nor for
a desire to do right by them.

--
“Markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent.”
- John Maynard Keynes.

On 2024-03-23 08:04, Oliver wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Mar 2024 18:23:05 +1300, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> 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.

They make far more money because they deliver a superior experience to
their users. Notably across devices from Apple, aka: the Apple eco-system.

--
“Markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent.”
- John Maynard Keynes.

On Mar 23, 2024 at 8:04:08 AM EDT, "Oliver" <ollie@invalid.net> wrote:

> On Sat, 23 Mar 2024 18:23:05 +1300, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> 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.

On 2024-03-23 17:09:06 +0000, Tyrone said:

> On Mar 23, 2024 at 8:04:08 AM EDT, "Oliver" <ollie@invalid.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 23 Mar 2024 18:23:05 +1300, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> 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.

Epic wants to sell to Apple users on Apple's App Store, but don't want
to pay for doing so.

Epic has now opened it's own App Store, and guess what ... they charge
people to sell apps on it and basically the same price Apple does.
Purely two-faced greedy stupidity. :-\

Plus, if you look on Epic's game store, there is very little there for
Apple Mac computers (whether that is because they simply don't have
many Apple compatible games or whether they pulled the Apple versions
out of spite is an unknown).

On 2024-03-23, badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>> On 2024-03-22 17:47, Oliver wrote:
>>> On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 19:47:02 -0400, Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Apple doesn't sell anything that you cannot buy from some other company.
>
> Blue bubbles.

Again, the troll betrays that he's the one who actually cares about
the colors of bubbles and iPhones.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

Tyrone wrote:
> On Mar 23, 2024 at 8:04:08 AM EDT, "Oliver" <ollie@invalid.net> wrote:

[snipped Arlen's trolling of the iPhone newsgroup]

> Do you understand simple logic?

"Oliver" (a.k.a "Jan K." a.k.a. Arlen) understands that by trolling this
newsgroup he can get the social interaction which his "neurodiverse"
condition will not allow him to get normally. Your reply tells him that
trolling is successful, and to get that social interaction he should
keep trolling. Do *you* understand that simple logic?

[snipped more troll-feeding]

Some of Arlen's recent nyms:

- Andrew
- Bill Powell
- Bradley
- Gunther F
- Harry S Robins
- "Jan K."
- Oliver
- Patrick
- Ronald
- Sten deJoode

On Sat, 23 Mar 2024 17:09:06 +0000, Tyrone <none@none.none> wrote

>> 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.

That you think this is only about people who like Apple allowing Apple to
break any laws Apple wants to break simply because they happen to like
Apple products, makes no sense.

Nor does your claim that people who want Apple to follow the laws must not
like Apple, also makes no sense.

What your claims indicate is you have no argument based on any of the facts
as your entire argument hinges on you allowing Apple to break any laws
Apple wants to break simply because you happen to enjoy Apple's products.

> 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.

The DOJ is not an Apple competitor, and your claim that it is, is absurd.

> U.S. anti-trust laws exist to protect consumers. Not competitors.

Again, you just made a wild claim that the DOJ is a competitor of Apple,
and in the next breath you said the DOJ is not a competitor of Apple.

None of your claims make any sense as they're all over the map emotionally.

> 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.

By your own argument, if you choose to fly Boeing planes, it's your fault,
not Boeings, that the door plugs and wheels fall off the plane because
Boeing is immune to the laws simply because you happen to like their
planes.

Your arguments are absurd that simply liking a company's product means the
company making that product doesn't have to follow any laws in selling it.

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.

On 2024-03-24 20:50:50 +0000, Mickey D said:
> 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.

I never said it was. Epic's greedily pathetic lawsuit was the previous
(and still going) legal stoush against Apple.

> 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 2024-03-24 23:49:08 +0000, Mickey D said:

> 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.

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.

Tyrone wrote:
> On Mar 23, 2024 at 8:04:08 AM EDT, "Oliver" <ollie@invalid.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 23 Mar 2024 18:23:05 +1300, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> 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.

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.

>>> 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.

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.

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 2024-03-25, Mickey D <mickeydavis078XX@ptd.net> wrote:
> 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.

Wrong. In each of those cases both sides settled, and Apple admitted no
wrongdoing. Your trolls are as weak as your intellect.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

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.

--
“Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first;
nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first.”
- Charles de Gaulle.

On 2024-03-25 03:45, Jan K. wrote:

> 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.

--
“Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first;
nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first.”
- Charles de Gaulle.

On 2024-03-23 03:11, badgolferman wrote:
> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>> On 2024-03-22 17:47, Oliver wrote:
>>> On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 19:47:02 -0400, Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com>
>>> 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.
>>
>> 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.

Try again.