On 2024-03-23 04:56, Sten deJoode wrote:
> 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.

I have not made any such argument, Arlen

>
> 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 2024-03-23 05:04, 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.

How have they broken the law, Arlen?

On 2024-03-24 13:50, Mickey D wrote:
> 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.

Not is the difference between "not about" and "all about"...

On 2024-03-25 07:38:32 +0000, Mickey D said:
> 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.

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.

>>>> 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.

Apple has NOT broken any laws.

If this moronic new lawsuit stupidly decides they have, then you can
kiss goodbye to ANY company ever being able to have protected products
again, and many companies will simply not bother doing anything new or
even shut the doors completely.

>> 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 has zero understanding of business or tech. It's simply acting
on the greedy whining of Epic and co. What Apple does is no different
to any other big business.

> 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.

"The law is an ass" ... especially in western countries, and even more
so with America's "sue 'em all" mentallity.

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.

> 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 if the morons in the courts decide against Apple, you can kiss
goodbye to every big business company ever bothering to do anything
again. :-\

>> 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?

Only braindead morons, anti-Apple nutters, conpiracy loonies, and
trolls believe there have been any "lies" or "laws broken".

Your Name wrote:
> 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.
>

I agree. And the saddest part is that all these bastards get away with it
every time, while poor, honest, generous, faithful apple get's shit on
every damn time.

We should begin taking up a collection to help pay for all their fines.

Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> 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.

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.

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

Projection from a foolish troll.

> if you think Apple settling all these billion dollar lawsuits means
> Apple wasn't found guilty as charged.

They weren't "billion dollar lawsuits", as the settlements were for
*much* less than that. I know you mental weaklings think people will
just skim past your lies, but that's not happening here. And Apple
admitting no guilt means exactly that, dumb dumb.

--
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, Jan K. <janicekoziol@nie.ma.spamu.prosze.com> wrote:
> 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?

The same reason most lawsuits get settled: It's cheaper than dragging it
out through court, and Apple has admitted no wrongdoing. Win win.

--
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 2024-03-26, badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> 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.

Nah. You trolls are hopelessly fixated on colors: bubble colors, iPhone
colors, the color of your own colons, you're ridiculous clowns.

--
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, Peter <confused@nospam.net> wrote:
> Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> 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

That's a lie. Both sides settled, and Apple admitted no wrongdoing in
each one.

--
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

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
>> 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

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.

On 2024-03-25 16:10, Mickey D wrote:
> 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.

Name a "heinous" case that was settled like that.

On 2024-03-25 16:07, Peter wrote:
> Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> 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.

Such as...

Don't name a law without naming the act and HOW it breaks that law.

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.

The DOJ alleges Apple broke the law and all you can think of is bubbles?

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 00:58:45 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

> Apple admitted no wrongdoing in each one.

Every time Apple loses in court, it's another half a billion dollars
proving that the only time Apple ever tells the truth is in court.

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 half a
billion dollar legal cases simply because Apple constantly breaks the law.

On 2024-03-26, Larry Wolff <larrywolff@larrywolff.net> wrote:
> 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.

Legally, it's exactly what it means.

Cry harder.

--
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 2024-03-26, Sten deJoode <StendeJood@nospam.net> 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

Childish insults are all you have.

> Apple repeatedly being forced to settle

Both sides settle. That's how lawsuits work, dingus.

--
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 2024-03-26, Nick Cine <nickcine@is.invalid> wrote:
> 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?

Projection from the loser troll gang.

--
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