On 2024-03-26, Sten deJoode <StendeJood@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 26 Mar 2024 00:58:45 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>> Apple admitted no wrongdoing in each one.
>
> Apple loses in court

Both side settled. Apple admitted no wrongdoing.

--
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 26 Mar 2024 03:04:11 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

>>> Apple admitted no wrongdoing in each one.
>>
>> Apple loses in court
>
> Both side settled. Apple admitted no wrongdoing.

Since Apple commits these half-billion-dollar crimes all the time, Apple's
coffers simply allow Apple to repetitively commit crimes against the
consumer as part of Apple's fundamental anti-consumer business model.

On 26 Mar 2024 03:03:40 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:23:03

>>> 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.

Nobody but the strange Apple religious zealots ever said the Justice
Department case had anything to do with colors - and yet you actually think
the DOJ case has only to do with the colors and not to the stated fact
Apple broke the law.

Your insistence that it's all about colors clearly shows hows how your
religious zealotry causes you to be unable to form any adult thought
process in terms of understanding what the DOJ suit is all about.

On 26 Mar 2024 03:03:03 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

>> Apple repeatedly being forced to settle
>
> Both sides settle. That's how lawsuits work, dingus.

You are such a strange religious zealot that you actually truly believe
Apple pays these half-billion-dollar settlements because Apple is just
being nice to the Justice Department - which proves you own an almost
complete lack of any sense of normal adult cognitive comprehension.

On 26 Mar 2024 03:01:56 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

>> The oddest thing is you actually believe what you just wrote.
>
> Legally, it's exactly what it means.

So is any crime, such as 1st-degree murder, if they don't have enough
evidence to convict you of what you did, so they allow you plead to a
lesser crime in a plea bargaining deal (such as 2nd-degree murder).

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 2024-03-25 19:18, Jan K. wrote:
> W Mon, 25 Mar 2024 13:34:00 -0400, Alan Browne napisal:
>

W Mon, 25 Mar 2024 02:45:15 -0400, Anonymous 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?

I know why. And it's not as "Anonymous" spewed above.

PS: Do please do your attribution editing more carefully.

--
“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 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.

--
“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 2024-03-26, Sten deJoode <StendeJood@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 26 Mar 2024 03:03:03 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>>> Apple repeatedly being forced to settle
>>
>> Both sides settle. That's how lawsuits work, dingus.
>
> Apple is just being nice to the Justice Department

Your words, not mine, Arlen.

Apple admitted no wrongdoing, and both sides settled.

--
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 03:01:56 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>>> The oddest thing is you actually believe what you just wrote.
>>
>> Legally, it's exactly what it means.
>
> So is any crime, such as 1st-degree murder, if they don't have enough
> evidence to convict you of what you did, so they allow you plead to a
> lesser crime in a plea bargaining deal (such as 2nd-degree murder).

Wrong again. You don't have any idea what you are talking about, as
usual.

You admit guilt in criminal pleadings.

Apple admitted no wrongdoing, and both sides settled in these cases.

--
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 03:03:40 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:23:03
>
>>>> 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.
>
> Nobody but the strange Apple religious zealots ever said the Justice
> Department case had anything to do with colors

Now you're claiming that badgolferman, your buddy, who was the one who
mentioned colors is an "Apple religious zealot"...

---
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.
---

Your little troll posse started the "colors" discussion, and anyone with
an IQ above room temperature can read the thread to see it.

You lose. Again.

--
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:
>>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.

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?

--
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 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.

On 26 Mar 2024 14:46:42 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

> Apple admitted no wrongdoing, and both sides settled in these cases.

Apple did the similarly in the French criminal case, where the governments
are simply trying to make Apple stop breaking the law constantly, JR.

Apple makes ungodly sums of money by breaking laws most others follow.

Which is why Apple has been proven many times to be one of the most
unethical companies on the planet (along with Tobacco, Oil & Pharma).

On 26 Mar 2024 14:48:59 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

> Apple admitted no wrongdoing, and both sides settled.

Given Apple is one of the most unethical companies on the planet...

What you don't understand, Jolly Roger, is the DOJ is simply trying to make
Apple follow the law. They have no interest in anything else from Apple.

Since Apple is quite willing to pay huge settlements expressly for the
privilege of NOT admitting guilt - the DOJ is happy to accept their plea.

The goal of the DOJ is simply to force Apple to follow the laws for once.

On 2024-03-26 05:02, badgolferman wrote:
> 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.

Yes. I understand that it refers to.

>
> You said Apple doesn't sell anything you cannot buy from others. I
> just gave you the answer. Do you finally understand?

Yes. And by that standard EVERY COMPANY EVER sells things you can't buy
from others.

On 2024-03-26 08:21, Sten deJoode wrote:
> On 26 Mar 2024 14:46:42 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>> Apple admitted no wrongdoing, and both sides settled in these cases.
>
> Apple did the similarly in the French criminal case, where the governments
> are simply trying to make Apple stop breaking the law constantly, JR.

Sorry, but that is a falsehood you know is false, and therefore a lie.

On 2024-03-26 08:16, david wrote:
> 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.

So present what YOU have read that you feel is strongest, "David".

>
>>> 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.

Show that you're any different, "David".

On 2024-03-26 12:02:27 +0000, badgolferman said:
> 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?

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). :-\

Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> 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.

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.

"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."

On 2024-03-26 16:27, badgolferman wrote:
> Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> 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?

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.

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

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.

Alan wrote:

>On 2024-03-26 16:27, badgolferman wrote:
>>Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> 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!