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.

--
“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 2024-03-27 07:13, badgolferman wrote:
> 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!

In what way, sunshine?

See if you can articulate it. I'm betting you can't.

Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
> On 2024-03-27 07:13, badgolferman wrote:
>> 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!
>
> 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 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 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.

On 2024-03-27 14:41, badgolferman wrote:
> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>> On 2024-03-27 07:13, badgolferman wrote:
>>> 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!
>>
>> In what way, sunshine?
>>
>> See if you can articulate it. I'm betting you can't.
>>
>
> You calling me a cultist! LOL!
>

So you can't actually articulate it.

I use Macs and iPhones because they work well for me.

I support computer users (businesses and individuals) for a living and
have been doing so since 1998.

What I can tell you is that my clients that use Macs and iPhones:

I almost never hear from them.

I've been working with, selling, and supporting computers since... ...1992.

On 2024-03-27 16:28, Andrew wrote:
> 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>

If you had an actual cite to support that claim, you wouldn't need a
search results link.

>
> 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.

The case never went to trial, ergo no verdict, ergo no loss.

>
> 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.

Factually incorrect.

>
> 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.

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 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.

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.

--
“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:

>> 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.

Therefore, despite only you and Apple thinking that Tim Cook didn't commit
fraud, Apple lawyers knew it was fraud which is exactly why they settled.

On 2024-03-28, Indira <indira@ghandi.net> 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

Nonsense. With that statement you have shown the world how little you
know about law. About 95 percent of lawsuits end in pre-trial
settlements, where both sides agree to settle. In the vast majority of
Apple's settlements, they admit no wrongdoing. That's a legal FACT
(something you hate).

--
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

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.

--
"Good judgment comes from experience, and a lot of that comes from bad
judgment." ~ Will Rogers

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?

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?

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?

--
"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything." ~ Alexander Hamilton

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.

:-)

On 2024-03-28, badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> 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.

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.

--
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 2024-03-28, badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> 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?

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.

--
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 2024-03-28, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
> 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?

Yup. Apple literally rakes in almost 1 million dollars every minute
(much to the chagrin of these trolls), with a 3-trillion-dollar market
value.

--
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 <nuh-uh@nope.com> 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.

On 2024-03-28 18:10, badgolferman wrote:
> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> 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.
>

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.

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.

It's interesting that you think that someone who understands that paying
half a billion dollars to settle a fraud case is getting his "ass handed to
him" when you defended that settlement with the absurd claim that Apple
paid the half a billion dollars because Apple did absolutely nothing wrong.

Half a billion dollars can build ~five of the Francis Scott Key bridges!

That's what the court decided Apple had to pay for committing that fraud.
Using your own logic, it's Apple who got their asses handed to them.

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.

You can build ~5 Francis Scott Key bridges for that half billion dollars.
Nobody but you thinks paying a half billion dollars is "winning" a case.

>> 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.

You're the one claiming paying a half billion dollars is "winning" the case
against Apple for fraud (which was documented by Tim Cook's own actions).

Your thought processes are absurd past the point of being an Apple nutcase.

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:
>>>>> 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.
>
> I understood it all too well.

No you didn't, Gamma boy.

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 <indira@ghandi.net> 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.

--
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