Adobe to sue Apple now?

[enorac]

They can sue, but nothing will come of it. Just because someone causes you damage doesn't mean you can collect damages for it. that's the nature of the marketplace. You have to violate a statute or commit a statutory or common law tort in order to be found liable under the law, and Apple has not done so.

Oh and so your a lawyer? You don't think Adobe's lawyers are pulling every law out of the book and scrutinizing what Apple is doing? Apple is a public company. This is the US. You can sue for anything. And if you have money like Adobe and Apple. You can win. Were all arguing bull here because no one has a clue what their talking about.

It's going to happen. Someone will win.

 

[muncyweb]

I agreed with you up until your "Is the" paragraph. Both your theories have been clearly debunked.

Where are you getting your information? You mean that the paper they are printing has intrinsic value? It is indeed a faith based currency; even the Federal Reserve will tell you that. Saying a piece of paper with a $5 written on it is worth more than one with a $1 is like me writing a 5 on an apple and saying it is now five apples. As for the rest, coercion does not create a legal obligation. Where is the law?

 

[troop231]

Down with Adobe! Someone's gotta give them a long awaited wake up call, leave it to Apple

 

[MacBram]

Apple might as well be considered the MS for the media/smartphone world at this moment.

Oh, my goodness, that's right. I just read how Apple has changed its business plan so that it now licenses out iPhone OS (like Windows) to all the other phone manufacturers (like PC makers). Now HTC and LG and Motorola have a real choice: iPhone OS, Symbian, Palm Web OS, Windows 6 or 7, Android, and a couple of homebrews.

Suddenly, however, Apple's iPhone OS is on a majority of the world's phones already. Not only that, Apple are reportedly abusing this position by making back room deals and threats. If a phone maker uses iPhone OS exclusively, they get it for 30 bucks a phone. But if they try to put Android or anything else on some of their phone models, Apple charges them 100 bucks per phone (including all the ones already installed but not actually purchased by a consumer). Not only that, Apple is said to be witholding the next upgrade from them unless they comply to all Apple's terms. Not only that, Apple is publishing reference guides and coercing the phone makers into following it so that all the phone designs are slowly evolving into something that is hard to run using any other OS. (shoot, I hope I didn't just give MS some ideas that they were not already doing.)

These phone makers are really over a barrel, because, apparently, now that they have offered their phones with Apple iPhone OS, no consumers will buy their phones with anything else (this part is unlike MS), even if they could (which is becoming increasingly technically difficult due to the reference guides). The phone makers have to pay the price Apple sets, and they have to scrape their own margins on hardware razor thin in order to make any money at all. Where will it end?

It's incredible. I can't believe Apple hasn't been sued already by a couple of dozen governments, the EU and half the States in the lower 48. Somebody tell the internets.

 

[*LTD*]

Oh and so your a lawyer?

I can tell you he's a lot more lawyer than most of us here.

 

[cmaier]

Where are you getting your information? You mean that the paper they are printing has intrinsic value? It is indeed a faith based currency; even the Federal Reserve will tell you that. Saying a piece of paper with a $5 written on it is worth more than one with a $1 is like me writing a 5 on an apple and saying it is now five apples. As for the rest, coercion does not create a legal obligation. Where is the law?

The income tax is authorized by Congress under Title 26 of the U.S. Code and is authorized by the sixteenth amendment of the constitution and has been upheld repeatedly by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Do I need to cite statutory authority for the printing of paper money not backed by gold, too?

 

[cmaier]

Oh and so your a lawyer?

Yes.

You don't think Adobe's lawyers are pulling every law out of the book and scrutinizing what Apple is doing?

I'm sure they are. But there's nothing there to find.

Apple is a public company.

so?

This is the US.

agreed

You can sue for anything.

I already said that.

And if you have money like Adobe and Apple. You can win.

Yes. Both sides will have adequate legal representation, which means the justice system will reach the correct result, which is that Apple has done nothing illegal. For the third time I ask you to please site what precise statute you think entitles Adobe to any recompense.

Were all arguing bull here because no one has a clue what their talking about.

Well, at least one of has no clue.

It's going to happen. Someone will win.

Sure. Apple.

 

[Mac-Michael]

Ha! Good luck with that.

 

[troop231]

Ha! Good luck with that.

Adobe needs more luck than what is available in the universe.

 

[mdriftmeyer]

Adobe's bid for a case here is DOA.

But spend millions for lawyers, Adobe. You have no case.

 

[RidleyGriff]

Sure. Apple.

Hehehe... Well done -- thank you for the smile.

 

[muncyweb]

The income tax is authorized by Congress under Title 26 of the U.S. Code and is authorized by the sixteenth amendment of the constitution and has been upheld repeatedly by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Do I need to cite statutory authority for the printing of paper money not backed by gold, too?

The details are quite lengthy. To keep these postings from going too far off topic, you may just want to research for yourself. Search YouTube for NCAR - John Ainsworth. He shows documented proof there of the lack of authority. There is a 9-part video series there which will explain it to you in detail. The lack of authorization is seen prior to the alleged passing of the 16th Amendment (which wasn't properly ratified). This happened during Reconstruction when most state governments were overturned by military force. For example, North Carolina's current government was put into place by Military order no. 120, issued by General Canby. This occurred after peace had been declared, and over the president's veto. This unconstitutional act, combined with the 14th Amendment allowed future laws which could violate the laws of the states.

A statute isn't a law, but merely an interpretation thereof. The majority of statutes do not contain enactment clauses which is what makes them valid.

 

[enorac]

Yes.

There are lawyers, some are litigators, trust lawyers, transactional lawyers, patent lawyers, and judges. Everyone has an opinion.

And then there are juries.

Sure. Apple.

And you actually think a company, like Adobe, is going to file a frivolous lawsuit?

 

[cmaier]

I know all about that stuff, and as I said, it's been debunked (google is your friend). As a friend of mine, a federal district court judge, told me: "the tax deniers can deny that taxes are legal all the way to the federal penitentiary." Anectode aside, the specific facts you describe have been lengthily and thoroughly debunked multiple times.

The details are quite lengthy. To keep these postings from going too far off topic, you may just want to research for yourself. Search YouTube for NCAR - John Ainsworth. He shows documented proof there of the lack of authority. There is a 9-part video series there which will explain it to you in detail. The lack of authorization is seen prior to the alleged passing of the 16th Amendment (which wasn't properly ratified). This happened during Reconstruction when most state governments were overturned by military force. For example, North Carolina's current government was put into place by Military order no. 120, issued by General Canby. This occurred after peace had been declared, and over the president's veto. This unconstitutional act, combined with the 14th Amendment allowed future laws which could violate the laws of the states.

A statute isn't a law, but merely an interpretation thereof. The majority of statutes do not contain enactment clauses which is what makes them valid.

 

[louis Fashion]

Evolve

If Adobe wants to play on AAPL they should work on fixing problems rather than waste time in court. Only makes the lawyer's richer.

 

[macUser2007]

Especially because Apple's restrictions have NOTHING to do with pushing its own technologies in the same market segment of Flash, but rather to the benefit of HTML5, which is neither owned nor controlled by Apple.

BS.

You should check out the H.264 patent holders - Apple is prominent among them.

And of course, you are aware that the patent holders (including Apple) are going to extract licensing fee for H.264.

And you guys can't have it both ways. Most Apple fanboys keep bragging that the iPhone/iPad is by far the biggest mobile web-browsing device. Kind of MS in the OS world, isn't it? And MS got slapped for much milder anti-competitive practices.

 

[cmaier]

There are lawyers, some are litigators, trust lawyers, transactional lawyers, patent lawyers, and judges. Everyone has an opinion.

And then there are juries.



And you actually think a company, like Adobe, is going to file a frivolous lawsuit?

There's a long distance between "frivolous" and "losing." If Adobe is going to file a suit (and I doubt it - if they were going to do so, and it leaked, they are a bunch of morons because now Apple can race them to court in a venue of its choosing and seek a declaratory judgment, thus gaining an additional upper hand), they will meet their obligations under the federal rules of civil procedure rule 11, but no, they will not win - the will lose on summary judgment on a FRCP 12(b)(6) motion.

BS.

You should check out the H.264 patent holders - Apple is prominent among them.

And of course, you are aware that the patent holders (including Apple) are going to extract licensing fee for H.264.

What does that have to do with anything? Flash uses h.264, too. (And you don't have to use h.264 in html5). What are you on about?

 

[jragosta]

Adobe's bid for a case here is DOA.

But spend millions for lawyers, Adobe. You have no case.

I think the point that's being missed is that there's no evidence that Adobe has any interest in filing suit. We have one article from one person who CLAIMS that Adobe is considering it. There's absolutely no doubt in my mind that it's pure click bait - and that no one at Adobe is giving it even a moment's consideration.

 

[Peace]

BS.

You should check out the H.264 patent holders - Apple is prominent among them.

And of course, you are aware that the patent holders (including Apple) are going to extract licensing fee for H.264.

And you guys can't have it both ways. Most Apple fanboys keep bragging that the iPhone/iPad is by far the biggest mobile web-browsing device. Kind of MS in the OS world, isn't it? And MS got slapped for much milder anti-competitive practices.

I wouldn't say Apple is "prominent"

This list is alphabetical.

http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/Licensors.aspx

Apple Inc.

DAEWOO Electronics Corporation

Dolby Laboratories Licensing Corporation

Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute

France Télécom, société anonyme*

Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Foerderung der angewandten Forschung e.V.

Fujitsu Limited

Hitachi, Ltd.

Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V.

LG Electronics Inc.

Microsoft Corporation

Mitsubishi Electric Corporation

NTT DOCOMO, INC.

Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Corporation

Panasonic Corporation

Robert Bosch GmbH*

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.

Scientific-Atlanta Vancouver Company

Sedna Patent Services, LLC

Sharp Corporation

Siemens AG

Sony Corporation

Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson

The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York

Toshiba Corporation

Victor Company of Japan, Ltd.*

 

[muncyweb]

I know all about that stuff, and as I said, it's been debunked (google is your friend). As a friend of mine, a federal district court judge, told me: "the tax deniers can deny that taxes are legal all the way to the federal penitentiary." Anectode aside, the specific facts you describe have been lengthily and thoroughly debunked multiple times.

So you've seen the video? Great. There is one thing many judges love to say in the courtroom: "If you bring up the Constitution one more time, I will hold you in contempt." It is indeed a sad situation when even courts won't uphold the law. This makes it obvious that the problem stems deeper.

If the de facto government is working for you, fantastic. You must have no reason to complain. I wish you the best with them.

 

[*LTD*]

There are lawyers, some are litigators, trust lawyers, transactional lawyers, patent lawyers, and judges. Everyone has an opinion.

And then there are juries.



And you actually think a company, like Adobe, is going to file a frivolous lawsuit?

You don't seem to get it. LOL

 

[enorac]

There's a long distance between "frivolous" and "losing." If Adobe is going to file a suit (and I doubt it - if they were going to do so, and it leaked, they are a bunch of morons because now Apple can race them to court in a venue of its choosing and seek a declaratory judgment, thus gaining an additional upper hand), they will meet their obligations under the federal rules of civil procedure rule 11, but no, they will not win - the will lose on summary judgment on a FRCP 12(b)(6) motion.

Let me see if I understand this. Adobe is the injured party (and they aren't the only ones), but Apple is going to sue Adobe so they can shop venue??? That sounds frivolous to me.

 

[macUser2007]

... What does that have to do with anything? Flash uses h.264, too. (And you don't have to use h.264 in html5). What are you on about?

Huh?

Are you aware that Apple is pushing H.264 as HTML5 video standard?

Are you aware that H.264 is NOT opensource?

Are you aware that as of 2015 there will be royalty fees for H.264?

Now do you get what I am on about?

 

[AZREOSpecialist]

Absolutely ridiculous! How can anyone support Adobe in this? Apple has a proprietary platform that APPLE invented, developed, and marketed. APPLE can specify whatever it wants in terms of the types of software it puts on that platform. If you don't like it, buy a phone from someone else. There is plenty of competition.

 

[cmaier]

Let me see if I understand this. Adobe is the injured party (and they aren't the only ones), but Apple is going to sue Adobe so they can shop a venue??? That sounds frivolous to me.

It's not frivolous - if you know someone is about to sue you, you have no obligation to sit around and wait for it. The public threat of the lawsuit hurt's apple's business, and they can ask a judge to resolve the matter. The judge will be looking at the same matter that Adobe would sue about - it can only be frivolous if you admit that adobe's lawsuit would be frivolous. BTW, Adobe's injuries are self-inflicted.