Apple Ordered to Stagger E-Book Contract Negotiations, Refrain From 'Most Favored Nation' Clauses

[IJ Reilly]

Only if you are ignorant of the difference.

Only if you can explain why the difference matters.

----------

You have zero evidence that she wasn't biased but what we do have are statements made pre-trial that illustrate a potential bias. The very appearance of bias is in the judicial system is not to be tolerated. You know, the whole recusal thing. I'm not saying the judge wanted Apple to lose the case and that she wanted to punish them, only that it appears she may have already made up her mind, at least on some of the issues, before the trial began. That, and the fact that she oversaw the settlement cases with the publishers--which you've even admitted appears to be a preponderance to Apple's guilt--is a slippery slope for an impartial judge.

Again the deja vu thing. You could substitute "Microsoft" for "Apple" in this statement and it would be 1999 all over again. Then as now, accusations of this kind require actual evidence and unfortunately for your argument the evidence supports a rather different conclusion. I suppose I have to remind you again that this judge did not support the DoJ's remedy and substituted a much milder one of her own. But that's the great thing about conspiracy theories -- they don't require any evidence, only belief.

----------

I guess the disagreement comes from the difference between the technical legal sense of "guilty" vs the layman sense. Apple was not found guilty in the legal sense, but I think the poster is actually meaning that they were found guilty in the layman sense.

Yes, in the conventional sense, not the legalistic one. Guilty, as in having been found to have done an illegal thing. I suppose I am meant to be going round and round in circles over this bit of semantics so the basic point that Apple lost their case in a court of law can be avoided.

 

[giantfan1224]

Again the deja vu thing. You could substitute "Microsoft" for "Apple" in this statement and it would be 1999 all over again. Then as now, accusations of this kind require actual evidence and unfortunately for your argument the evidence supports a rather different conclusion.

I wonder if you'll admit you're completely wrong if Apple wins on appeal, since you seem to accept a court's decision as gospel. I guess we'll just have to wait and see on that one. (By the way, I'm not even saying Apple will win on appeal, only that they should. Because I believe the evidence, or lack thereof, is not enough to find Apple liable. It's not the first and won't be the last time I disagree with a court's decision).

I suppose I have to remind you again that this judge did not support the DoJ's remedy and substituted a much milder one of her own. But that's the great thing about conspiracy theories -- they don't require any evidence, only belief.

I'm not even remotely saying, or even thinking, that's it's some sort of conspiracy. I think you like to read into things that aren't even there, just to argue.

 

[EnderTW]

Heh.

A lot of selective memory or probably a lot of you weren't born during the microsoft anti trust trials.

 

[gnasher729]

Heh.

A lot of selective memory or probably a lot of you weren't born during the microsoft anti trust trials.

I certainly wasn't born during the Microsoft anti-trust trials.
Most people here were born long before.

----------

So you are disputing the entire legal system?

I haven't made it out as cut and dried. I am saying what I and a lot of others have said from the very start: that Apple never had a prayer of winning this case. So you are claiming that I was wrong?

It was a civil case. In a criminal court, someone has to be found "guilty beyond reasonable doubt". With everything done correctly, it would be very rare but not impossible that an innocent person is found "guilty beyond reasonable doubt"; with things being done incorrectly it is much more likely.

But this is a civil court. There is much less evidence required, so convicted is convicted, but the chances of someone being innocent even though convicted are much much greater.

What I can easily admit is that the judge made comments from the start that made it look less likely that Apple could win with that judge in control of the case.

----------

Apple should use your MacRumors thread post to try to appeal!! yeah but but but gnasher729 said you were wrong judge!!!!

Apple might just point out how people knowing the facts that Apple called as witnesses were not allowed to appear in court, how statements that Jobs made in a book were taken as evidence (which is absolutely ridiculous), how the judge declared Apple guilty before the trial started, how the DOJ went so far as taking publishers complaining about this case as "evidence" of further collusion.

But maybe you can tell the judge that Apple must be guilty, otherwise they wouldn't complaining, or some similar logic.

 

[IJ Reilly]

I wonder if you'll admit you're completely wrong if Apple wins on appeal, since you seem to accept a court's decision as gospel. I guess we'll just have to wait and see on that one. (By the way, I'm not even saying Apple will win on appeal, only that they should. Because I believe the evidence, or lack thereof, is not enough to find Apple liable. It's not the first and won't be the last time I disagree with a court's decision).



I'm not even remotely saying, or even thinking, that's it's some sort of conspiracy. I think you like to read into things that aren't even there, just to argue.

Completely wrong? Interesting, since you won't admit to even being slightly wrong about whether they've lost to date, let alone, why.

When you accuse others of prejudging something on the basis of prejudice and bias, especially lacking any facts or evidence to support this accusation, then you are expounding a conspiracy theory.

----------

It was a civil case. In a criminal court, someone has to be found "guilty beyond reasonable doubt". With everything done correctly, it would be very rare but not impossible that an innocent person is found "guilty beyond reasonable doubt"; with things being done incorrectly it is much more likely.

But this is a civil court. There is much less evidence required, so convicted is convicted, but the chances of someone being innocent even though convicted are much much greater.

Distinctions without a difference. The question is whether Apple was judged to have violated the law. All I am hearing in response to that question is a series of snaky, evasive and semantical arguments that never get anywhere close to the heart of the matter.

----------

Heh.

A lot of selective memory or probably a lot of you weren't born during the microsoft anti trust trials.

I will go for a lack of memory or knowledge.

 

[Thunderhawks]

Erm no...the government is 100% correct, Apple broke the law.

----------

My post is about fining Apple if they broke/ or when they break the law.
That is for now or the future.

Just keep fining them until they comply. They'll get the message and until they do the government gets money. Win/Win

BUT, besides the fines nobody should be able to tell Apple how to run their business.