Will Kindle App Survive Apple's Deadline for iOS Content Purchasing Compliance?

[BaldiMac]

No, I'm saying corrupt of government is a simple fact of life. If you don't believe, you either don't watch the news or are unbelievably naive. Or do you really think our government represents the overall population of this country? Every time they ignore the polls they prove otherwise. Every time they do what's best for the top 2% and screw over the other 98%, they prove otherwise. Every time the court system rules along partisan lines they prove they're corrupt. Believe what you will. It doesn't change reality.

There is another forum to discuss politics. Feel free to continue this discussions there. Yes. Corruption exists. But you have offered no evidence of corruption in the specific situation that we are discussing other that the fact that legal reality differs from your opinion.

I've got better things to do with my time than research court cases from the early 20th century just to suit your fancy dude. You can read English. The law says what it says. Judges "interpret" different things all the time. It's why case after freaking case flip-flops through the appeal process only to get a 5/4 or 4/5 ruling at the Supreme Court level. Do you think 5/4 type rulings are foolproof law? Are 4 of those Supreme Court justices just morons or what? Your view of law in general just seems so naive.

You keeping speaking in generalities.

You think everything is black and white

No, I don't.

and anti-trust law is only for monopolies, but monopolies aren't really monopolies either. It's just a convenient term for too much abuse of market power. Yet monopolies are legal when they are derived from consumer choice. The problem is when companies abuse their power to thwart competition. Your whole disagreement is over WHERE that line starts.

Exactly.

The law I quoted merely says "substantial" and substantial can mean anything a judge decides it to mean. Courts tend to go with prior precedents, but that isn't always so either. Decisions can be overturned

It doesn't "mean anything a judge decides it to mean." Judges don't make their decisions in a vacuum. Their decision are reviewed based on their application of the statutes and their consideration of precedent. Antitrust law has well established case law that is much clearer and more consistent than you are trying to paint it to be by ranting about the justice system in general.

and the Supreme Court seems to do whatever the frack it feels like these days. Juries can do anything they feel like to, like let child murderers go free for reasons only they can fathom. You call it the law. I call it a joke.

Wow.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

But you have offered no evidence of corruption in the specific situation that we are discussing other that the fact that legal reality differs from your opinion.

I've pointed out the recent Supreme Court decision about corporate money in a 5/4 decision. In what Universe is a Corporation a person? Can a Corporation run for office? No, it's a legal definition being abused by the right and backed up by a corrupt court system that is playing partisan politics. Do you address this? No, you just skip over anything you don't like.

Here, I'll let someone else argue for me:

Anti-trust does NOT just apply to large companies and monopolies:

http://www.processor.com/editorial/article.asp?article=articles/p2647/32p47/32p47.asp

http://business-law.lawyers.com/small-business-law/Antitrust-for-Small-Businesses.html

Anti-trust laws are not helping small businesses (not properly enforced), written by a former enforcement agent:

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/09/balto_smallbusiness.html

It doesn't "mean anything a judge decides it to mean." Judges don't make their decisions in a vacuum. Their decision are reviewed based on their application of the statutes and their consideration of precedent.

Obviously, you've never heard of legislating from the Bench or you wouldn't make such a statement. Try doing a search on "legislating from the Bench" on Google and you'll have all the proof you need.

 

[cmaier]

Obviously, you've never heard of legislating from the Bench or you wouldn't make such a statement. Try doing a search on "legislating from the Bench" on Google and you'll have all the proof you need.

"legislating from the bench" is code for "I'm a Republican and I don't like that the courts just threw out my clearly unconstitutional attempt at restricting personal liberties.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

"legislating from the bench" is code for "I'm a Republican and I don't like that the courts just threw out my clearly unconstitutional attempt at restricting personal liberties.

That's one possibility among many, as far as I'm concerned. That's the problem with relatively vaguely worded laws. They need "interpreted". If they would just write WTF they actually MEAN in plain English, this would not be an issue. You also probably would not need lawyers as often.

 

[EricNau]

MODERATOR NOTE

A reminder that political debate must take place in our Politics, Religion, Social Issues Forum, for those who qualify. In-depth political discussion is not allowed here.

If you wish to continue this discourse, please do so there. Thanks.

 

[BaldiMac]

Here, I'll let someone else argue for me:

Anti-trust does NOT just apply to large companies and monopolies:

http://www.processor.com/editorial/article.asp?article=articles/p2647/32p47/32p47.asp

http://business-law.lawyers.com/small-business-law/Antitrust-for-Small-Businesses.html

I haven't argued that a business has to be large. A market does not have to cover the whole country. I don't have a problem with either of these articles.

Anti-trust laws are not helping small businesses (not properly enforced), written by a former enforcement agent:

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/09/balto_smallbusiness.html

That's a wonderful opinion.

Neither of your sources contradict anything I said. As suggested a couple times now, if you want to continue your general criticism of the Judicial system, there is a more appropriate forum.

 

[wilsonlaidlaw]

No purchase button - so what?

So Amazon may have to re-format their Kindle App to delete the purchase button. I rarely use it anyway and make most of my Kindle eBook purchases straight from one of my Macs, as it is easier to browse the books from a Mac rather than an iPad. I cannot imagine most other folks finding this process that difficult either.

However if this spat results in Kindle being pulled altogether from the iPad, then it will have a significant effect on my future purchases. I have an iPad 1 and was thinking of upgrading either to an iPad 2HD or 3 as and when it comes along. I mainly use my iPad for reading books and magazines, when I am at my French house and it is expensive, slow, or impossible to obtain English language books and magazines. A higher quality screen would benefit me and increase my pleasure of reading. But no Kindle App = no new iPad. I buy 90% of my eBooks through Kindle. I would instead wait to purchase the forthcoming colour e-ink Kindle reader.

I don't imagine I would be alone in taking this stance. Jobs could lose more than he gains if he ends up getting the Kindle App withdrawn.