Congratulations on having now made a falsifiable prediction!
I will absolutely make sure to save this comment, and come back to you in a couple months.
I think that at least some, of Apple's decisions are illegally anti-competitive, and that the judge in the epic vs apple case, will at least partially rule against Apple, on some fronts.
And your position, is that you think that nothing at all that Apple is doing is illegal, and that no judge will rule against them, on anything at all.
We'll see who was right, in a couple months, and I can show you this comment then!
But in my opinion, that is a very strong statement that you seem to be making, where you think that absolutely nothing about Apple's practices are illegally anti-competitive.
We'll see if you are right! I think that the judge will rule, at least partially against Apple, on at least some counts, (although probably not on every single count).
> if they are, are these good laws anyway?
Anti-trust law? Yes, it has been around for decades, and is pretty uncontroversial. I don't think that most people support the Standard Oil railroad monopoly, for example.
I didn't predict anything. I asked if it had been found to be illegal. It hasn't. So I don't know how you're describing it as 'illegal'. Apple clearly believe it's legal, and no authority has given an opinion otherwise yet.
> And your position, is that you think ... that no judge will rule against them
Sorry I'm afraid you've misread again - I didn't say this anywhere. Where do you think I said what I think the outcome of any trial would be?
I'm giving my opinion (after being invited to) on the morality of Apple's actions. I'm not giving a legal opinion on the outcome of any trial. I even said 'if they are, are these good laws anyway?' which should have made that clear.
If you agreed with me that Apple's actions are illegally anti-competitive, then you wouldn't ask why/how/when their actions are illegal.
So yes, by asking me why/how/when their actions are illegal, you are disagreeing with me. Thats what it means to ask that. We'll see if you were right or not, to question why/how/when their actions are illegal.
> So I don't know how you're describing it as 'illegal'.
When you say "I don't know how", that is a disagreement with me. You are saying that you do not see how their actions are illegal.
And my response, to you casting doubt on their actions being illegal (By saying that you "do not see how" they are illegal), is that I will show you why the actions are illegal, in a couple months.
And then you can re-evaluate your previous confusion as to "not seeing how" their actions are illegal, when that court decision is made.
I am pretty sure that I am right on this. And I'll be able to show this to you, when the court decision happens, and you can understand why you were incorrect to doubt that their actions are illegal.
> Where do you think I said what I think the outcome of any trial would be?
By the fact that you are saying things like "So I don't know how you're describing it as 'illegal'."
You are saying that you do not know how Apple's actions could be described as illegal, and I am saying that the court case will show you how.
Thats what it means to say stuff like "So I don't know how you're describing it as 'illegal'" It means that you don't think that their actions are illegal.
I also see that you are saying things like "Apple has less than a 50% market share on smart phones.", which is implying that you don't think that they are engaging in illegal/anti-trust behavior.
But like I said, this will all be settled in a couple months, and you will be able to see why it was incorrect to not be sure of how their actions are illegal.
You will be able to look back, and understand why it is incorrect to not be sure of how their actions are illegal.
What it would change is how you "don't know how you're describing it as 'illegal'. "
Once the court trial is over, you will know "how" it should be described as illegal, as before, you were incorrect on not being able to say why it was illegal.
And what it will do is help you understand why comments that you make such as "Apple has less than a 50% market share on smart phones.", that incorrectly attempt to imply that Apple is not engaging in anti-competitive practices, is an incorrect thing to imply.
> A bit of an hysterical and morally unjust witch hunt.
Ah, so instead of saying that you may not really understand how anti-trust law works, you are going to say that the whole court system was rigged, if the court rules against Apple in any way?
Anti-trust law is not particularly controversial, also.
> you are going to say that the whole court system was rigged
You're just inventing random things that I don't think and haven't said. I don't know know where you got 'rigged' from for example. That's not a quote from me or an intelligent interpretation of what I've said.
If you find yourself constantly replying 'so you're saying' or 'so you'll say' stop and think why you think you need to rephrase everything and speculate on what the other person may say rather than going off directly what was actually said in order to make a point.
I don't think you're arguing in good faith here or actually want to understand other opinions - you seem pretty intent on deliberately misinterpreting as strongly as possible - so I'll leave you to it.
You compared the apple court cases to the salem witch trials, and compared it to a "morally unjust witch hunt".
Oh sorry, you said "Maybe there's a parallel there?". Not like that matters though. It is obvious what you are attempting to say here.
Like, C'mon. By comparing a current anti-trust court case, to the salem witch trials, you are attempting to delegitimize the process.
When you say stuff like "Maybe there's a parallel there?", you are attempting to imply that the current trials are similar to the salem witch trials. Thats what you are saying when you asking if there is a parallel there.
You even said "Why would the court's opinion change my moral opinion on whether something is (illegal)"
You straight up asked why the courts opinion on something, would change your opinion on whether it "IS" illegal. (Yes, you also included the word "should", but you also said "is" as well)
If a court says that Apple's actions are illegal, then that is a pretty good reason for you to change your mind on whether those actions are illegal, and it is silly for you to then compare well respected judges, and uncontroversial laws, to the freaking salem witch trials!
You can't just back off from your comparison to the salem witch trials now. It is clear that you are attempting to delegitimize the trial.
That is an extreme comparison. You can't just make that comparison, and then get surprised when I point out how extreme that comparison is.
I will absolutely make sure to save this comment, and come back to you in a couple months.
I think that at least some, of Apple's decisions are illegally anti-competitive, and that the judge in the epic vs apple case, will at least partially rule against Apple, on some fronts.
And your position, is that you think that nothing at all that Apple is doing is illegal, and that no judge will rule against them, on anything at all.
We'll see who was right, in a couple months, and I can show you this comment then!
But in my opinion, that is a very strong statement that you seem to be making, where you think that absolutely nothing about Apple's practices are illegally anti-competitive.
We'll see if you are right! I think that the judge will rule, at least partially against Apple, on at least some counts, (although probably not on every single count).
> if they are, are these good laws anyway?
Anti-trust law? Yes, it has been around for decades, and is pretty uncontroversial. I don't think that most people support the Standard Oil railroad monopoly, for example.