Quote:
Originally Posted by John F
My understanding is that he was referring/disparaging to posters in this thread.
|
I considered that an initial misstep before pwalker pursued what I thought was a more interesting line of attack, which focused on the judge's history of rulings and possible reasons for going after larger companies, and what the ruling's precedent might mean for companies other than Apple.
We've always got lionizers and vilifiers in threads like this. FJ Torres raised an interesting point about Random House making better legal decisions than Apple when facing the same sorts of charges; pwalker's counterargument seemed worth looking into simply because it introduced ideas beyond mere reactions to branding.
It's easy to be annoyed by Apple's B&D tendencies toward users, but expressing my annoyance constantly would mean allowing myself to be caught in the same Clive Barker merry-go-round of neurotic ritual as Apple's most compulsive fan bottoms (and possibly power-addicted leadership tops).
Then again, I've yet to meet an inhumanly prosperous CEO who didn't enjoy a bit of food-chain bondage.