Quote:
Originally Posted by pwalker8
Yes, I know that calling me an "Apple fanboi" lets you ignore the actual issues in the case and dismiss them out of hand (it's called ad homimem, by the way. A time honored rhetorical device). Yet, the issues remain. We will see what the appeals court has to say.
|
And suggesting that Judge Cotes has a conflict of interest for appointing a former colleague of hers as the monitor (one who has been a monitor in several other cases not related to her, albeit not in the field of anti-trust) by using the phrase "good buddy of hers" is not an ad hominem attack?
I use the (perjorative) term fanboi because you seem to be taking every argument the Apple lawyers make at face value, argue that she's biased because she probably started working on the decision before the oral testimony was complete, even though she probably had already read all the evidence that showed the company’s actions were a per se violation of antitrust law before the oral testimony started, argue that providing 300 pages of documentation and interviewing 4 Apple employees and 7 Apple lawyers was egregious and spending 120 hours (if I got the math right) was a sign of bias and overreach by the monitor and a sign of incompetence. (I may be conflating some of your arguments with Steve Eisenberg's, if so, I apologize). I suppose it's possible that you're not a fanboi and you just don't believe that the government has any business trying to enforce anti-trust legislation and therefore anything the government and its agents do here is wrong.
And yes, we will see what the appeals court will do. I think Apple will fail, although I will admit I am biased, I've wanted them to fail from the day the case was filed.