Quote:
Originally Posted by pwalker8
Of course, my point is that people hurl themselves at a conclusion based on their biases. Someone says something negative about Judge Cote? Obviously an Apple fanboi who can be ridiculed and discounted. Someone says something negative about Apple? Obviously an Android fanboi who doesn't know what he's talking about.
Me, I made the mistake of thinking that people might actually be interested in the facts of the case and the legal theory behind it. I would not be shocked if most people posting on this thread have never even heard of the Antitrust Paradox (without running out to google real quick before answering), much less read it. After all, it's a specialize, expensive book. Yet the book and the legal theory it expounds is at the heart of this case.
|
My whole problem with your stance, pwalker, is not that I think you're an Apple fanboy--I believe you when you say it has nothing to do with Apple, per se. My problem is that you believe your stance to be more grounded in fact, and/or "legal theory" and hence more unbiased than other's. When in fact nothing could be further from the truth. Your stance (just like everybody's) is based on idealistic personal conviction. You've as much as admitted (here and in many other threads) that you believe government should should stay out of the business world. And because of that idealistic socio-political/economic philosophy, you give more weight to the expert opinions of those who agree with your ideals and ignore the opinions of those who don't. Saying you're more concerned with points of law doesn't actually make your stance
based on points of law.
Let's leave the (fan|hate) boys out of it entirely. Of those who are left (and who are
not qualified anti-trust experts--such as ourselves): most of those who agree with Judge Cote, do so because they believe the preponderance of evidence proves illegal collusion (under existing anti-trust law). Those who disagree with Judge Cote, do so because they "believe" the government never should have had the right to prosecute in the first place. In other words; they hurl themselves at evidence based on that bias.
So neither of us are
more (or less) on the side of "facts" or "law." We're both on the side of our personal convictions--I'm just not pretending my convictions are more objective than other's.