Quote:
Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer
So...you claim to have a ton of evidence, but when specifically challenged you say I should review a citation free WSJ opinion piece and do the research myself? I am interested, or would be if you could present pieces that weren't pure opinion (which are the only two articles you've linked to in this thread from what I can tell).
And I don't know what evidence I would need to produce beyond the court's decision (which I have linked to). I've said that I agree, and you've said you disagree and suggested that Amazon bought the decision somehow and that the court applied some novel theory of law. I can't prove a negative (that there is no shadowy conspiracy, since that's logically impossible).
I've asked for evidence of that, and you've just gotten flustered, linked to more opinion pieces, and then peppered your response with a few comments about how well I perform in my profession. I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate that: (i) the actions of the DOJ were politically motivated; (ii) the court's decision was politically motivated; or (iii) the court's decision was a misapplication of the current state of the law.
It's funny, but whenever directly challenged I notice you seem to go for the misdirection approach. You throw some smoke in the air by citing an opinion piece or intimating some conspiracy, go for an insult, and then use a strawman argument to minimize the argument's of anyone who's disagreeing with you.
Can you just send me the one link you think that has the best piece of evidence (i.e., not an evidence-free, citation-free, opinion piece) that the court's decision was wrong or politically motivated or that Cote wrote the opinion before the trial? If there is no such evidence, that's fine, but don't suggest that you have tons or that it must surely exist.
I can't tell you how many times I've had that same thought throughout this thread.
|
I did _not_ say that Amazon "bought" the decision. I said that Amazon influenced the DOJ to bring the case, and from there is was business as usual. I have corrected people who keep asserting that I absolutely must be claiming a conspiracy several times now. Continuing to repeat something that isn't true, doesn't make it true.
I don't link to any articles about shadowy conspiracies because I don't claim any shadowy conspiracies. I did link to the Leegin case, which is the basis of why I think that Judge Cote misapplied the law. That certainly wasn't an opinion piece and one that you seem to have failed to notice, or at least you don't say why you think that Judge Cote is correct in asserting that Apple should be per se guilty.
The really funny thing is that you and some of the others are the ones who are engaged in smokescreen logic. You keep asserting that I'm claiming things that I don't. You keep claiming that I don't present any evidence, then dismiss any links out of hand. You still haven't addressed any of the actual issues in the case. I've been waiting to see if you would actually respond to rhadin's post on the actual legal issues. So far you haven't.