Quote:
Originally Posted by pwalker8
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.
|
I actually don't recall Rhadin's post about specific legal issues, and thought I responded, so I'll go back and review. I do note though that Judge Cote cited the Leegin case in her decision.
"Conspiracy" might be a bit harsh, but you said in several posts that there was obvious crony-capitalism going on, but couldn't produce anything to substantiate that. As for your links from Fortune above, thank you. I haven't read those yet and will, but I appreciate that they appear to be more substantive than opinion pieces from the WSJ.