Quote:
Originally Posted by Robotech_Master
*picks mic back up*
Indeed. This is also why media outlets, when reporting on some person who is on trial, always refer to him as "the alleged criminal" rather than just "the criminal" even if he was caught red-handed. In our justice system, an entity (person or corporation) is considered innocent until proven guilty. By the same token, once that entity is proven guilty, it is considered guilty as a matter of fact.
ADS is a great multi-purpose acronym. It can stand for "Amazon Derangement Syndrome" just as easily as it can stand for "Apple Demagogue Syndrome."
A dissent is nice in terms of providing ammunition down the road for someone trying to defend a similar case and hope for a different outcome, but it doesn't have the weight of legally-established fact behind it. Not that I'm a lawyer or anything, but I read a lot.
*drops mic again*
|
Actually once again, not quite. Dissent is generally how judges influence the legal system. Scalia was famous for how he used his dissent to influence the legal system and pull it towards his judicial philosophy of originalism.
I am interested in the legalities, not the companies involved. Yes, it does make a nice strawman argument to simply dismiss any disagreement as Apple lover, but it would be nice if people understood the legal issues and how the legal system actually works rather than simply grunt "hum, Apple bad, Amazon good".