Literary elites v. Amazon: yes, it's class warfare

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by John F

I would think if something was "completly and utterly misapplied", the courts would act to rectify it fairly quickly. My ignorant and naive opinion. .

Nothing happens fairly quickly when it comes to the US Court system. This one can easily take a couple of years to reach the Supreme Court.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by darryl

So please provide it?

Seriously? I've posted a ton of links on this case over the last year and a half in the various threads discussing the case. If you really don't know, then the place to start is the text of Apple's appeal. The next most obvious place to start is with some of the WSJ's pieces on the case [ http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/...36261045331876 ]

I'm sure the usual suspects will immediately launch the ad homiem attacks on the WSJ, but certainly the WSJ in their various editorials and stories (and there are a number, not just the link that I gave here) brings most of the lines of argument together.

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

But not the vast majority of signatories, who were merely fooled, due to their recently-discovered lack of intellectual capacity (ironic in an actual list of people who make their living off of the written word): https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=246443

If the Michael Lewis is who I think he is, then "lack of intellectual capacity" can't be an excuse. Neither can ignorance, based on his education, first job, and first book. His recent books belie an onset of either. So I don't know what is going on with him. It's possible he was duped, but I would have thought he would be on guard.

He's human, an no doubt flawed and prone to error, but this just doesn't seem right.

[darryl]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Seriously? I've posted a ton of links on this case over the last year and a half in the various threads discussing the case. If you really don't know, then the place to start is the text of Apple's appeal. The next most obvious place to start is with some of the WSJ's pieces on the case [ http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/...36261045331876 ]

I'm sure the usual suspects will immediately launch the ad homiem attacks on the WSJ, but certainly the WSJ in their various editorials and stories (and there are a number, not just the link that I gave here) brings most of the lines of argument together.

I'm not going to attack the WSJ. But what I am seeking is evidence in support of what I referred to as conspiracy theories. I have not seen any evidence referred to. There is of course plenty of innuendo and suspicion, but I think the word evidence implies perhaps a little more than this.

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Seriously? I've posted a ton of links on this case over the last year and a half in the various threads discussing the case. If you really don't know, then the place to start is the text of Apple's appeal. The next most obvious place to start is with some of the WSJ's pieces on the case [ http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/...36261045331876 ]

I'm sure the usual suspects will immediately launch the ad homiem attacks on the WSJ, but certainly the WSJ in their various editorials and stories (and there are a number, not just the link that I gave here) brings most of the lines of argument together.

All that evidence, and you decided to go with another WSJ opinion* piece. Well I'm convinced.

*left off an important word in my original post.




Love the title of the linked piece, "Apple’s Star Chamber: An abusive judge and her prosecutor friend besiege the tech maker".

Note also that the piece is related to the issue we've been discussing, whether or not the publishers illegally conspired, but isn't directly about that; it's about the appropriateness of the court ordered monitor. If an opinion piece by WSJ (which the article helpfully points out is owned by News Corp. which owns one of those publishers) is evidence of anything, it's evidence of the appointment of an inappropriate monitor, but not that the publishers never colluded. Nice shift of the goal posts though.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

All that evidence, and you decided to go with another WSJ piece. Well I'm convinced.




Love the title of the linked piece, "Apple’s Star Chamber: An abusive judge and her prosecutor friend besiege the tech maker".

Note also that the piece is related to the issue we've been discussing, whether or not the publishers illegally conspired, but isn't directly about that; it's about the appropriateness of the court ordered monitor. If an opinion piece by WSJ (which the article helpfully points out is owned by News Corp. which owns one of those publishers) is evidence of anything, it's evidence of the appointment of an inappropriate monitor, but not that the publishers never colluded. Nice shift of the goal posts though.

I would have thought that a lawyer would have had a bit more reading comprehension skills that that. I specifically said, that the various WSJ pieces bring together the various lines of argument and that it is a good place to start. If you are actually interested in seeing the evidence, then you need to go back through the multitude of articles and follow the links in those articles. Some articles are pure opinion pieces and other articles include links to other original stories. If you aren't interested, then why in the world would I ever waste my time doing your work for you?

As far as pure evidence goes, I doubt one will find much evidence one way or the other on the internet, just various people's opinion. I've seen some evidence, such as Job's email to Murdoch (which turned out not to be the smoking gun that some claimed before it came out) or Judge Cote's endorsement letter for Bromwich's confirmation hearing, but not much else. There is evidence that Judge Cote tends to decide winners and losers early in a case, but that evidence is simply lawyers posting reviews of her. There is evidence that it is likely that she wrote much of her opinion before the actual trial actually started. Pass that, what evidence do you expect me to produce and what evidence are you willing/able to produce? After all, it is a two way street.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by darryl

I'm not going to attack the WSJ. But what I am seeking is evidence in support of what I referred to as conspiracy theories. I have not seen any evidence referred to. There is of course plenty of innuendo and suspicion, but I think the word evidence implies perhaps a little more than this.

I will note that since "conspiracy theory" seem to be the new catch phrase, conspiracy theory is an emotional phrase used to imply that the target is unhinged and can safely be dismissed as a crack pot. Thus, it is a form of ad homiem attack. It is particularly inappropriate since no where is a conspiracy postulated. To paraphrase Napoleon, the is no need to imply malice when simple incompetence will suffice. In this case, there is no need to postulate a conspiracy when simple human nature will suffice.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

As far as pure evidence goes, I doubt one will find much evidence one way or the other on the internet, just various people's opinion.

So in other words: You cannot point to any evidence. You can't even be sure there exists any evidence.

There is evidence that it is likely that she ...

Evidence that it is likely something happened? Hardly evidence at all.

[darryl]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I will note that since "conspiracy theory" seem to be the new catch phrase, conspiracy theory is an emotional phrase used to imply that the target is unhinged and can safely be dismissed as a crack pot. Thus, it is a form of ad homiem attack. It is particularly inappropriate since no where is a conspiracy postulated. To paraphrase Napoleon, the is no need to imply malice when simple incompetence will suffice. In this case, there is no need to postulate a conspiracy when simple human nature will suffice.

I don't know you personally and have no idea whether you are a crackpot or not. The fact that we are engaged in this discussion and I continue to engage in it with you indicates that I have not dismissed you or your opinions. However, some of your suspicions do amount to conspiracy and the phrase conspiracy theory is an apt one. If you choose to take it as a personal attack, that is up to you, but it should not be taken that way. As I think you pointed out in an earlier post, what you are expressing is your opinion and you don't need evidence. This is true. From what I have seen your opinion is based on innuendo leading to suspicion. This does not of course mean that it could not be true, but I have not seen any evidence to support it. Personally, I don't believe there is any to be found. You are nonetheless entitled to your opinion. If you do know of any actual evidence I remain interested in hearing about it.

[DiapDealer]

I'll see your strawman and raise you an ad hominem.

Red herring! Red herring!

Hey, I just got an Appeal to Novelty from that guy.

Does anyone think that using the "proper" names for common logical fallacies ever really contributed anything to an online discussion/argument (unless the discussion was actually about common logical fallacies, of course)?

[gbm]

wrong thread some how moved post.

bernie

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I would have thought that a lawyer would have had a bit more reading comprehension skills that that. I specifically said, that the various WSJ pieces bring together the various lines of argument and that it is a good place to start. If you are actually interested in seeing the evidence, then you need to go back through the multitude of articles and follow the links in those articles. Some articles are pure opinion pieces and other articles include links to other original stories. If you aren't interested, then why in the world would I ever waste my time doing your work for you?

As far as pure evidence goes, I doubt one will find much evidence one way or the other on the internet, just various people's opinion. I've seen some evidence, such as Job's email to Murdoch (which turned out not to be the smoking gun that some claimed before it came out) or Judge Cote's endorsement letter for Bromwich's confirmation hearing, but not much else. There is evidence that Judge Cote tends to decide winners and losers early in a case, but that evidence is simply lawyers posting reviews of her. There is evidence that it is likely that she wrote much of her opinion before the actual trial actually started. Pass that, what evidence do you expect me to produce and what evidence are you willing/able to produce? After all, it is a two way street.

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.

Originally Posted by pwalker8

...To paraphrase Napoleon, the[re] is no need to imply malice when simple incompetence will suffice...

I can't tell you how many times I've had that same thought throughout this thread.

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I'll see your strawman and raise you an ad hominem.

Red herring! Red herring!

Hey, I just got an Appeal to Novelty from that guy.

Does anyone think that using the "proper" names for common logical fallacies ever really contributed anything to an online discussion/argument (unless the discussion was actually about common logical fallacies, of course)?

I don't know. I think they contribute something if the person knows about the more typical logical fallacies, but usually the person using them doesn't, so it's not instructive. I've been called out a couple times, accurately, and I appreciated it after the blush subsided.

But sometimes identifying them can be a game in itself. It's like a hidden object picture (who can spot the red herring in this famous photo?). You know, that might be a fun thread. Someone could pull a few paragraphs from other forums (not from MobileRead though, to spare myself and others the embarrassment of being spotlighted), and then posters could try and spot the logical fallacy in use.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by darryl

I don't know you personally and have no idea whether you are a crackpot or not. The fact that we are engaged in this discussion and I continue to engage in it with you indicates that I have not dismissed you or your opinions. However, some of your suspicions do amount to conspiracy and the phrase conspiracy theory is an apt one. If you choose to take it as a personal attack, that is up to you, but it should not be taken that way. As I think you pointed out in an earlier post, what you are expressing is your opinion and you don't need evidence. This is true. From what I have seen your opinion is based on innuendo leading to suspicion. This does not of course mean that it could not be true, but I have not seen any evidence to support it. Personally, I don't believe there is any to be found. You are nonetheless entitled to your opinion. If you do know of any actual evidence I remain interested in hearing about it.

If you think that some of my suspicions amount to conspiracy, then what suspicions are those? I have not expressed any suspicions that a conspiracy has taken place.

Since I was talking to a lawyer, I was using evidence in the legal sense of the word, i.e. something that would be presented in a court of law. If you want "evidence" from the stand point of what I base my opinion on, then here is the basics - (note all these links have been presented in other threads_

1) Judge Cote wrote most of her opinion before the trial - The initial report for this was the DeWitt story in fortune - http://fortune.com/2013/07/10/the-ap...e-2nd-circuit/
Judge Cote said herself that she at least wrote the outline of the opinion before the trial. Some have dismissed this saying it was just note taking, but it's not what she said.

2) The issue of per se and horizontal verse vertical - This is really the crux of the case and why I think it will be over turned. This Parloff piece gives the basics (http://fortune.com/2013/06/05/us-v-a...supreme-court/)

3) Judge Cote is known for per-deciding cases. This comes from the comments of her in the Robing room, a web site where lawyers rate and comment on various judges - http://www.therobingroom.com/Judge.a...=1403#comments

look at the comments from 2011 and back.

As far as the rest goes, what specific facts are you asking for evidence? I will point out that most of this stuff is fairly straight forward to find via google.

[pwalker8]

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.