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

[Ninjalawyer]

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.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

There has been a fair amount of evidence, but you and others simply blow it off because it doesn't fit your opinion. We have gone over this ground many times. I seriously doubt anyone here will change their mind until either new evidence appears, or the final ruling of the case by either the district court or the supreme court.

Originally Posted by John F

If the final ruling upholds the ruling, and there is no new evidence, will you change your mind?

What is this "if" you speak of?

Of course he wouldn't. He can always say the final ruling was corrupted by Amazon's crony capitalism also.

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Given that the Supreme Court is the final voice with regards to the law in the US, then yes. I might not like it, but they are the final voice.

I don't think the question is whether or not you will accept it.

The question is whether or not you will believe it.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Why would they worry? No company particularly wants bad press. Many companies also prefer to work behind the scenes.

Considering the whole Hachette-Amazon spat, I think I can safely say Amazon does not care about bad press.

Also, their not-caring has proven wise, as they don't seem to have been affected. It may have something to do with the way people are beginning to recognize that the newspapers are not very reliable for anything even slightly controversial or opinionated -- and this is both, insomuch as it appears people have opinions about it.

[eschwartz]

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.

Yay, another paywalled opinion piece. And you didn't quote anything from it to support your point, for the benefit of the majority of people, who don't subscribe to the WSJ just to argue with you about it.



(Note my repeated use of ad hominem attacks every time I raise this objection. )

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by j.p.s

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.

Intellectual capacity that isn't used might as well not exist.

Perhaps I should've said, he clearly isn't very smart, common-sense-wise.

[eschwartz]

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.

Let's have fun with fallacies.

According to Wikipedia:

An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.[2] Fallacious Ad hominem reasoning is normally categorized as an informal fallacy,[3][4][5] more precisely as a genetic fallacy,[6] a subcategory of fallacies of irrelevance.[7] Ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, for example, when it relates to the credibility of statements of fact.

Notice that ad hominem is a fallacy of irrelevance. It is not a fallacy if ad hominem "relates to the credibility of statements of fact". IN short, if we accuse you of being factually unreliable in this matter, it is not a fallacious ad hominem attack, it is something you need to respond to. When we accuse you of having no evidence to the point of qualifying as a conspiracy theory, that is a legitimate claim that can be rebutted by... drumroll... providing evidence!

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.

You do know this cuts both ways???

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

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.

Crony capitalism doesn't necessarily involve conspiracy and it isn't illegal per se. It's simply the way things work. It's simply standard networking when one of the parties is in the government. Amazon lobbies the US government heavily. Here is an article from the Washington Post that talks about Amazon's Washington DC lobbying office ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...24a_story.html ). Call me cynical, but there is a reason that Amazon spends millions of dollars in Washington, DC.

Frankly, I'm going to spend more time finding specific examples for you since your history is of thoughtful posts. I'm not going to spend a lot of time reposting the same old links for people who have not shown that they are interested in serious discussion rather than being snarky or complaining because some information is behind a paywall (hint, at one time one could google the title of most WSJ articles and get past the paywall, this is if one is actually interested rather than just playing rhetorical games). The initial article is of interest become it sums up some of the various objections to the ruling, rather than presenting evidence. It is possible to read that article, then google for information about the various points, if one wants more detail.

The Leegin case and the anti-trust philosophy expressed by Bork in his book are important for understanding why I believe that Judge Cote has misapplied the law. I understand that she cited it, but it doesn't follow that she correctly applied it. She seems to have been applying the old standard and then when called on it, dismissed the objection with a wave of her hand.

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Intellectual capacity that isn't used might as well not exist.

OK then. Will you finally concede that requirements that don't exist might as well be considered met?

[darryl]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

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.

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.

My use of the word conspiracy flows from your allegations of crony capitalism. In such cases it is difficult to envisage how the quid pro quo or quid pro quos involved can be provided without some form of conspiracy, though such conspiracy is usually difficult or impossible to prove. But of course there are usually suspicions, accurate or otherwise.

So far as evidence is concerned, I seek any evidence of a causal link between Amazons political donations/relationships and the DOJ's decision-making in this matter. Also, of any causal link between those political donations/relationships and the decision of the court.

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

I don't think the question is whether or not you will accept it.

The question is whether or not you will believe it.

If Cote is upheld, I will accept it. I will believe it is correct and sound legal reasoning as much as I believe the Citizen's United and the Bush v. Gore decisions are sound nonpartisan legal decisions, or that the Hobby Lobby case would have been decided as it was if the justices weren't driven by their personal Catholic religious views.

All that the current Supreme Court can ever expect from thinking citizens is acceptance. Belief that they are well thought-out, sound legal decisions that will be remembered 100 years from now for incisive legal reasoning is an unreasonable expectation and one that none but perhaps Scalia would entertain.

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Yay, another paywalled opinion piece.

It seems that a basic lesson in Internet use is needed: Take the title of the article and enter it into the Google search engine. In case you can't find Google, here is the link: http://www.google.com. Then press the Search button. When the results appear, pick the link to the article that displays the article's content outside the paywall.

If you find that too difficult, then quit complaining that you can't access the articles -- because you can; you are just too lazy to do so.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I'm not going to spend a lot of time reposting the same old links for people who have not shown that they are interested in serious discussion rather than being snarky or complaining because some information is behind a paywall (hint, at one time one could google the title of most WSJ articles and get past the paywall, this is if one is actually interested rather than just playing rhetorical games).

Originally Posted by rhadin

It seems that a basic lesson in Internet use is needed: Take the title of the article and enter it into the Google search engine. In case you can't find Google, here is the link: http://www.google.com. Then press the Search button. When the results appear, pick the link to the article that displays the article's content outside the paywall.

If you find that too difficult, then quit complaining that you can't access the articles -- because you can; you are just too lazy to do so.

Well, yes -- I would do that, except that WSJ has apparently caught on, since that hasn't worked for a while now. I suggest you try it and see.

Google redirect for WSJ article linked above

Gets me:


Google webcache does not make that page accessible either, for obvious reasons.

[pidgeon92]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Well, yes -- I would do that, except that WSJ has apparently caught on, since that hasn't worked for a while now. I suggest you try it and see.

I tried it earlier this afternoon, when I found a different article that was behind the WSJ paywall, and it worked just fine.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by rhadin

If Cote is upheld, I will accept it. I will believe it is correct and sound legal reasoning as much as I believe the Citizen's United and the Bush v. Gore decisions are sound nonpartisan legal decisions, or that the Hobby Lobby case would have been decided as it was if the justices weren't driven by their personal Catholic religious views.

All that the current Supreme Court can ever expect from thinking citizens is acceptance. Belief that they are well thought-out, sound legal decisions that will be remembered 100 years from now for incisive legal reasoning is an unreasonable expectation and one that none but perhaps Scalia would entertain.

Historically, the Supreme Court has always had a political aspect to it. Heck, until fairly recently, it was a place to pay off political favors. Taft became a Supreme Court justice some eight years after being president, Earl Warren was Governor of California before becoming a Supreme Court Justice.

Anti-Trust law tends to be very uncertain. There are 3 basic antitrust laws, The Sherman Act of 1890, the Clayton Act of 1914 and the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914. No major changes other than those laws, yet the same basic laws have been interpreted quite differently by various judges over the years. The Leegin case was decided in a 5-4 decision by Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito. All are on the current court.

In the American judicial system, it's important that the Supreme Court be accepted as having the final say, right or wrong. That's probably about as much as one can ask.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by pidgeon92

I tried it earlier this afternoon, when I found a different article that was behind the WSJ paywall, and it worked just fine.

That's... odd. The above link continues to hit the paywall for me. Are you getting the paywall on that link?

I guess I assumed something must've changed on their end, but I cannot for the life of me figure out what might be the problem on my end.