Antitrust fallout: retailers sue conspirators

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

On the other hand, the main purpose of calling people fanbois is to dismiss their opinions as biased and pointless.

You have dismissed everyone elses' opinions as biased and pointless, without the need for calling us fanbois. Good job on that, by the way. More more effective, as ad hominem attacks go.

So you have done the direct equivalent of calling us fanbois. But we are the ones who use ad hominem attacks. You would never do such a thing. (Not even by accusing us of "claim[ing] that anyone who has a different opinion than mine must be some sort of fanboi.")

I'm not dismissing anyone's opinion. I have told anyone to go away or to shut up. Obviously, I pay attention to some more than others and I'm a lot more interested in someone who gives a somewhat more detailed analysis than "Apple stinks, Judge Cote rocks", or someone who simply reiterates talking points. Thus, I'm more likely to respond to someone who talks about the legal theory behind the case, or point out a new information.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I'm not dismissing anyone's opinion. I have told anyone to go away or to shut up. Obviously, I pay attention to some more than others and I'm a lot more interested in someone who gives a somewhat more detailed analysis than "Apple stinks, Judge Cote rocks", or someone who simply reiterates talking points. Thus, I'm more likely to respond to someone who talks about the legal theory behind the case, or point out a new information.

Will you be answering Graham's question?

Shari

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by shalym

pwalker8, can you please answer Graham's question? I'm curious, too. Maybe we missed something?

Shari

I'm not sure what the question is. Do I remember more sources than just the Fortune article and the judicial rating site? Sure, quite a few. Some are sites that I don't consider particularly credible, some were sites that are behind paywalls, some who are probably repeating other reports. Keep in mind that both Fortune and the WSJ have written quite a few articles on the matter. It's also been discussed quite a bit on various legal sites.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I'm not dismissing anyone's opinion. I have told anyone to go away or to shut up. Obviously, I pay attention to some more than others and I'm a lot more interested in someone who gives a somewhat more detailed analysis than "Apple stinks, Judge Cote rocks", or someone who simply reiterates talking points. Thus, I'm more likely to respond to someone who talks about the legal theory behind the case, or point out a new information.

I never said you told anyone to shut up. You simply ignore them.

Is Graham's analysis detailed enough to be worthy of your attention?

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I'm not sure what the question is. Do I remember more sources than just the Fortune article and the judicial rating site? Sure, quite a few. Some are sites that I don't consider particularly credible, some were sites that are behind paywalls, some who are probably repeating other reports. Keep in mind that both Fortune and the WSJ have written quite a few articles on the matter. It's also been discussed quite a bit on various legal sites.

This:

Originally Posted by Graham

pwalker8, if these are not the three pieces of evidence that convinced you that Judge Cote was biased because she had prepared most of her judgement in advance, please direct us to your other sources.

Don't just say "it's been discussed". Apparently you have magical google skills or something, because people have looked for your sources and found them ... here on MR in your posts, and nowhere else. IF these sources exist, please provide them.

[pwalker8]

There is a difference between ignore and not comment. I seriously doubt anyone wants me to comment on each and every post. I comment if I think I have something to add to the discussion and I find the discussion of interest.

Contrary to popular opinion, links don't have infinite life spans, many sites use dynamically generated pages rather than static pages. For example, the following page give a nice overview of the reaction following the trial

http://www.mhpbooks.com/breaking-new...e-fixing-case/

This article has a number of links in it, yet when I follow the links, many are no longer valid, though they were when I first read the article almost a year ago. For example, I can no longer pull up the original Elmer-Dewitt articles, the page comes up, but there is no article. I don't know if there is an issue on my end, or if the articles have aged off the fortune server.

For the most part, the evidence is the footnote already referenced by Barcey where Judge Cote said "...the Court had already prepared a draft opinion...". The various links that I looked at discussed if this confirms what Elmer-Dewitt said, is it unusual to pre-write a draft opinion, what she meant by draft opinion and why she included that line in final opinion. At the time, this last point was considered significant by many.

[Graham]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

For the most part, the evidence is the footnote already referenced by Barcey where Judge Cote said "...the Court had already prepared a draft opinion...".

Here is the footnote in full:

The Court’s procedures for non-jury proceedings were discussed in detail at conferences held on June 22 and October 26, 2012, and May 8, 2013. As the parties were informed, the Court prepared a draft opinion in advance of the bench trial based on the witness affidavits and other documents submitted with the pretrial order and the arguments of counsel in their trial memoranda. At trial, the affiants swore to the truth of the contents of their affidavits and were tendered for cross and redirect examination, and the other trial evidence was formally received. The parties understood that the Court’s final findings of fact and conclusions of law would incorporate all of this evidence. Consistent with these procedures, and with the expectation that the Court had already prepared a draft opinion, the parties jointly asked the Court for its preliminary views on the merits at the final pretrial conference held on May 23, 2013.

It is perfectly clear that the draft opinion referred to is Judge Cote's preliminary thoughts based on the evidence submitted pre-trial and not a reference to writing a draft of the final judgement before the main trial.

Graham

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Graham

Here is the footnote in full:



It is perfectly clear that the draft opinion referred to is Judge Cote's preliminary thoughts based on the evidence submitted pre-trial and not a reference to writing a draft of the final judgement before the main trial.

Graham

Eyes of the beholder. You draw one conclusion from it and many others draw a different conclusion. I think that it's equally valid to draw the conclusion that clear language of what she says means that she was writing a draft of her final opinion, rather than some sort of summary notes of the evidence like you seem to imply. Some of the analysis of the opinion that I have seen says that only a small part of the opinion refers to evidence presented in the trial rather than pre-trial and most of that is simply her rebuttal of Apple's final argument, which supports the idea that much was written prior to the trial. Both are supportable opinions, but I find the later more likely.

Just to expand on this a bit more, there is an interesting book by Johan Lehrer, "How We Decide" which goes into the brain activity that goes on when we make decisions. One of the things discussed in the book is that people have a tendency to decide something quickly, and then start looking for justifications for that decision. For example, I might choose a car because I like it's look, then point to all the features the car has to justify buying the car. For all practical purposes, I think this reality is why those who question Judge Cote, do so. I have also found that once people put something in writing, they are much more resistant to throwing it away and starting a fresh.

[Graham]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Eyes of the beholder. You draw one conclusion from it and many others draw a different conclusion. I think that it's equally valid to draw the conclusion that clear language of what she says means that she was writing a draft of her final opinion, rather than some sort of summary notes of the evidence like you seem to imply.

The difference is that I am taking it to mean exactly what she is saying within the context that she is saying it.

You are taking it to mean something outside of the context in which it is presented, and are taking the word 'opinion' to mean something considerably more, along the order of 'text of the final judgement'.

And even if she is referring to a draft laid out in detailed text form here, there is absolutely no evidence that proves it formed the majority of the text she presented after the trial, and in particular the final 40 pages of her reasoning for her judgement.

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Some of the analysis of the opinion that I have seen says that only a small part of the opinion refers to evidence presented in the trial rather than pre-trial and most of that is simply her rebuttal of Apple's final argument, which supports the idea that much was written prior to the trial. Both are supportable opinions, but I find the later more likely.

I would like to see that analysis too. Please can you supply links?

Graham

[Graham]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I have also found that once people put something in writing, they are much more resistant to throwing it away and starting a fresh.

Do you really think that Judge Cote, given the task of reviewing all the mountains of evidence submitted for the pretrial, and given the task of presenting a preliminary opinion at the request of Apple and the DOJ, should have done this without writing anything down?

Graham

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

This article has a number of links in it, yet when I follow the links, many are no longer valid, though they were when I first read the article almost a year ago. For example, I can no longer pull up the original Elmer-Dewitt articles, the page comes up, but there is no article. I don't know if there is an issue on my end, or if the articles have aged off the fortune server.

Google and you shall find: https://fortunebrainstormtech.wordpr...e-cote/page/2/

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Eyes of the beholder. You draw one conclusion from it and many others draw a different conclusion. I think that it's equally valid to draw the conclusion that clear language of what she says means that she was writing a draft of her final opinion, rather than some sort of summary notes of the evidence like you seem to imply. Some of the analysis of the opinion that I have seen says that only a small part of the opinion refers to evidence presented in the trial rather than pre-trial and most of that is simply her rebuttal of Apple's final argument, which supports the idea that much was written prior to the trial. Both are supportable opinions, but I find the later more likely.

Your conclusion is completely invalid.

The Court’s procedures for non-jury proceedings were discussed in detail at conferences held on June 22 and October 26, 2012, and May 8, 2013. As the parties were informed, the Court prepared a draft opinion in advance of the bench trial based on the witness affidavits and other documents submitted with the pretrial order and the arguments of counsel in their trial memoranda.

(^emphasis mine)
For one thing it is clearly stated that the judge discussed the court's procedures for non-jury proceedings, and Apple didn't object to them. For another, as I pointed out in post #117, the judge's study of the witness affidavits benefited Apple on one occasion.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Graham

Do you really think that Judge Cote, given the task of reviewing all the mountains of evidence submitted for the pretrial, and given the task of presenting a preliminary opinion at the request of Apple and the DOJ, should have done this without writing anything down?

Graham

As I said, it's hard to find links after a year. I wish I could find them again.

Notes yes, Draft opinion no. You seem to be interpreting what she said is simply a series of notes about the evidence, while I'm interpreting what she said as she actually wrote a draft opinion.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

Google and you shall find: https://fortunebrainstormtech.wordpr...e-cote/page/2/



Your conclusion is completely invalid.

(^emphasis mine)
For one thing it is clearly stated that the judge discussed the court's procedures for non-jury proceedings, and Apple didn't object to them. For another, as I pointed out in post #117, the judge's study of the witness affidavits benefited Apple on one occasion.

Sigh. In your haste to play I gotcha, you didn't read closely enough. I said that I could not find the original article. You post a link to a copy that someone made of the article on wordpress. People don't make copies of every article in existance. You actually prove my point, which is that the original article is no longer out there, just copies of it scattered around.

As I have mentioned before, Apple disagrees with Judge Cote's assertion that she told Apple that she was going to write the decision before the trial and they did not object.

[Graham]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Notes yes, Draft opinion no. You seem to be interpreting what she said is simply a series of notes about the evidence, while I'm interpreting what she said as she actually wrote a draft opinion.

You're the one who said I was interpreting it as a series of notes.

I haven't interpreted it as any particular level of detail, as it's impossible to work that out from the comments as recorded.

What I'm interpreting the phrase 'draft opinion' to mean is... 'draft opinion'.

i.e. she wrote out her preliminary opinion on the evidence presented for the pretrial in draft form.

It's entirely possible that some or even a lot of that draft text made it into the final judgement, and I have agreed that it's perfectly possible that the first 112 pages of the final document - but not the accompanying footnotes - could have been written in advance as it covers the events leading up to the trial and the prior cases that have relevance.

Entirely possible. But nothing we've seen proves that it was.

Your contention was that it was a fact that she had written the majority in advance, and you've mentioned this repeatedly to support the idea that Judge Cote was biased during the main trial.

Even if draft text made it to the final document, all that means is that Judge Cote felt that it was appropriate for that text to be there in the final judgement.

Graham

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Sigh. In your haste to play I gotcha, you didn't read closely enough. I said that I could not find the original article. You post a link to a copy that someone made of the article on wordpress. People don't make copies of every article in existance. You actually prove my point, which is that the original article is no longer out there, just copies of it scattered around.

Not someone, FORTUNE. And those are permalinks, which according to Wikipedia:

A permalink (portmanteau of permanent link) is a URL that points to a specific blog or forum entry after it has passed from the front page to the archives. Because a permalink remains unchanged indefinitely, it is less susceptible to link rot. Most modern weblogging and content-syndication software systems support such links. Other types of websites use the term permanent links, but the term permalink is most common within the blogosphere. Permalinks are often simply rendered so as to be human-readable.

Originally Posted by pwalker8

As I have mentioned before, Apple disagrees with Judge Cote's assertion that she told Apple that she was going to write the decision before the trial and they did not object.

It was not the decision, but a draft opinion.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Graham

You're the one who said I was interpreting it as a series of notes.

I haven't interpreted it as any particular level of detail, as it's impossible to work that out from the comments as recorded.

What I'm interpreting the phrase 'draft opinion' to mean is... 'draft opinion'.

i.e. she wrote out her preliminary opinion on the evidence presented for the pretrial in draft form.

It's entirely possible that some or even a lot of that draft text made it into the final judgement, and I have agreed that it's perfectly possible that the first 112 pages of the final document - but not the accompanying footnotes - could have been written in advance as it covers the events leading up to the trial and the prior cases that have relevance.

Entirely possible. But nothing we've seen proves that it was.

Your contention was that it was a fact that she had written the majority in advance, and you've mentioned this repeatedly to support the idea that Judge Cote was biased during the main trial.

Even if draft text made it to the final document, all that means is that Judge Cote felt that it was appropriate for that text to be there in the final judgement.

Graham

If your assumption is that she wrote a draft opinion rather than just take notes, then yes I have an issue with that. There is a reason that I referred "How We Decide" earlier. I'm afraid that your standard of proof is far, far higher than Judge Cotes' standard of proof. What exactly would be required for you to say that it is likely that Judge Cote wrote much of her opinion before the actual trial? What is the verbiage that will satisfy you? If you are looking for Judge Cote to say "Sure I wrote most of it before the trial, and you know it sure would take some major evidence before I was going to change my mind. I would rather call the only witnesses to the events liars than change it"? There is no way she would admit that. Few people will admit, even to themselves, that once they form an opinion, they are very resistant to changing it.