3 ms·
The judge said Epic failed to prove Apple had a monopoly, not that they do not have a monopoly.
by ThatPlayer 4y ago
The judge said Epic failed to prove Apple had a monopoly, not that they do not have a monopoly.
- scarface74 4y agoIf Epic couldn’t prove it in a court of law with high priced lawyers, discovery, etc. in front of a judge, maybe random HN posters are wrong?
- ThatPlayer 4y agoJudges can also be wrong. That's what appeal courts are for. That case in front of that judge is not the be-all-end-all of what is correct. Do you think OJ Simpson didn't do it because he was found not guilty? There's a reason criminal verdict are phrased as 'not guilty', not 'innocent'.
- scarface74 4y agoSo now the judges are wrong and not random people on HN?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- ThatPlayer 4y agoIt is a possibility. Should I accept a judge's decision because it's a judge's decision? Or should I use my own critical thinking about a topic to decide? And in this case the judge's decision was that Epic didn't prove it was a monopoly, not that it wasn't. So therefore "it is a monopoly" doesn't contradict that, and both can be correct. So neither are wrong.
- scarface74 4y agoWhen it comes to a law, yes you should accept a judges decision where a case was unsuccessful argued by high priced experts in the law.