3 ms·

> Awesome! So you agree that yes the courts have ruled that they violated californias unfair competition laws. Not quite. Effect does not precede cause. I corr

> Awesome! So you agree that yes the courts have ruled that they violated californias unfair competition laws. Not quite. Effect does not precede cause. I corrected you, and you then parroted my correction. > No, not if the contact breaches california's unfair competition laws! In that case, Apple would not be allowed to continue that unfairly competitive action. Apple is not required to issue contracts, nor even keep the AppStore running. Closing the AppStore, for example, would satisfy California's unfair competition laws. > But you have to concede that this means that Apple cannot continue to break that law. So yes, Apple has to change its behavior! You have to admit that yes Apple has to stop doing the unfairly competitive action. This is known as question begging, and it is fallacious. At any rate, I am through feeding your trolls.

stale2002 3y ago
> This is known as question begging, and it is fallacious. Actually it is recognizing the following 2 statements. Statement 1: The judges ruled that Apple broke the law, because of its behavior. Statement 2: Apple can't keep doing that, if the existing judgement stands. It sounds like you agree that both of these statements are true! > Apple is not required to issue contracts, nor even keep the AppStore running. So then Apple could not keep running an app store, with these provisions. If they run an App store, then they would be prevented, by law, from doing these unfair competition contracts. It sounds you agree completely that yes the judge ruled that they broke the law, and that they can't keep doing that, if the judgement stands!