4 ms·

Rulings change all the time. You just mentioned an incoherent one in the thread about Amazon ebooks. Let's see how this one goes.

scarface_74 3y ago
Why does everyone act like 2013 is ancient history? https://qz.com/103169/how-apple-tried-to-turn-the-e-book-industry-against-amazon-and-lost https://qz.com/103169/how-apple-tried-to-turn-the-e-book-ind...
- Apocryphon 3y ago
  Non sequitur
  - scarface_74 3y ago
    So an article about what happened in the Apple ebooks case is a non sequitur about what happened in the Apple ebooks case? I guess I shouldn’t be surprised since people are ignoring a judges ruling that Apple isn’t a monopoly and saying it’s irrelevant.
    - Apocryphon 3y ago
      Judges are actively ignoring each other’s rulings these days, what matters is the newest case that will ensue, what happened in the case you are citing is basically an eternity as far as legal regimes go.
      - scarface_74 3y ago
        So did the Epic judge ignore the ruling of another judge where Apple was accused of behaving monopolistic in regards to the App Store?
        Apocryphon 3y ago
        Yes, because if you look at the ruling, she does not actually reference United States v. Apple Inc. (the Amazon ebooks case), meaning it did not factor into her decision in the slightest.
        scarface_74 3y ago
        The Amazon book case had to do with collusion between Apple and the book publishers. It had absolutely nothing to do with Apple being a “monopoly”. Unless you somehow think Apple had a monopoly on ebooks.
        Apocryphon 3y ago
        Therefore, you admit your question "So did the Epic judge ignore the ruling of another judge where Apple was accused of behaving monopolistic in regards to the App Store?" was made in bad faith, empty rhetoric. Also you agree with me that you bring it up was a non sequitur.
        scarface_74 3y ago
        I asked “So did the Epic judge ignore the ruling of another judge where Apple was accused of behaving monopolistic in regards to the App Store?” And you bought up a completely irrelevant case that the judge ignored. She also ignored the case about Apple Music (the company owned by the Beatles) suing Apple, was that a relevant case too?
        Apocryphon 3y ago
        What was the ruling by the other judge, and was it brought up in Epic Games v. Apple
        scarface_74 3y ago
        Why does it matter? One case was about collusion between Apple and the book publishers and the other was about whether Apple had a monopoly on the App Store. Why would the judge care about the other case? What precedence did the first cass set on the other?

scarface_74 3y ago

Why does everyone act like 2013 is ancient history? https://qz.com/103169/how-apple-tried-to-turn-the-e-book-industry-against-amazon-and-lost https://qz.com/103169/how-apple-tried-to-turn-the-e-book-ind...

Apocryphon 3y ago
Non sequitur
- scarface_74 3y ago
  So an article about what happened in the Apple ebooks case is a non sequitur about what happened in the Apple ebooks case? I guess I shouldn’t be surprised since people are ignoring a judges ruling that Apple isn’t a monopoly and saying it’s irrelevant.
  - Apocryphon 3y ago
    Judges are actively ignoring each other’s rulings these days, what matters is the newest case that will ensue, what happened in the case you are citing is basically an eternity as far as legal regimes go.
    - scarface_74 3y ago
      So did the Epic judge ignore the ruling of another judge where Apple was accused of behaving monopolistic in regards to the App Store?
      - Apocryphon 3y ago
        Yes, because if you look at the ruling, she does not actually reference United States v. Apple Inc. (the Amazon ebooks case), meaning it did not factor into her decision in the slightest.
        scarface_74 3y ago
        The Amazon book case had to do with collusion between Apple and the book publishers. It had absolutely nothing to do with Apple being a “monopoly”. Unless you somehow think Apple had a monopoly on ebooks.
        Apocryphon 3y ago
        Therefore, you admit your question "So did the Epic judge ignore the ruling of another judge where Apple was accused of behaving monopolistic in regards to the App Store?" was made in bad faith, empty rhetoric. Also you agree with me that you bring it up was a non sequitur.
        scarface_74 3y ago
        I asked “So did the Epic judge ignore the ruling of another judge where Apple was accused of behaving monopolistic in regards to the App Store?” And you bought up a completely irrelevant case that the judge ignored. She also ignored the case about Apple Music (the company owned by the Beatles) suing Apple, was that a relevant case too?
        Apocryphon 3y ago
        What was the ruling by the other judge, and was it brought up in Epic Games v. Apple
        scarface_74 3y ago
        Why does it matter? One case was about collusion between Apple and the book publishers and the other was about whether Apple had a monopoly on the App Store. Why would the judge care about the other case? What precedence did the first cass set on the other?