3 ms·

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

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?
        Apocryphon 3y ago
        To answer the 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?" If the judge didn't care about the other case, then they are plainly ignoring the ruling of the other judge, thus substantiating my assertion that "Judges are actively ignoring each other’s rulings these days, what matters is the newest case that will ensue"
        scarface_74 3y ago
        Really? So are you saying that the judge in the Epic case about the App Store should have taken into account a completely unrelated case just because it involved Apple? To what end?
        Apocryphon 3y ago
        Sounds like the answer to "So did the Epic judge ignore the ruling of another judge where Apple was accused of behaving monopolistic in regards to the App Store?" is a NO, then.
        scarface_74 3y ago
        You still don’t get it. Apple in no way shape or form had a monopoly on ebooks in 2013. There is a huge difference between monopolistic practices and collusion. You and I could have two competing taco stands in Nebraska and if we colluded to fix prices that would be illegal collusion even though it isn’t monopolistic. This is why HN users make bad keyboard lawyers.

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?
      - Apocryphon 3y ago
        To answer the 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?" If the judge didn't care about the other case, then they are plainly ignoring the ruling of the other judge, thus substantiating my assertion that "Judges are actively ignoring each other’s rulings these days, what matters is the newest case that will ensue"
        scarface_74 3y ago
        Really? So are you saying that the judge in the Epic case about the App Store should have taken into account a completely unrelated case just because it involved Apple? To what end?
        Apocryphon 3y ago
        Sounds like the answer to "So did the Epic judge ignore the ruling of another judge where Apple was accused of behaving monopolistic in regards to the App Store?" is a NO, then.
        scarface_74 3y ago
        You still don’t get it. Apple in no way shape or form had a monopoly on ebooks in 2013. There is a huge difference between monopolistic practices and collusion. You and I could have two competing taco stands in Nebraska and if we colluded to fix prices that would be illegal collusion even though it isn’t monopolistic. This is why HN users make bad keyboard lawyers.