3 ms·
The courts outright have proven that Apple lied and forced them to pay out damages, how can that be "misrepresented and exaggerated"?!
by izacus 3y ago
The courts outright have proven that Apple lied and forced them to pay out damages, how can that be "misrepresented and exaggerated"?!
- thebruce87m 3y agoThat is an incredible claim. Please link to this court judgement.
- izacus 3y agoAfter appeals were rejected, Apple is making payments to affected customers: https://www.smartphoneperformancesettlement.com/ https://www.smartphoneperformancesettlement.com/ You can find links to litigation there.
- thebruce87m 3y agoI had a quick scan but I can’t see it. Can you quote the bit where the court said Apple lied? Edit: Document is here: https://angeion-public.s3.amazonaws.com/www.SmartphonePerformanceSettlement.com/docs/Class+Notice.pdf https://angeion-public.s3.amazonaws.com/www.SmartphonePerfor... > The Court did not decide the case in favor of Plaintiffs or Apple. This does not support your assertion that the court decided that Apple lied.
- izacus 3y agoPerhaps finish reading the said sentence - the court didn't decide the case because Apple decided to pay out money for their actions. Your assumption that Apple's settlement to avoid guilty verdict somehow means that they didn't do the action (which they agreed to pay damages for) is the wildest instance of corporate boot licking I've seen this week :D If the court decided that plaintiffs didn't have a case, Apple wouldn't settle.
- thebruce87m 3y agoI’m not sure how you failing to provide proof of lying makes me a corporate boot licker? Deciding to settle is a business decision which may or may not be related to what they did. This is the difference between a legal system and a justice system.
- madeofpalk 3y agoHave the courts actually proven that, or did Apple settle, avoiding the courts proving anything one way or another?
- izacus 3y agoWhat's the difference? Apple appleals were rejected and then they started to compensating customers for their actions. Seems like it was proven enough that the corporation admitted to wrong doing and is paying damages to customers.
- thebruce87m 3y agoIf you don’t appreciate the difference, you should refrain from making statements like your original one since it might get you in trouble.
- izacus 3y agoPlease explain what kind of trouble are you threatening me with by claiming that corporation paying damages for their actions is kind of a good proof that those actions actually happened?
- thebruce87m 3y agoI am not threatening you. I’m saying if you assert that an entity is lying and you fail to provide proof then it can have consequences. It may make you the liar, since you are making false statements.