5 ms·

Apple's Star Chamber

15 points by replicatorblog 13y ago

davidgerard 13y ago
What a terrible article.
- gress 13y ago
  It is a badly written screed, but it rings true.
  - davidgerard 13y ago
    They were found guilty, and paying a truly trivial percentage of their income from the business unit in question to monitor compliance is part of that. The article rings true only as sincerely entitled whining.
    - fennecfoxen 13y ago
      Allow me to inquire with you, then. The WSJ alleges extralegal abuses. "Mr. Bromwich has rewritten his job description to investigate Apple all over again, not simply monitor if Apple is abiding by the terms of the court judgment while it appeals the case." Are the allegations a lie? Alternatively, is the extralegal abuse justified somehow and, if so, how?
      - davidgerard 13y ago
        The allegations are a whiny slant on the facts: if you breach antitrust - which is in fact a pretty grievous offence against free enterprise - you get checked in considerable detail. None of this is unusual.
        gress 13y ago
        Nope. You don't have an extralegal investigator with unlimited powers to interfere with your business. If you have alternative facts, you should present them.
        fennecfoxen 13y ago
        It sounds like you do not dispute that the investigator is extralegal and inconsistent with the normal mechanisms of justice. You seem to be okay with this because the "grievous offence against free enterprise" justifies it even if the law does not. which I think is very banana-republic of you
        davidgerard 13y ago
        If he was "extralegal", he'd be out of there already. It's not like Apple is short of legal resources. They were found guilty of antitrust offences. This is what happens when that happens. I appreciate you don't like this, but that doesn't change that (a) they did a bad thing (b) they were busted (c) this is the consequences (d) entitled whining in the WSJ doesn't change that.
        fennecfoxen 13y ago
        Okay. So now it sounds like you believe it's not extralegal because if it was extralegal something would have been done about it already. I find your level of faith in the justice system disturbing. Even the ability of rich corporations to rectify any sort of judicial or systematic abuse is quite limited (and God help you if you're an ordinary human being). This has been especially the case (but not exclusively the case) under our current administration: the Chrysler bankruptcy, for instance, where UAW pensions were granted seniority over bondholders in an inversion of all previous law and precedent. What are you going to do about it? Sue the government? Moreover, there is a price to fighting back. If Apple were to seek the legal action, what's to stop them from being investigated again on trumped-up charges as a pure act of revenge? (Next thing you'll tell me is that NSA wiretapping everyone and their dog is clearly 100% fourth-amendment legal because if it were illegal the courts would have shut it down already.)
    - gress 13y ago
      Did you read the article? It isn't about what Apple is paying.

davidgerard 13y ago

What a terrible article.

gress 13y ago
It is a badly written screed, but it rings true.
- davidgerard 13y ago
  They were found guilty, and paying a truly trivial percentage of their income from the business unit in question to monitor compliance is part of that. The article rings true only as sincerely entitled whining.
  - fennecfoxen 13y ago
    Allow me to inquire with you, then. The WSJ alleges extralegal abuses. "Mr. Bromwich has rewritten his job description to investigate Apple all over again, not simply monitor if Apple is abiding by the terms of the court judgment while it appeals the case." Are the allegations a lie? Alternatively, is the extralegal abuse justified somehow and, if so, how?
    - davidgerard 13y ago
      The allegations are a whiny slant on the facts: if you breach antitrust - which is in fact a pretty grievous offence against free enterprise - you get checked in considerable detail. None of this is unusual.
      - gress 13y ago
        Nope. You don't have an extralegal investigator with unlimited powers to interfere with your business. If you have alternative facts, you should present them.
      - fennecfoxen 13y ago
        It sounds like you do not dispute that the investigator is extralegal and inconsistent with the normal mechanisms of justice. You seem to be okay with this because the "grievous offence against free enterprise" justifies it even if the law does not. which I think is very banana-republic of you
        davidgerard 13y ago
        If he was "extralegal", he'd be out of there already. It's not like Apple is short of legal resources. They were found guilty of antitrust offences. This is what happens when that happens. I appreciate you don't like this, but that doesn't change that (a) they did a bad thing (b) they were busted (c) this is the consequences (d) entitled whining in the WSJ doesn't change that.
        fennecfoxen 13y ago
        Okay. So now it sounds like you believe it's not extralegal because if it was extralegal something would have been done about it already. I find your level of faith in the justice system disturbing. Even the ability of rich corporations to rectify any sort of judicial or systematic abuse is quite limited (and God help you if you're an ordinary human being). This has been especially the case (but not exclusively the case) under our current administration: the Chrysler bankruptcy, for instance, where UAW pensions were granted seniority over bondholders in an inversion of all previous law and precedent. What are you going to do about it? Sue the government? Moreover, there is a price to fighting back. If Apple were to seek the legal action, what's to stop them from being investigated again on trumped-up charges as a pure act of revenge? (Next thing you'll tell me is that NSA wiretapping everyone and their dog is clearly 100% fourth-amendment legal because if it were illegal the courts would have shut it down already.)
  - gress 13y ago
    Did you read the article? It isn't about what Apple is paying.