4 ms·
Wrong - Amazon was behind it: http://www.salon.com/2014/01/12/amazons_bogus_anti_apple_crusade/ http://www.salon.com/2014/01/12/amazons_bogus_anti_apple_cru...
by gress 12y ago
Wrong - Amazon was behind it: http://www.salon.com/2014/01/12/amazons_bogus_anti_apple_crusade/ http://www.salon.com/2014/01/12/amazons_bogus_anti_apple_cru...
- revelation 12y agoSure, somebody has to ring the bell. But rest assured, this case was standing on its very own legs. People have this tendency to jump to the "big questions" that the law and judges simply aren't concerned with. There was very clear evidence here, and your opinion of Amazon doesn't factor into it.
- gress 12y agoYour faith in the impartiality of legal processes is most refreshing.
- fpgeek 12y agoGP wasn't making a statement about the impartiality of legal processes [1], they were making a statement about the evidence in this case. If you'd like to dispute that, I'd suggest looking at some of it. [1] In fact, the comment "somebody has to ring the bell" suggests significant awareness of biases in and limitations of legal processes.
- gress 12y agoThe point is that the selection of defendant is what this is all about. Amazon could equally well be subject to an antitrust case.