Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com>
Newsgroups: misc.phone.mobile.iphone
Subject: Re: Apple inflated the cost of its products through anticompetitive conduct
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2024 09:19:23 +1300
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 58
Message-ID: <uu4jcb$3pmot$1@dont-email.me>
References: <uttqcd$1d8k$1@news.gegeweb.eu> <uu3t8i$3k7rc$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2024 20:19:24 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f2fe6853517408667ebe0d8086414ed0";
	logging-data="3988253"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+aOXDRKN7YCMgKpPNdZi24/Je578GNRng="
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:qgKdigaZfFLp+aTsJQiWoCcnXCk=
Bytes: 3774

On 2024-03-28 14:01:44 +0000, Oscar Mayer said:

> On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 18:40:48 +1300, Your Name wrote:
> 
>>> That nutter has no idea that simply putting a trademark on something
>>> doesn't make it unique - especially when everyone has an app store too.
>> 
>> They were being sarcastic / joking. It also wasn't about the App Store 
>> - hence the world "products" in there.
> 
> Maybe I misunderstood the poster who made that sarcastic comment then.
> 
> I knew it was sarcasm, but if the sarcasm was aimed at claiming Apple made
> unique products - I can refute that by simply asking you two questions.
> 
> 1. How is an app store unique? (It's not unique. It's a commodity.)
> 2. How is a messaging app unique? (It's not unique. It's a commodity.)
> 
>> The US DOJ, thanks to greedy whiners like Epic Games, are basically 
>> saying Apple, Google, Meta, etc. cannot have proprietary things 
>> (devices and services) because that makes it a "monopoly" ... which is 
>> complete and utter nonsense.
> 
> I agree with you that the DOJ's case is that Apple restricts innovation &
> competition because Apple severely controls every aspect of the iPhone.
> 
> Whether or not the DOJ will win its case is up to the courts to decide.
> 
>> The US DOJ obviously has zero understanding of how businesses or the 
>> tech industry works.
> 
> We will need to disagree on that because it's clear from reading the DOJ
> case that the DOJ doesn't believe a word Apple says in why they control it.
> 
> In fact the DOJ says Apple is lying about the reason they restrict it,
> which shows an underlying understanding (if the DOJ is right) about Apple.
> 
>> Any judge who gives this idiotic court case more than two seconds of 
>> their time is a moron who shouldn't even be allowed to be a judge.   :-\
> 
> The DOJ is arguing that Apple is lying about the reason Apple severely
> controls the commodities on the iPhone and Apple in turn will argue that
> they severely control those commodities to "protect" the consumer.
> 
> In the end, it will up to the judge to decide who is telling the truth.

If a moronic judge decides this idiotic court case in the US DOJ's 
favour, then pretty much every company on the planet is going to stop 
bothering to do anything because they won't be able to protect their 
own ideas - why waste billions of dollars trying to develop something 
when every other lazy fool will be able to simply cash-in?

It will be the brainless idiots in the US DOJ who end up "restricting 
innovation and competition". At the basic level they're trying to end 
copyright and trademark laws. As I said, they have zero understanding 
of business and the tech industry.  :-\