Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Pushes Back Against India's New Digital Market Regulations
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It's relevant in a conversation about the Smart Phone market, which is what we're talking about and what is being regulated
Guilty until proven innocent? At least two of those three examples have been settled in a court of law, proving your statement false as a matter of fact. That’s an impressive fantasy world you’ve imagined for yourself where Apple never does any wrong and has never broken any law.
Yes all actions are settled in a court of law. Next up, the sky is blue.
No it doesn’t.
The above is a broad sweeping logical fallacy.
Fascinating that you say this while also saying:
Considering that:
United States v. Apple (2012) - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
A comprehensive breakdown of the Epic v. Apple ruling
Apple’s not a monopolist, but it still stifled competition.www.theverge.com
It seems you have no problem simply making things up as you go, even to the point of making conflicting statements. Not all that surprising though considering how acceptable that seems to be these days.
I guess in your mind you’re entitled to not only your own opinions but your own facts as well.
Pointing out your non-sensical and false statements is not a logical fallacy, much as you may wish it to be.
Last edited:
Apple haven’t been merely “charged”.
They - to borrow the parlance - have been convicted.
They have been found guilty of violating antitrust law - contrary to your claim that…
May that ruling ultimately be overturned? Possibly. But for the time being, it certainly contradicts your claim.
Last edited:
Again, following the laws and convicting something especially when you believe you are following the laws are two different things.
Apple has been charged and let me know when they have to pay up.
This is getting ridiculous. You maintain that Apple has not faced legal trouble, evidence to the contrary has been brought to you.
You claim that the legal trouble did not result in anything, so the conviction is brought to you. Apple was found guilty of violating antitrust law.
Now you've moved the goalpost to "well, they haven't been punished yet." That's irrelevant - the fact of the matter is that they have been found in violation of the law.
How far are you going to move the goalposts? "Well, Tim hasn't been put to death yet, so clearly it's not Apple's Problem"?
What is ridiculous are people not reading the posts. Please show me where I specifically said apple has not faced legal trouble.
And what was the outcome?
The goalpost deserved to be moved.
Until they pay up.
Well in the e-books case for instance, "in March 2016, the Supreme Court of the United States declined to hear Apple's appeal that it conspired to e-book price fixing therefore the previous court decision stands, which means Apple must pay $450 million."
And there it is in black and white. Don't worry though, he'll either move the goal posts yet again or make up some more falsehoods. He's shown time after time that he will refuse to argue in good faith. Essentially his arguments follow a pattern:
1. Apple didn't do it.
2. And if Apple did, it wasn't that bad.
3. And if it was, that's not a big deal.
4. And if it is, that's not Apple's fault.
5. And if it was, Apple didn't mean it.
6. And if Apple did, they deserved it.
Last edited:
We have different definitions of what legal trouble is. That is a fine that is being appealed. That is not a common definition of legal trouble.
Semantics and word games. Being assessed a fine is not legal trouble. No matter what apple operates within the laws of the locales it does business in.
In what world is being convicted of a crime not legal trouble???
"So far they haven’t. So there is that." Here you start at line 1 of your typical argument.
"Please show me where I specifically said apple has not faced legal trouble." This is line 2.
"And what was the outcome?" Up to line 3 now.
"The goalpost deserved to be moved." Now we're at line 4.
I'm sure you'll move to lines 5 and 6 before long, probably with some comment about how it's Apple's property and they should be able to do what they want with it.
Being sued and losing that legal battle, resulting in a nearly half a billion-dollar loss for violating the law, would certainly be a common definition of "legal trouble." But I guess this is again where you apply your own definitions/facts and move goal posts. Nothing new nor surprising here.
Last edited:
I guess you have your own definition of “legal trouble”. I guess some would call a jaywalking ticket legal trouble.
It depends on if it’s criminal or civil. At any rate large corporations an unless your Enron and others do business according to the laws. Big companies always have something going on but that doesn’t mean they have legal trouble as others claim.
Except that we have provided evidence in spades that this is objectively untrue. One does not get convicted of a crime by following the law.
If you truly believe that businesses only ever operate within the letter of the law you are either naïve or ignorant. I'm not convinced you are either of these, though.
The fact that when presented with evidence to the contrary you maintain your position betrays your intent.
Well that does happen.
No. I’m convinced most Fortune 500 companies who have honest ceos do operate with the laws of the locale they operate in.
What intent. That apple operates in a lawful fashion and is not in legal trouble?
They objectively are. I'm sure that going to trial against the United States of America, who is bringing charges of violating the Sherman Act, would be considered "legal trouble," even by your apparently very strict definition of the term.
Is this the part where you decide to pick at the definitions of "legal" and "trouble"? Or better yet, argue that, because the case is ongoing, it's not Apple's problem?
This is well past the point of absurdity.
That would indeed be minor legal trouble. I guess if you have no sense of proportionality and view everything as black and white that you may conclude that a jaywalking ticket is not in any way legal trouble. That being said, I'm not sure how you reach that same conclusion with regard to a scenario where an entity ends up being found guilty of violating the law by a U.S. District Court, having a U.S. Court of Appeals confirm that decision, having the SCOTUS decline to hear the case, and having to pay out nearly half a billion dollars. Yeah, a jaywalking ticket is definitely a good point of comparison. 🙄😂 You essentially have to ignore all meaning of the phrase "legal trouble" to reach such a conclusion. It seems that by your laughable self-defined metric, perhaps not much short of murder constitutes "legal trouble." This is all plainly another one of your many bad faith arguments.
Let's look at the top 10 Fortune 500 companies shall we?
Walmart:
Walmart Inc. v. DEA-DOJ - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Amazon:
Amazon to pay $25m over child privacy violations
The online giant is also penalised for allowing Ring doorbell workers access to customer recordings.
www.bbc.com
Apple:
Already well-covered here.
UHC:
SEC.gov | William W. McGuire, M.D.
www.sec.gov
Berkshire-Hathaway:
Berkshire Hathaway's real estate firm to pay $250 million to settle real estate commission lawsuits
A real estate company owned by Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway has agreed to pay $250 million to settle lawsuits nationwide.
apnews.com
CVS:
CVS and Walgreens announce opioid settlements totaling $10 billion
It could amount to the last round of huge settlements after years of litigation over the industry's role in an overdose crisis linked to more than 500,000 deaths in the U.S. over the past two decades.
www.npr.org
Alphabet:
Joffe v. Google, Inc. - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
McKesson:
McKesson Corp. Pays U.S. More Than $190 Million to Resolve False Claims Act Allegations
McKesson Corporation has agreed to pay the United States more than $190 million to resolve claims that it violated the False Claims Act by reporting inflated pricing information for a large number of prescription drugs, causing Medicaid to overpay for those drugs.
www.justice.gov
Cencora:
AmerisourceBergen Corporation Agrees to Pay $625 Million to Resolve Allegations That it Illegally Repackaged Cancer–Supportive Injectable Drugs to Profit From Overfill
“The $885 million combined civil and criminal resolution with ABC underscores our determination to utilize all tools at our disposal to pursue illicit schemes that seek to profit from circumvention of important safeguards designed to protect the nation’s drug supply,” said Assistant Attorney...
www.justice.gov
That's 0 for 10, mate. Oof.
Oh boy you’re proving my point again. -1 ouch. I said most and you’re citing specific examples. Most <= all.Let's look at the top 10 Fortune 500 companies shall we?
Walmart:
Walmart Inc. v. DEA-DOJ - Wikipedia
Amazon:
Amazon to pay $25m over child privacy violations
The online giant is also penalised for allowing Ring doorbell workers access to customer recordings.
Apple:
Already well-covered here.
UHC:
SEC.gov | William W. McGuire, M.D.
Berkshire-Hathaway:
Berkshire Hathaway's real estate firm to pay $250 million to settle real estate commission lawsuits
A real estate company owned by Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway has agreed to pay $250 million to settle lawsuits nationwide.
CVS:
CVS and Walgreens announce opioid settlements totaling $10 billion
It could amount to the last round of huge settlements after years of litigation over the industry's role in an overdose crisis linked to more than 500,000 deaths in the U.S. over the past two decades.
Alphabet:
Joffe v. Google, Inc. - Wikipedia
McKesson:
McKesson Corp. Pays U.S. More Than $190 Million to Resolve False Claims Act Allegations
McKesson Corporation has agreed to pay the United States more than $190 million to resolve claims that it violated the False Claims Act by reporting inflated pricing information for a large number of prescription drugs, causing Medicaid to overpay for those drugs.
Cencora:
AmerisourceBergen Corporation Agrees to Pay $625 Million to Resolve Allegations That it Illegally Repackaged Cancer–Supportive Injectable Drugs to Profit From Overfill
“The $885 million combined civil and criminal resolution with ABC underscores our determination to utilize all tools at our disposal to pursue illicit schemes that seek to profit from circumvention of important safeguards designed to protect the nation’s drug supply,” said Assistant Attorney...
That's 0 for 10, mate. Oof.
I guess a parking ticket is legal trouble. Going back to my original point, apple operates within the law where it does business. Whatever you described above is a parking ticket to apple.
Seriously? Now you want to weasel word your way through this? Fine,
A non-zero number of CEOs participate in unethical and unlawful business practices, with increasing probability of breaching the law relative to the size of the business. Better?