The lawsuit seeks to upend a major part of Apple’s business.

The US Department of Justice and 16 state and district attorneys general accused Apple of operating an illegal monopoly in the smartphone market in a new antitrust lawsuit. The DOJ and states are accusing Apple of driving up prices for consumers and developers at the expense of making users more reliant on its iPhones.

  • gregorum@lemm.eeEnglish
    519·
    8 个月前

    And Apple will appeal and appeal until they get to SCOTUS where they will win that appeal

    • Telodzrum@lemmy.worldEnglish
      152·
      8 个月前

      Dude, you’re out of your element. SCOTUS doesn’t take cases to reverse errors of fact.

      The DOJ will lose because we don’t have modern antitrust laws designed for modern industries, not because of anything SCOTUS is going to do.

      • gregorum@lemm.eeEnglish
        216·
        8 个月前

        This SCOTUS will clearly do whatever they want. And if all your argument consists of is ad hominem attacks, this conversation is over.

        • Telodzrum@lemmy.worldEnglish
          112·
          8 个月前

          I mean no they won’t. Also, you being out of your element isn’t ad hominem; it questions the argument. You’re out of your depth on that one.

          • gregorum@lemm.eeEnglish
            213·
            8 个月前

            Insulting me personally rather than attacking my argument is an ad hominem:

            Ad hominem (Latin for ‘to the person’), short for argumentum ad hominem, refers to several types of arguments which are fallacious. Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. This avoids genuine debate by creating a personal attack as a diversion often using a totally irrelevant, but often highly charged attribute of the opponent’s character or background. The most common form of this fallacy is “A” makes a claim of “fact,” to which “B” asserts that “A” has a personal trait, quality or physical attribute that is repugnant thereby going entirely off-topic, and hence “B” concludes that “A” has their “fact” wrong - without ever addressing the point of the debate. Many contemporary politicians routinely use ad hominem attacks, which can be encapsulated to a derogatory nickname for a political opponent.

            Source

            • _dev_null@lemmy.zxcvn.xyzEnglish
              92·
              8 个月前

              Saying one is wrong, or doesn’t know what they’re talking about, is not ad hominem. Maybe it’s a language thing, but to me saying someone is wrong is equivalent to saying their argument is wrong. And saying someone is out of their element/depth is the same as saying they’re wrong on the subject, aka their argument is wrong.

              • gregorum@lemm.eeEnglish
                21·
                8 个月前

                See, you’re describing how they said a personal insult, then you’re describing how they could have, instead, simply described what I said factually, without using an insult, and then you’re calling these two very different things the same while treating me like an idiot, expecting me to not notice the difference. Which is also insulting.

                It doesn’t matter how many times people try to explain that a very obvious personal insult isn’t one because it very clearly is. and repeating the insult only digs you deeper into that hole, as does repeatedly attempting to gaslight me.

                  • gregorum@lemm.eeEnglish
                    21·
                    8 个月前

                    My ego has nothing to with the other user using an ad hominem attack rather than attacking my argument with evidence. Nor you doing the same. It’s rather typical of narcissist to blame others for the things they themselves are doing. That seems rather contagious around here as of late.

                    And you projecting your issues onto me rather than accepting you are wrong is again projection.

                    And if I were the conspiratorial sort, I might think that employing the same, tired, narcissistic argument is strangely familiar of dev_null, but surely you have more self-control than to engage in the same hypocrisy that he accused me of by using multiple accounts from different instances to brigade this thread. Right? Lol that would be just too obvious and pathetic. Right?

                    I couldn’t possibly have upset you that much could I? Lol.