Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but the last few comments have had no new information. Well yeah, you just ignored the things that I said, multiple times.
... we are not lawyers! We cannot make productive arguments about anti-trust law! I have done my best to respond to you respectfully and with my best ability. I have previously responded to your specific questions with, “ If then yes. But it seems unlikely” and “It’ll be more productive for us to wait for the results of the lawsuit.”, etc. Are you willing to answer the questions I asked?
The entire discussion of all of this, is about anti-trust law....
Also, we can absolutely make reasoned judgements on things, based on the evidence.
I am not sure why people have a tendency to think that law, precedent, and court cases are somehow completely impenetrable to people who have not spent decades of their life studying it.
In fact, speaking as someone who has read the legal documents in this court case, as well as attended the public zoom call court case (The epic vs apple trial is public! You, yourself can listen in on it in a zoom call!), what I can tell you is that the arguments that people are making are not complicated legalese. Instead, the lawyers and judges are making reasonable, and understandable arguments, that are pretty easy to follow along.
In fact, our entire justice system is built on the concept of juries, which are full of people who are not legal professionals, just like you and I, who decide based on listening to the arguments, and making a judgement themself on who was right or wrong.
If a jury is entrusted with the legal power, to determine the outcome of our justice system, then I think it is ok for individuals, who have listened to the trials, read the court documents, and done research on the law, to make reasonable judgements themselves on the matter, when having casual conversations regarding the topic.
> But it seems unlikely
For which you provided poor supporting arguments.
> answer the questions I asked
You tried to ignore the main point that I was trying to make, regarding anti-trust law, for which I providing well reasoned arguments, and you tried to ignore it by engaging in what was effectively an implied ad hominem by trying to attack me based on perceived (and false!) notion regarding how much I may or may not use certain devices.
You even literally used the word "character" to describe this. Which was effective admitting that you were not attacking the substance of my comment, but were instead trying to investigate my "character".
I reject that. When you cannot respond to the substance of someone comments, I do not think it is valid to try and switch things up by interrogating someone's character, based on false perceived notions of their character or experience.