If you could have any kind of camera (even non-existant ones) what would you choose?

On 8/15/2015 8:45 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

It is also a statement of fact that had he
done more than he did he ran the risk of getting in trouble with
anti-trust laws or similar.

that's where the problem begins, as it has no basis in anything.

Incorrect.

there's nothing incorrect about it. there is absolutely no way adobe
would have grounds to sue for apple blocking flash. zero. zilch.

Good. You are coming up to speed. Do you not realise that that was
what I said in the beginning?

that's not what you said at all.

you said had jobs gone further, adobe could have sued.

there is no basis for that. none. zip. nada.

Wrong. Anybody can sue anyone for anything.

once again, you're arguing to argue.

adobe isn't stupid enough to file a frivolous lawsuit.

Do learn to state your position accurately.

it was accurate.

Yes it was. Including your snip to show me making a statement I never made.



You argue just to argue more
than any three people here. When caught being wrong or making an asinine
statement, you change the subject, or attack. No one here needs a lesson
from you.

projection.



--
PeterN

On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 19:52:38 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

My recollection was that steve jobs didn;t want a buggy version of the
mobile flash plugin on Aple devices because they were bugy and used a
lot of resources compared to the newer HTML 5.

I wasn't arguing that Steve Jobs was wrong in any way (although there
are some here who automatically go into anti-bash mode). It is merely
a statement of fact that he wanted to stop Flash (and no doubt for
perfectly good reasons).

so far so good.

It is also a statement of fact that had he
done more than he did he ran the risk of getting in trouble with
anti-trust laws or similar.

that's where the problem begins, as it has no basis in anything.

Incorrect.

there's nothing incorrect about it. there is absolutely no way adobe
would have grounds to sue for apple blocking flash. zero. zilch.

Good. You are coming up to speed. Do you not realise that that was
what I said in the beginning?

that's not what you said at all.

you said had jobs gone further, adobe could have sued.

there is no basis for that. none. zip. nada.

That's not quite what I said but the intent is more or less there.

Do you mean he could have gone further and adobe wouldn't have been
able to sue? Please give an example.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 20:23:45 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , PeterN
wrote:

It is also a statement of fact that had he
done more than he did he ran the risk of getting in trouble with
anti-trust laws or similar.

that's where the problem begins, as it has no basis in anything.

Incorrect.

there's nothing incorrect about it. there is absolutely no way adobe
would have grounds to sue for apple blocking flash. zero. zilch.

Good. You are coming up to speed. Do you not realise that that was
what I said in the beginning?

that's not what you said at all.

you said had jobs gone further, adobe could have sued.

there is no basis for that. none. zip. nada.

Wrong. Anybody can sue anyone for anything.

once again, you're arguing to argue.

adobe isn't stupid enough to file a frivolous lawsuit.

Oh innocent lamb!
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , PeterN
wrote:

It is also a statement of fact that had he
done more than he did he ran the risk of getting in trouble with
anti-trust laws or similar.

that's where the problem begins, as it has no basis in anything.

Incorrect.

there's nothing incorrect about it. there is absolutely no way adobe
would have grounds to sue for apple blocking flash. zero. zilch.

Good. You are coming up to speed. Do you not realise that that was
what I said in the beginning?

that's not what you said at all.

you said had jobs gone further, adobe could have sued.

there is no basis for that. none. zip. nada.

Wrong. Anybody can sue anyone for anything.

once again, you're arguing to argue.

adobe isn't stupid enough to file a frivolous lawsuit.

Do learn to state your position accurately.

it was accurate.

Yes it was. Including your snip to show me making a statement I never made.

you weren't involved in the discussion at all until now.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

It is also a statement of fact that had he
done more than he did he ran the risk of getting in trouble with
anti-trust laws or similar.

that's where the problem begins, as it has no basis in anything.

Incorrect.

there's nothing incorrect about it. there is absolutely no way adobe
would have grounds to sue for apple blocking flash. zero. zilch.

Good. You are coming up to speed. Do you not realise that that was
what I said in the beginning?

that's not what you said at all.

you said had jobs gone further, adobe could have sued.

there is no basis for that. none. zip. nada.

That's not quite what I said but the intent is more or less there.

yes it is what you said, although originally it was adobe and now
anti-trust in general (which is even more ludicrous):
It is also a statement of fact that had he
done more than he did he ran the risk of getting in trouble with
anti-trust laws or similar.


Do you mean he could have gone further and adobe wouldn't have been
able to sue? Please give an example.

both. there is no further to go and adobe had no basis to sue, nor did
anyone else.

and for the argumentative trolls out there, i am not talking about
frivolous lawsuits.

On 8/15/2015 9:27 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

It is also a statement of fact that had he
done more than he did he ran the risk of getting in trouble with
anti-trust laws or similar.

that's where the problem begins, as it has no basis in anything.

Incorrect.

there's nothing incorrect about it. there is absolutely no way adobe
would have grounds to sue for apple blocking flash. zero. zilch.

Good. You are coming up to speed. Do you not realise that that was
what I said in the beginning?

that's not what you said at all.

you said had jobs gone further, adobe could have sued.

there is no basis for that. none. zip. nada.

Wrong. Anybody can sue anyone for anything.

once again, you're arguing to argue.

adobe isn't stupid enough to file a frivolous lawsuit.

Do learn to state your position accurately.

it was accurate.

Yes it was. Including your snip to show me making a statement I never made.

you weren't involved in the discussion at all until now.

No ****. But, that's not what your snip shows.

--
PeterN

In article , PeterN
wrote:

you said had jobs gone further, adobe could have sued.

there is no basis for that. none. zip. nada.

Wrong. Anybody can sue anyone for anything.

once again, you're arguing to argue.

adobe isn't stupid enough to file a frivolous lawsuit.

Do learn to state your position accurately.

it was accurate.

Yes it was. Including your snip to show me making a statement I never made.

you weren't involved in the discussion at all until now.

No ****. But, that's not what your snip shows.

nonsense.

On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 21:27:03 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

It is also a statement of fact that had he
done more than he did he ran the risk of getting in trouble with
anti-trust laws or similar.

that's where the problem begins, as it has no basis in anything.

Incorrect.

there's nothing incorrect about it. there is absolutely no way adobe
would have grounds to sue for apple blocking flash. zero. zilch.

Good. You are coming up to speed. Do you not realise that that was
what I said in the beginning?

that's not what you said at all.

you said had jobs gone further, adobe could have sued.

there is no basis for that. none. zip. nada.

That's not quite what I said but the intent is more or less there.

yes it is what you said, although originally it was adobe and now
anti-trust in general (which is even more ludicrous):

A group of comanies got together and said "one day all computers will
be made like this but hopefully without paying XXXX.

Then a few years later when XXXX demanded the payment of royalties
for use of it's inventions the group of companies launched a case
alleging anti trust violations on the part of XXXX.

It's amazing what can be done in the name of anti trust.

It is also a statement of fact that had he
done more than he did he ran the risk of getting in trouble with
anti-trust laws or similar.


Do you mean he could have gone further and adobe wouldn't have been
able to sue? Please give an example.

both. there is no further to go and adobe had no basis to sue, nor did
anyone else.

and for the argumentative trolls out there, i am not talking about
frivolous lawsuits.

Aah - but the lawyers will, and they will also talk millions.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 8/15/15 PDT 5:19 PM, PeterN wrote:
On 8/15/2015 7:52 PM, nospam wrote:

that's not what you said at all.

you said had jobs gone further, adobe could have sued.

there is no basis for that. none. zip. nada.


Wrong. Anybody can sue anyone for anything.

Yes, they can, but that doesn't mean there'd be an actual basis for a suit.

On 8/18/2015 3:29 PM, John McWilliams wrote:
On 8/15/15 PDT 5:19 PM, PeterN wrote:
On 8/15/2015 7:52 PM, nospam wrote:

that's not what you said at all.

you said had jobs gone further, adobe could have sued.

there is no basis for that. none. zip. nada.


Wrong. Anybody can sue anyone for anything.

Yes, they can, but that doesn't mean there'd be an actual basis for a suit.

Absolutely true.

--
PeterN