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

In article , John McWilliams
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.

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

correct.

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.

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

Absolutely true.

you're contradicting yourself again.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

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's amazing how far you're trying to take this.

specifically, what could apple have done to where you think adobe would
have a reason to sue?

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.

the lawyers will what?

are you saying they'll file frivolous lawsuits??

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

as it stood at the time, flash was a buggy mess on the mac (still is)
and the #1 source of crashes. it is also a security nightmare and a
battery hog.

why would anyone want that on a new platform, especially on a device
that has a *much* smaller battery than a laptop does?

No good reason at all.

nonsense. it's a very good reason.

Your understanding of English is definitely perverted. I in effect
said "there is no good reason" would want (a buggy mess) on a new
platform ... .

You are so geared up to argue that you seem to think I was saying the
opposite.

it was not clear.

On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 22:40:59 -0400, Tony Cooper
wrote:

On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 12:29:12 -0700, 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.

Of course you do, John. A civil lawsuit is a claim for redress. The
suing party has to state what has been done that gives cause for
redress. That is the basis of the suit.

The defending party can claim the suit is without merit (which are
usually the first words out of the attorney for the defense's mouth),
that no harm has been incurred, and that action is frivolous, but that
doesn't mean that any of these claims are any more true than claim
brought by the bringer of the case.

The defense can ask for dismissal on the grounds of insufficient
basis, or for other reasons, but if the judge allows the case to go
forward there must be basis.

But on occasion the judge will throw the case out.

This situation is an example of somebody suing without there being any
valid basis for the suit. The point is that in this case the plaintiff
_can_ sue but they won't get very far.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 23:00:58 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

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's amazing how far you're trying to take this.

specifically, what could apple have done to where you think adobe would
have a reason to sue?

Do the equivalent of what Microsoft once did to Word Perfect: withhold
developer information (in the Word Perfect case, Microsoft withheld
the latest version of Visual Basic from Word Perfect for 6 months).

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.

the lawyers will what?

are you saying they'll file frivolous lawsuits??

Oh yes - if there is enough money involved.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

specifically, what could apple have done to where you think adobe would
have a reason to sue?

Do the equivalent of what Microsoft once did to Word Perfect: withhold
developer information (in the Word Perfect case, Microsoft withheld
the latest version of Visual Basic from Word Perfect for 6 months).

that does not apply to this situation.

ios developer information was available to anyone who wanted it,
completely *free*.

apple also told adobe what was needed and adobe didn't do it.

On 8/18/2015 11:00 PM, nospam wrote:
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.

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

Absolutely true.

you're contradicting yourself again.


Do learn to read.

--
PeterN

On 8/18/2015 11:36 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:

snip


This situation is an example of somebody suing without there being any
valid basis for the suit. The point is that in this case the plaintiff
_can_ sue but they won't get very far.


Except for nospam, who always knows what is going on, none of us really
know all of the facts. Also, there are times when the decision to sue,
or not to sue, is grounded in business needs. Not so obvious factors
such as business distraction, public perception, what would bringing of
the action really accomplish in terms of business needs. There are also
times when a business is sued, and they decide to settle, or even
concede for similar reasons.



--
PeterN

On 8/18/15 PDT 8:36 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 22:40:59 -0400, Tony Cooper
wrote:

On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 12:29:12 -0700, 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.

Of course you do, John. A civil lawsuit is a claim for redress. The
suing party has to state what has been done that gives cause for
redress. That is the basis of the suit.

The defending party can claim the suit is without merit (which are
usually the first words out of the attorney for the defense's mouth),
that no harm has been incurred, and that action is frivolous, but that
doesn't mean that any of these claims are any more true than claim
brought by the bringer of the case.

The defense can ask for dismissal on the grounds of insufficient
basis, or for other reasons, but if the judge allows the case to go
forward there must be basis.

But on occasion the judge will throw the case out.

This situation is an example of somebody suing without there being any
valid basis for the suit. The point is that in this case the plaintiff
_can_ sue but they won't get very far.

I think I will file suit for mental distress over the pain and suffering
the woman endured when she clenched a cup of coffee from MacDonald's and
ended up scalding herself in a delicate region. O, the horror! (No, I
don't think the accident was amusing, just the lawsuit.)