Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) is Guilty of Infringing on Three Qualcomm Patents

[Nomen Nescio]

Qualcomm has won an important legal victory as part of its multi-
tiered legal battle against Apple: The Cupertino consumer
electronics giant was found to have violated three Qualcomm
patents and must pay the first $31 million in damages.

“The technologies invented by Qualcomm and others are what made
it possible for Apple to enter the market and become so
successful so quickly,” Qualcomm general counsel Don Rosenberg
said in a statement. “We are gratified that courts all over the
world are rejecting Apple’s strategy of refusing to pay for the
use of our IP.”

Apple wasn’t quite as pleased with the verdict.

“Qualcomm’s ongoing campaign of patent infringement claims is
nothing more than an attempt to distract from the larger issues
they face with investigations into their business practices in
U.S. federal court, and around the world,” an Apple statement
notes. I will simply point out how the Apple statement here
mirrors Apple’s rebuttal of Spotify’s complaints in that it
redirects the conversation to another topic. In other words,
Apple knows exactly what it did there.

Which is this: Apple stole Qualcomm-patented technologies for
use in iPhones and other mobile devices and did so without
compensating the inventor of those technologies.

Worse, a former Apple engineer who was going to testify that it
was he who invented a key idea for one of Qualcomm’s patented
technologies reversed course during the trial and refused to
take the stand after it became clear that there was no evidence
to support the claim.

Aside from the specifics of the outcome and the paltry $31
million payment that Apple must make—chump change for a company
with Apple’s resources—this case does, in fact, represent a
major turning point in the two companies’ legal battles because
it puts a per-device dollar figure on Qualcomm’s intellectual
property: The three patented components represent about $1.41
per device, which Qualcomm says debunks Apple’s claim that its
licensing fees are too high.

“The three patents found to be infringed in this case represent
just a small fraction of Qualcomm’s valuable portfolio of tens
of thousands of patents,” Mr. Rosenberg added.

Apple and Qualcomm have other court cases to come, including a
trial that is scheduled for April. That case involves Apple’s
dispute over Qualcomm’s licensing costs.

https://www.thurrott.com/apple/203114/apple-is-guilty-of-
infringing-on-three-qualcomm-patents

[Alan Baker]

'Weird, there were two Qualcomm v. Apple cases decided last week and you
only reported on the one Qualcomm won but skipped over the one [where]
they lost out on billions.'

[arlen holder]

On Sun, 17 Mar 2019 17:55:46 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> 'Weird, there were two Qualcomm v. Apple cases decided last week and you
> only reported on the one Qualcomm won but skipped over the one [where]
> they lost out on billions.'

Hey Alan,
As always, you don't comprehend this legal case at an adult level.
o You only seem to understand the situation at the level of a mere child

The fact is...
1. If Apple wins, Qualcomm doesn't have to pay them that billion dollars
2. If Qualcomm wins, Apple has to pay that billion dollars to Qualcomm

(It's actually more complex than that due to "factories" being involved,
but that the net sum of the payments, simplified for the general audience).

Notice that Qualcomm is on the hook for ZERO dollars.
o It's _only_ Apple who is on the hook for that billion dollars

Again, this is the actual adult summary:
o If Qualcomm wins, Apple has to pay a billion dollars to them
o If Apple wins, nothing happens (since Qualcomm already accounted for the
missing billion dollars in their financial statements).

The sad thing is, Alan Baker, you always show to understand everything at
the level of a mere fifth-grade child.
o Adults can actually comprehend facts as simple as these are.

You remind me very much of the lemon-juice bank robber, Alan Baker.
o He couldn't even comprehend something as simple as lemon juice.

--
NOTE: The loop is a bit wider than just Apple as factories are involved.
In my summary above, I equated the factories, to "Apple" (for simplicity).

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-03-17 7:02 p.m., arlen holder wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Mar 2019 17:55:46 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> 'Weird, there were two Qualcomm v. Apple cases decided last week
>> and you only reported on the one Qualcomm won but skipped over the
>> one [where] they lost out on billions.'
>
> Hey Alan, As always, you don't comprehend this legal case at an adult
> level. o You only seem to understand the situation at the level of a
> mere child
>
> The fact is... 1. If Apple wins, Qualcomm doesn't have to pay them
> that billion dollars 2. If Qualcomm wins, Apple has to pay that
> billion dollars to Qualcomm

No.

Wrong.

Qualcomm's win was for $31 million dollars.

>
> (It's actually more complex than that due to "factories" being
> involved, but that the net sum of the payments, simplified for the
> general audience).
>
> Notice that Qualcomm is on the hook for ZERO dollars. o It's _only_
> Apple who is on the hook for that billion dollars

Nope.

They won that suit.

AND Apple has a suit against Qualcomm in which they stand to win a billion.

How can you be so consistently wrong? Could it be your completely biased
approach?

:-)

>
> Again, this is the actual adult summary: o If Qualcomm wins, Apple
> has to pay a billion dollars to them o If Apple wins, nothing happens
> (since Qualcomm already accounted for the missing billion dollars in
> their financial statements).

Wrong and wrong.

[nospam]

In article <q6mu7b$5o6$1...@news.mixmin.net>, arlen holder
<ar...@arlen.com> wrote:

> The fact is...

...not what you claim it is.

> 1. If Apple wins, Qualcomm doesn't have to pay them that billion dollars
> 2. If Qualcomm wins, Apple has to pay that billion dollars to Qualcomm

wrong.

apple *won* that aspect of the case and qualcomm *owes* apple $1b of
previously *withheld* payments.

<https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-qualcomm/us-judge-rules-qualco
mm-owes-apple-nearly-1-billion-rebate-payment-idUSKCN1QV3EV>
(Reuters) - A U.S. federal judge has issued a preliminary ruling that
Qualcomm Inc owes Apple Inc nearly $1 billion in patent royalty
rebate payments, though the decision is unlikely to result in
Qualcomm writing a check to Apple because of other developments
in the dispute.
...
In a lawsuit filed two years ago, Apple sued Qualcomm, alleging that
the chip supplier had broken the cooperation agreement by not paying
nearly $1 billion in patent royalty rebates.
...
Judge Curiel sided with Apple, ruling that Qualcomm owed the missed
rebate payments.

[arlen holder]

On Sun, 17 Mar 2019 22:36:08 -0400, nospam wrote:

> apple *won* that aspect of the case and qualcomm *owes* apple $1b of
> previously *withheld* payments.

Hi nospam,

Thank you very much for your (incorrect) analysis of the facts.
o You've finally proven to me which of the following you are
a. Stupid
b. Trolling

You're almost always wrong nospam, where, in this case
o You're completely wrong.

The fact is I've always wondered if you're almost always wrong because
a. You're just incredibly stupid, or,
b. You're always pulling our leg.
(Pick one.)

Now I know, based on what you wrote, that it's (a)
o You're just incredibly stupid

I've already explained in detail, nospam, why Qualcomm in all cases owes
nothing to Apple, where you failed to comprehend your own cites, nospam.

That proves you're just incredibly stupid, especially _after_ I explained,
in detail, that Qualcomm already accounted for that lost billion dollars in
their financial statements.

The fact is:
A. If Apple wins, then Qualcomm pays nothing (since they already lost the
billion dollars - and - they already legally accounted for it as a loss in
the year they incurred that loss).

B. If Qualcomm wins, then it's Apple who pays the billion dollars.

I'm extremely glad that we finally ironed out that
a. You're just incredibly stupid
b. Since you actually _believe_ Qualcomm would pay Apple the billion
dollars that Qualcomm _already_ lost (since it wasn't paid to them).

This is fantastic that we've finally determine you're actually serious.
o Incredibly, when you act stupid, you're _not_ just pulling our leg

*You _really_ are that incredibly stupid, nospam.*\

You don't even understand your own cites!
o And that's now a fact!

[arlen holder]

On Sun, 17 Mar 2019 19:34:06 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> Qualcomm's win was for $31 million dollars.

Hi Alan Baker,

Get with the program because you're way (way) behind Alan Baker.
o I wasn't talking about the paltry $31 million dollar 3-patent case.

I covered that spit-in-the-bucket case already, in fact, over here:
o Qualcomm seeks $31 million from Apple ($1.41 per iPhone with Intel
radio chips) for 3 patent infringements in half the iPhones sold
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/-u600QXp0Js>

>> Notice that Qualcomm is on the hook for ZERO dollars. o It's _only_
>> Apple who is on the hook for that billion dollars
>
> Nope.
>
> They won that suit.
>
> AND Apple has a suit against Qualcomm in which they stand to win a billion.
>
> How can you be so consistently wrong? Could it be your completely biased
> approach?

Hi Alan Baker,

In the case of nospam, I had always wondered if he's always wrong because
a. He's just incredibly stupid, or,
b. He's just pulling our leg.

In _your_ case, I _never_ once wondered why you're always wrong.

>> Again, this is the actual adult summary: o If Qualcomm wins, Apple
>> has to pay a billion dollars to them o If Apple wins, nothing happens
>> (since Qualcomm already accounted for the missing billion dollars in
>> their financial statements).
>
> Wrong and wrong.

Hi Alan Baker,
I realize facts are too complex for you, but they're covered here...
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/-u600QXp0Js/ZezTAMxEBQAJ>

If Apple wins, no money changes hands.
If Qualcomm wins, Apple owes 1 billion dollars.

That you don't comprehend simple facts is why you're always wrong, Alan.
o It's also why you gravitate to the imaginary belief system that you own

[Alan Baker]

Wrong.

>
> B. If Qualcomm wins, then it's Apple who pays the billion dollars.

Wrong.

>
> I'm extremely glad that we finally ironed out that
> a. You're just incredibly stupid
> b. Since you actually _believe_ Qualcomm would pay Apple the billion
> dollars that Qualcomm _already_ lost (since it wasn't paid to them).

<https://9to5mac.com/2019/03/14/qualcomm-apple-billion-rebate-payments/>

Wait... ...you'll just whine about the source:

<https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-qualcomm/us-judge-rules-qualcomm-owes-apple-nearly-1-billion-rebate-payment-idUSKCN1QV3EV>

"Judge Gonzalo Curiel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California on Thursday ruled that Qualcomm, the world’s
biggest supplier of mobile phone chips, was obligated to pay nearly $1
billion in rebate payments to Apple, which for years used Qualcomm’s
modem chips to connect iPhones to wireless data networks.

The payments were part of a business cooperation agreement between the
two companies amid the peculiar patent licensing practices of the
consumer electronics industry."

You lose.

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-03-17 9:27 p.m., arlen holder wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Mar 2019 19:34:06 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> Qualcomm's win was for $31 million dollars.
>
> Hi Alan Baker,
>
> Get with the program because you're way (way) behind Alan Baker.
> o I wasn't talking about the paltry $31 million dollar 3-patent case.
>
> I covered that spit-in-the-bucket case already, in fact, over here:
> o Qualcomm seeks $31 million from Apple ($1.41 per iPhone with Intel
> radio chips) for 3 patent infringements in half the iPhones sold
> <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/-u600QXp0Js>

Sorry. I don't chase through Usenet threads to find information that may
or may not be there.

>
>>> Notice that Qualcomm is on the hook for ZERO dollars. o It's _only_
>>> Apple who is on the hook for that billion dollars
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>> They won that suit.
>>
>> AND Apple has a suit against Qualcomm in which they stand to win a billion.
>>
>> How can you be so consistently wrong? Could it be your completely biased
>> approach?
>
> Hi Alan Baker,
>
> In the case of nospam, I had always wondered if he's always wrong because
> a. He's just incredibly stupid, or,
> b. He's just pulling our leg.
>
> In _your_ case, I _never_ once wondered why you're always wrong.
>
>
>>> Again, this is the actual adult summary: o If Qualcomm wins, Apple
>>> has to pay a billion dollars to them o If Apple wins, nothing happens
>>> (since Qualcomm already accounted for the missing billion dollars in
>>> their financial statements).
>>
>> Wrong and wrong.
>
> Hi Alan Baker,
> I realize facts are too complex for you, but they're covered here...
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/-u600QXp0Js/ZezTAMxEBQAJ>

Then lay out the orginal source material here.

>
> If Apple wins, no money changes hands.
> If Qualcomm wins, Apple owes 1 billion dollars.

Wrong:

'Judge Gonzalo Curiel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern

District of California on Thursday ruled that Qualcomm, the world’s
biggest supplier of mobile phone chips, was obligated to pay nearly $1
billion in rebate payments to Apple, which for years used Qualcomm’s
modem chips to connect iPhones to wireless data networks.

The payments were part of a business cooperation agreement between the
two companies amid the peculiar patent licensing practices of the

consumer electronics industry.'

<https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-qualcomm/us-judge-rules-qualcomm-owes-apple-nearly-1-billion-rebate-payment-idUSKCN1QV3EV>

[arlen holder]

On Sun, 17 Mar 2019 23:47:21 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

>> The fact is:
>> A. If Apple wins, then Qualcomm pays nothing (since they already lost the
>> billion dollars - and - they already legally accounted for it as a loss in
>> the year they incurred that loss).
>
> Wrong.
>
>>
>> B. If Qualcomm wins, then it's Apple who pays the billion dollars.
>
> Wrong.

Hi Alan Baker,

You say I'm wrong, but you haven't answered these 3 trivial questions:
Q1: Whom do the factories pay patent royalties to?
Q2: Who reimburses the factories those royalties they paid?
Q3: Who rebates those who reimburse the factories those royalties?

If you don't know the answer to those 3 questions, what do you know?

[arlen holder]

On Sun, 17 Mar 2019 23:48:50 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> Sorry. I don't chase through Usenet threads to find information that may
> or may not be there.

Hi Alan Baker,

The fact you can't comprehend existing facts is why I have to treat you as
one would treat a child, Alan Baker.

You are very much like the lemon-juice bank robber.
o He too refused to comprehend facts that everyone else could

>> I realize facts are too complex for you, but they're covered here...
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/-u600QXp0Js/ZezTAMxEBQAJ>
>
> Then lay out the orginal source material here.

Hi Alan Baker,
You'll note that for people who can comprehend facts, such as for Lloyd
Parsons whom I just wrote plenty of details for in this thread just moments
ago, I _do_ very much bother to lay out the "original source material".
o Help me decide (between iOS & Android), by lonelydad
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/uTkEGbydZDk/OEQZUds-BwAJ>

Notice, since Lloyd Parsons appears to own an adult mind, I spend the
energy to communicate with him as adults would communicate.

But you just refused to read the references, so me providing more
references isn't going to help you. Giving you references is like trying to
teach calculus to a child who still is stuck in the arithmetic stage.

You're just not capable of comprehending what adults comprehend, Alan.

In _that_ post, I explained to Lloyd Parsons why I replaced iTunes on
Windows with Linux on Windows, where the benefits were:
o Instead of "diddling" with iTunes, I "diddled" with Linux (Lloyd's word)

Simply replacing iTunes on Windows to Linux on Windows had benefits:
o There are none of the iTunes restrictions
o There are none of the iTunes dangers

In that discussion, Lloyd Parsons and I can speak as adults since these
concepts, simple as they are, are still not intuitive to most people.

Who knew that Linux completely replaces iTunes for example?
o Lloyd Parsons appears to own an adult brain which comprehends that

On the other hand, Alan Baker, your brain is that of a child
o So providing you with _more_ cites, when you won't even read the 1st cite
o Would be fruitless

>> If Apple wins, no money changes hands.
>> If Qualcomm wins, Apple owes 1 billion dollars.
>
> Wrong:

:)

> 'Judge Gonzalo Curiel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern

> District of California on Thursday ruled that Qualcomm, the world┬

> biggest supplier of mobile phone chips, was obligated to pay nearly $1

> billion in rebate payments to Apple, which for years used Qualcomm┬

> modem chips to connect iPhones to wireless data networks.

Hi Alan Baker,
If you _read_ the cite, which nospam cited by the way, but even nospam
didn't _read_ his own cite, or, if he actually read it, he certainly did
not comprehend it, says otherwise.

Read the cite from nospam, Alan.
o Read it again.

Click on the cite's references, Alan.
o Read nospam's cite's own references, Alan.

Answer these questions in your head Alan Baker:
o HINT: If you don't know the answer, then you don't comprehend the cite.

Q1: Whom do the iPhone factories pay patent royalties to?

Q2: Who reimburses the factories those royalties they paid?
Q3: Who rebates those who reimburse the factories those royalties?

if you do not instantly know the answer to those three questions, Alan
o Then you need to go back to nospam's cite and re-read it.

Again.
o And again.

Until you know the answer to those three questions, Alan Baker
o You know nothing.

BTW, the legal issue comes _after_ you know the 3 answers above!

> The payments were part of a business cooperation agreement between the
> two companies amid the peculiar patent licensing practices of the
> consumer electronics industry.'
> <https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-qualcomm/us-judge-rules-qualcomm-owes-apple-nearly-1-billion-rebate-payment-idUSKCN1QV3EV>

Hi Alan Baker,
Again, I have to inform you that there are 3 (not 2) companies involved.

If you don't understand why I say that, then you will NEVER understand the
implications of the legal case (which _is_ between only 2 companies).

Answer these three questions FIRST and you'll BEGIN to understand.

In a normal (no legal battle!) situation between Apple & Qualcomm...
Q1: Whom do the iPhone factories pay patent royalties to?

Q2: Who reimburses the factories those royalties they paid?
Q3: Who rebates those who reimburse the factories those royalties?

HINT: Understanding that is the _simplest_ part of this legal case.

[Alan Baker]

I don't play your games.

If you have facts, lay them out complete with references.

As I did.

[arlen holder]

On Mon, 18 Mar 2019 08:45:20 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> If you have facts, lay them out complete with references.

You say I'm wrong, but you haven't answered these 3 trivial questions:
Q1: Whom do the factories pay patent royalties to?
Q2: Who reimburses the factories those royalties they paid?
Q3: Who rebates those who reimburse the factories those royalties?

Q: If you don't know the answer to those 3 questions, what do you know?
A: Nothing.

Notice Alan Baker, I just showed you know _nothing_ about the situation.
And yet, you brazenly claim that the facts are, somehow, "wrong".

The sad thing about people like you, Alan Baker, is that your belief
systems are so fragile that they can be destroyed with 3 simple facts.

I would be _embarrassed_, Alan Baker, if my belief system was so easily
destroyed by facts.

Those who own factual belief systems are strengthened by facts.
o Those, like you, whose belief system is imaginary, are threatened by facts.

[nospam]

In article <q6onho$l5u$1...@news.mixmin.net>, arlen holder

<ar...@arlen.com> wrote:

> I would be _embarrassed_, Alan Baker, if my belief system was so easily
> destroyed by facts.

as you should, because facts prove you wrong with shocking regularity.

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-03-18 11:20 a.m., arlen holder wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Mar 2019 08:45:20 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> If you have facts, lay them out complete with references.
>
> You say I'm wrong, but you haven't answered these 3 trivial questions:
> Q1: Whom do the factories pay patent royalties to?
> Q2: Who reimburses the factories those royalties they paid?
> Q3: Who rebates those who reimburse the factories those royalties?

I say if you have facts, then lay them out complete with references.

That which is claimed without evidence may be dismissed.

>
> Q: If you don't know the answer to those 3 questions, what do you know?
> A: Nothing.

I'm not interested in answering your questions.

I'm interested in seeing you properly support your claims for once.

[arlen holder]

On Mon, 18 Mar 2019 12:55:07 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> I'm interested in seeing you properly support your claims for once.

Hi Alan Baker,

I already provided you the _same_ cites that nospam provided me.

I think it's rather funny these two facts:
1. Nospam provides a cite that he never himself even comprehended, and,
2. I provide those cites to you, Alan Baker, and you can't even read them.

What's interesting is that both of you are dead wrong in every way
o And yet, you both actually _believe_ you're right.

Don't you see the humor in that fact?
a. Nospam doesn't comprehend his own cites, and yet, says "I'm wrong".
b. Alan Baker can't even _read_ nospam's cites, and says "I'm wrong".

I find that you Apple apologists always seem to act like little children.
o You say everyone else is wrong... and yet ...
o You don't read (nor can you comprehend) the actual facts.

I appreciate the humor of your statements.

[arlen holder]

On Mon, 18 Mar 2019 14:37:56 -0400, nospam wrote:

> as you should, because facts prove you wrong with shocking regularity.

Hehhehheh ...

I think you're a bit sore that, for example, you claimed that the iPhone X
wasn't throttled, and yet, it was.

And you claimed, that there was NewPipe-like functionality on iOS, and
there wasn't.

And you claimed that old installed apps could be backed up when they
couldn't.

And you claimed that "for a buck" you could match Android functionalty, and
you couldn't.

And you claimed your silly JPEGs showed SMS/MMS app usage, and it didn't.

The list of your claims easily proven dead wrong go on and on and on.
o And yet, you can't find a single instance of my facts being wrong

You know why nospam?
I do.

HINT: Your entire belief system is wholly imaginary, nospam.
o Facts threaten your belief system, nospam.

It generally takes fewer than ten seconds to destroy your belief system.
o I would be embarrassed to be you nospam.

Your track record on accuracy is worse than that of the monkey
o And yet, you have _never_ found my facts wrong. Ever.

HINT: Remember, when you claimed that current iOS devices could report an
accurate cell tower ID nd you were wrong?

HINT: Remember, when you claimed that iOS devices could do something as
simple as spit out the installed apps to a text file all by its itty bitty
self, and you were wrong?

Remember when you claimed that iOS devices could graph all the available
access points over time, and you were wrong, nospam?

It takes NOTHING for me to find your statements lacking in fact, nospam.
o And yet, you can't find a _SINGLE_ instance where my facts were wrong.

You know why, nospam?
o HINT: Adults form a belief system based on actual facts.

[nospam]

In article <q6pjio$9t3$2...@news.mixmin.net>, arlen holder

<ar...@arlen.com> wrote:

> I think you're a bit sore that, for example, you claimed that the iPhone X
> wasn't throttled, and yet, it was.

it isn't.

> And you claimed, that there was NewPipe-like functionality on iOS, and
> there wasn't.

there is.

> And you claimed that old installed apps could be backed up when they
> couldn't.

they easily can. in fact, i have a few thousand apps going back a
decade, with multiple versions of nearly all of them, something which
happens automatically.

> And you claimed that "for a buck" you could match Android functionalty, and
> you couldn't.

how about no bucks.

[arlen holder]

On Mon, 18 Mar 2019 22:25:44 -0400, nospam wrote:

>> I think you're a bit sore that, for example, you claimed that the iPhone X
>> wasn't throttled, and yet, it was.
>
> it isn't.

Hi nospam,

I used to think you were almost always wrong because you were playing silly
games, but I've recently realized you really _are_ as incredibly stupid as
what you post makes you appear to be.

*For example, even Apple admitted throttling the iPhone X for Christs' sake.*

o Apple themselves reports they throttle the iPhone X
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/1RiqBADD-vE/Hry3kQmMFAAJ>

>> And you claimed, that there was NewPipe-like functionality on iOS, and
>> there wasn't.
>
> there is.

Again, nospam, you don't appear to be even the slightest bit embarrassed to
almost always be dead wrong in almost every claim you make.

o After all these years, is there still no New Pipe or Sky Tube functionality on iOS?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/3bkestmymAA/tJXJ1m-gDAAJ>

>> And you claimed that old installed apps could be backed up when they
>> couldn't.
>
> they easily can. in fact, i have a few thousand apps going back a
> decade, with multiple versions of nearly all of them, something which
> happens automatically.

Since even David Empson has explained, in gory detail, why you're dead
wrong nospam, I'll leave it at the summary.

a. I give you credit that you actually _believe_ what you write,
b. Which means, to your credit, that you're not pulling our leg.

That leaves only one option for your brazenly imaginary claims above:
c. You really _are_ as incredibly stupid as what you just wrote makes you
appear to be.

o Why do the Apple Apologists constantly send poor unsuspecting iOS users
on wild goose chases?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/ynh0PE9lK_I/QOiGP4_SFQAJ>

>> And you claimed that "for a buck" you could match Android functionalty, and
>> you couldn't.
>
> how about no bucks.

What's interesting is that you, nospam, aren't even the least bit
embarrassed to be so easily proven wrong.

o Name a single iOS app functionality that you can get for a buck, that isn't already on Android, for free
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/aUyeuaPI9pc/rZw1O-7XAwAJ>

In summary, it's just sad that people like you, nospam, even exist.
o Your entire imaginary belief system is destroyed with 10 seconds of facts.

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-03-18 7:19 p.m., arlen holder wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Mar 2019 12:55:07 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> I'm interested in seeing you properly support your claims for once.
>
> Hi Alan Baker,
>
> I already provided you the _same_ cites that nospam provided me.

You didn't provide the quotes that support your claim.

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-03-18 7:19 p.m., arlen holder wrote:

> On Mon, 18 Mar 2019 14:37:56 -0400, nospam wrote:
>
>> as you should, because facts prove you wrong with shocking regularity.
>
> Hehhehheh ...
>
> I think you're a bit sore that, for example, you claimed that the iPhone X
> wasn't throttled, and yet, it was.

How's that claim of yours that Apple is putting the iPhone X back into
production working out for you?

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-03-18 7:51 p.m., arlen holder wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Mar 2019 22:25:44 -0400, nospam wrote:
>
>>> I think you're a bit sore that, for example, you claimed that the iPhone X
>>> wasn't throttled, and yet, it was.
>>
>> it isn't.
>
> Hi nospam,
>
> I used to think you were almost always wrong because you were playing silly
> games, but I've recently realized you really _are_ as incredibly stupid as
> what you post makes you appear to be.
>
> *For example, even Apple admitted throttling the iPhone X for Christs' sake.*
>
> o Apple themselves reports they throttle the iPhone X
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/1RiqBADD-vE/Hry3kQmMFAAJ>

That is not a quote of Apple saying anything.

That is a link to a Usenet thread.

If you had actual direct supporting evidence, you'd post it HERE.

>
>>> And you claimed, that there was NewPipe-like functionality on iOS, and
>>> there wasn't.
>>
>> there is.
>
> Again, nospam, you don't appear to be even the slightest bit embarrassed to
> almost always be dead wrong in almost every claim you make.
>
> o After all these years, is there still no New Pipe or Sky Tube functionality on iOS?
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/3bkestmymAA/tJXJ1m-gDAAJ>

That is not a quote of Apple saying anything.

That is a link to a Usenet thread.

If you had actual direct supporting evidence, you'd post it HERE.

Etc.

[arlen holder]

On Mon, 18 Mar 2019 20:35:02 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> How's that claim of yours that Apple is putting the iPhone X back into
> production working out for you?

Hi Alan Baker,

Only you question the existence of the well-known report
o And only you question that this report says what this report says

The reason both you and nospam are wrong almost all the time
o Is simply because facts don't play _any_ role in your belief system

Meanwhile, fact form the fundamental basic of my belief system
o Hence I'm never afraid nor threatened by facts

In fact, facts _bolster_ my belief system!
o That's because my belief system is not imaginary like yours is

Hence, I realize you'd LOVE to find me wrong on my referenced facts
o But I don't say something unless it's already found in reliable media

That is, my facts come from the references on the net where I provide those
references so that you can vet the articles yourself, Alan Baker.

For example...

o ZDNET: Apple restarting iPhone X production
<https://www.zdnet.com/article/apple-restarting-iphone-x-production-cutting-xs-price-over-slow-sales/>
"Apple has also restarted production of the last year's iPhone X,
reportedly to meet a minimum purchase agreement with
Samsung, which makes the iPhone X's OLED displays."

o AppleInsider: Apple rumored to have restarted iPhone X production
<https://appleinsider.com/articles/18/11/22/iphone-x-production-lines-said-to-be-be-restarting-but-for-unlikely-reasons>
"Apple has restarted production of last year's iPhone X, according
to one of the nation's most prominent financial publications"
(aka the WSJ).

o CultofMac: iPhone X to live on as Apple restarts production
<https://www.cultofmac.com/592194/iphone-x-to-live-on-as-apple-restarts-production/>
"according to a new report, Apple is restarting production on
last year┬ iPhone model in certain markets."

o 9to5Mac: Apple to lower iPhone XR prices in Japan, restarts some iPhone X production
<https://9to5mac.com/2018/11/22/report-apple-to-lower-iphone-xr-prices-in-japan-restarts-some-iphone-x-production/>
"the report says Apple is actually restarting production of the iPhone X
for sale in certain markets"

o Mashable: Apple restarts iPhone X production
<https://mashable.com/article/apple-iphone-x-production-weak-sales-iphone-xs/#hShI6kHx.aqb>
"Apple is restarting production of the iPhone X due to weak sales of
the iPhone XS and XS Max, according to a Wall Street Journal report"

o MotleyFool: Apple Reportedly Restarts iPhone X Production
<https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/11/24/apple-reportedly-restarts-iphone-x-production.aspx>
"Imagine my surprise, then, when The Wall Street Journal reported
that Apple had restarted production of the iPhone X"

o TheVerge: Apple resumes iPhone X production
<https://www.theverge.com/2018/11/22/18107795/iphone-x-production-resumed-weak-demand-2018-models-rumor>
"Apple has resumed production of the iPhone X due to weaker than
expected demand for its latest XS and XS Max models, according
to a report by The Wall Street Journal. "

o TechSpot: Apple reportedly restarting production of the iPhone X
<https://www.techspot.com/news/77547-apple-reportedly-restarting-production-iphone-x-after-iphone.html>
"According to the Wall Street Journal, this weaker demand has led
to an unexpected move: the reinstating of iPhone X production. "

o PC Magazine: Apple restarts iPhone X production
<https://in.pcmag.com/mobile/127100/apple-restarts-iphone-x-production-due-to-weak-iphone-xs-sal>
"According to a report in The Wall Street Journal, a deal with
Samsung is forcing Apple to resume the production of the iPhone X. "

o PhoneArena: Apple reportedly resumes production of the iPhone X
<https://www.phonearena.com/news/Apple-said-to-resume-iPhone-X-production_id111276>
"According to today's Wall Street Journal, this has led Apple to
resume production of 2017's iPhone X."

While anything in the reliable media can be wrong, the fact is that the
cited report likely says exactly what the Wall Street Journal says the
report says.

Only you question that the report says what that report says, Alan Baker.
o Only you.

o Wall Street Journal: Not So Big in Japan
<https://www.wsj.com/articles/not-so-big-in-japan-apple-cuts-price-of-iphone-xr-to-boost-sales-1542896625>
"Apple suppliers have also recently resumed making the iPhone X,
the 2017 model that Apple had stopped selling at its own stores,
people familiar with the matter said."

[arlen holder]

On Mon, 18 Mar 2019 20:15:10 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> You didn't provide the quotes that support your claim.

Hi Alan Baker,

Here is a the _same_ information nospam provided to me:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/6yjbZWpBad4/MEs5k_OLBQAJ>

That is the exact post by nospam, which provided the cite.
o HINT: I easily found the cite in nospam's post; but I own an adult brain.
o So I was able to _comprehend_ what that cite said.
o And I was able to comprehend where that cite got its data.

But I own an adult brain, Alan Baker.
o I don't think you do.

So it's going to be difficult for you to find the facts in that cite
o Simply because you don't appear to know how to read, Alan Baker.

But I'm getting ahead of your question Alan Baker.
o We have to take things very slooooowly with you, Alan Baker.

The very first question is for you Alan Baker...
Q: Can you even _find_ the cite in nospam's post, Alan Baker?

[arlen holder]

On Mon, 18 Mar 2019 20:36:21 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> That is not a quote of Apple saying anything.
>
> That is a link to a Usenet thread.
>
> If you had actual direct supporting evidence, you'd post it HERE.

Hi Alan Baker,

What is odd is that you exhibit _exactly_ the traits of the Dunning-Kruger
bank robber.

You fail to comprehend that the thread contains a link to the articles that
discuss EXACTLY what Apple is throttling.

Hint: All the iPhones from 6 to X now have the throttling software.

It wouldn't be so bad that you don't read the links, nor do you read the
cites inside the links - if you didn't automatically deny all facts you
don't like, out of hand.

But both you and nospam deny all facts you don't like.
o Just because you don't like them.

Your trait of denying facts without even comprehending them...
o Is what makes you both so unlike a normal adult.

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-03-18 9:51 p.m., arlen holder wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Mar 2019 20:35:02 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> How's that claim of yours that Apple is putting the iPhone X back into
>> production working out for you?
>
> Hi Alan Baker,
>
> Only you question the existence of the well-known report
> o And only you question that this report says what this report says

I DON'T question the existence of the report.

But:

It was actually only ONE report (despite you citing multiple links to
the same original source).

And...

...THERE HAS BEEN NOTHING SINCE THEN.

Nothing.

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-03-18 9:59 p.m., arlen holder wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Mar 2019 20:15:10 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> You didn't provide the quotes that support your claim.
>
> Hi Alan Baker,
>
> Here is a the _same_ information nospam provided to me:
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/6yjbZWpBad4/MEs5k_OLBQAJ>

If the information is really there...

...provide a quote and the ORIGINAL SOURCE.

I don't dig through Usenet threads.

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-03-18 9:59 p.m., arlen holder wrote:

> On Mon, 18 Mar 2019 20:36:21 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> That is not a quote of Apple saying anything.
>>
>> That is a link to a Usenet thread.
>>
>> If you had actual direct supporting evidence, you'd post it HERE.
>
> Hi Alan Baker,
>

> What is odd...

...is that you can't actually post a quote and a link from an original
source?

Nope.

That's typical of you and your ilk.

:-)

[arlen holder]

On Mon, 18 Mar 2019 23:03:47 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> It was actually only ONE report (despite you citing multiple links to
> the same original source).
>
> And...
>
> ...THERE HAS BEEN NOTHING SINCE THEN.
>
> Nothing.

Hi Alan Baker,

Wow.
This is the _second_ adult post I've seen from you, in all these years!

NOTE: Normally what distinguishes adults from each other is their ability
to assess logic out of facts. In the case of the apologists, one can almost
never get to that point because the apologists simply deny all facts they
don't like, so we can never get to the point of an adult logical
assessment.

Since you have, for the second time to my knowledge, agreed on obvious
facts, only now can we even _begin_ to approach the adult stage of logical
assessment of those facts.

FACT + LOGIC.
o Fact should be instantly & easily agreed upon by adults
o Logical assessments are where adults can arguably disagree

In this case, we agree on the facts.

FACT:
I easily, openly, and publicly agree with you that:
a. The Wall Street Journal reported it, citing "reliable sources"
b. Reliable media re-reported it, citing the WSJ
c. You and I haven't heard a thing since then

A normal adult can comprehend those facts
o HINT: Most of the time, you apologists don't even comprehend facts.

But in _this_ case, Alan Baker, I must commend you for acting like an adult

I don't disagree with those facts.
o Facts are funny that way.

Since I am an adult, I will publicly repeat I don't disagree with those facts.
o Adults are funny that way.

For me, facts _bolster_ my belief system.
o For most apologists, facts _threaten_ their belief system.

LOGIC:
The question for adults now, is how to see around corners.
o What _logical assessment_ do adults make of these facts?

[arlen holder]

On Mon, 18 Mar 2019 23:05:14 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> ...is that you can't actually post a quote and a link from an original
> source?

Hi Alan Baker,
I already gave you the _same_ post that nospam gave me!
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/6yjbZWpBad4/MEs5k_OLBQAJ>

Why is it that I easily found the cite in nospam's post (in two seconds)
o But, you _still_ can't find that cite in nospam's post?

What on earth is wrong with your reading comprehension Alan Baker?

Only two reasons are possible for you to be so obtuse:
a. You really can't comprehend what a link is, or,
b. You are just pulling our leg
(Pick one.)

When nospam is almost always dead wrong, I have to wonder.
o But I don't need to wonder about you.

You _really_ are unable to find the cite in nospam's post!

[Archer]

On Mon, 18 Mar 2019 01:31:33 +0100 (CET), Nomen Nescio
<nob...@dizum.com> wrote:

What about M$
--
Archer

[arlen holder]

On Mon, 18 Mar 2019 23:04:32 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

>> Here is a the _same_ information nospam provided to me:
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/6yjbZWpBad4/MEs5k_OLBQAJ>
>
> If the information is really there...
>
> ...provide a quote and the ORIGINAL SOURCE.
>
> I don't dig through Usenet threads.

Hi Alan Baker,

Please see this thread titled:
o *What key trait distinguishes Apple Apologists from normal adults?*
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/yyNyGsFKPlQ>

It's a logical assessment of what you're doing right now.
o *By refusing to read cites, it allows apologists to deny facts forever.*

1. An obvious clear public fact is stated that apologists don't like
2. The apologists deny that fact (without even _clicking_ on the cites!)
3. The fact is repeated (often with more cites)
4. The apologists deny those facts (again, without reading the cites)
5. The fact is repeated (ad infinitum)
6. The apologists deny those facts (ad infinitum) sans reading the cites
etc.

I think I finally understand WHY apologists deny facts out
of hand that the apologists don't like.

I think apologists filibuster on the facts, so that the logical assessment
of those facts can never proceed.

*By refusing to read cites, it allows apologists to deny facts forever.*
o This keeps their imaginary belief system intact.

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-03-19 7:20 a.m., arlen holder wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Mar 2019 23:05:14 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> ...is that you can't actually post a quote and a link from an original
>> source?
>
> Hi Alan Baker,
> I already gave you the _same_ post that nospam gave me!
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/6yjbZWpBad4/MEs5k_OLBQAJ>

Direct quote and direct link, please.

>
> Why is it that I easily found the cite in nospam's post (in two seconds)
> o But, you _still_ can't find that cite in nospam's post?

Why is it you can't provide direct quotes and direct links?

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-03-19 8:02 a.m., arlen holder wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Mar 2019 23:04:32 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>>> Here is a the _same_ information nospam provided to me:
>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/6yjbZWpBad4/MEs5k_OLBQAJ>
>>
>> If the information is really there...
>>
>> ...provide a quote and the ORIGINAL SOURCE.
>>
>> I don't dig through Usenet threads.
>
> Hi Alan Baker,
>
> Please see this thread titled:

Nope.

If you have supporting information for an assertion of yours:

Quote the text here.

Include the link to the source of that text here.

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-03-19 7:20 a.m., arlen holder wrote:

> On Mon, 18 Mar 2019 23:03:47 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> It was actually only ONE report (despite you citing multiple links to
>> the same original source).
>>
>> And...
>>
>> ...THERE HAS BEEN NOTHING SINCE THEN.
>>
>> Nothing.
>
> Hi Alan Baker,
>
> Wow.

> This is the _second...


Whatever.

Fact:

You took a single article from last year and insisted that it proved
Apple was restarting iPhone X production.

Do you admit that has not happened?

Yes or no.

[arlen holder]

On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 09:42:48 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> Nope.
>
> If you have supporting information for an assertion of yours:
>
> Quote the text here.
>
> Include the link to the source of that text here.

I gave you the cite so many times that it's not funny, Alan Baker.
o It's the same cite that nospam gave me for Christs' sake.

And I read it
o Not only that, I comprehended what it said.

Why do Apple Apologists incessantly deny facts without even reading them?

[arlen holder]

On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 09:41:54 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> Why is it you can't provide direct quotes and direct links?

I gave you the cite so many times that it's not funny, Alan Baker.

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-03-19 10:03 a.m., arlen holder wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 09:41:54 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> Why is it you can't provide direct quotes and direct links?
>
> I gave you the cite so many times that it's not funny, Alan Baker.

You have never to my knowledge quoted source material here.

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-03-19 10:03 a.m., arlen holder wrote:

> On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 09:42:48 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> Nope.
>>
>> If you have supporting information for an assertion of yours:
>>
>> Quote the text here.
>>
>> Include the link to the source of that text here.
>
> I gave you the cite so many times that it's not funny, Alan Baker.
> o It's the same cite that nospam gave me for Christs' sake.

THEN QUOTE IT HERE.

[arlen holder]

On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 09:56:13 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> You took a single article from last year and insisted that it proved
> Apple was restarting iPhone X production.
>
> Do you admit that has not happened?
>
> Yes or no.

Hi Alan Baker,

FACT + LOGIC

*What reference do you have that explicitly says the WSJ was wrong?*
o Name just one

Shockingly, you agree on the basic facts that all other adults agree on.
o This is good news, because then we can _begin_ to progress to logic.

HINT: Most apologists habitually deny facts, so that the next logical stage
can't progress, to _assessing_ how those facts logically affect our belief
systems (this helps apologists maintain their imaginary belief systems).

Let's re-iterate the facts, Alan Baker, that we agree on, ok?
1. The WSJ is a reliable journal (as are those who re-reported the WSJ).
2. The WSJ cited "reliable sources" (which nobody yet has discounted)
3. Those sources said, and I quote this verbatim from the WSJ

"suppliers have also recently resumed making the iPhone X"

Do we _agree_ on those basic facts, Alan Baker?
o Or are we _still_ playing silly games denying all facts you don't like?

Assuming we agree on those facts, then we can _begin_ the adult part of the
discussion, which is how to logically assess those facts, right?

HINT: Normally Apologists spend umpteen posts disagreeing with the facts,
perhaps so that they can forestall the _adult_ part of the discussion
forever.

How do you logically interpret those facts, Alan Baker?
How do you think I logically interpret those facts, Alan Baker?

Me?
o I interpret them at face value since I trust the Wall Street Journal.
o And, since they have sources of information that I don't have.
o And, since I have seen zero reliable reported contradictions.

You?
o You appear to assume it was all a brazen lie by the Wall Street Journal.
o You based that lie on the _same_ logic Joerg Lorenz used a while ago.

Remember that?
o Joerg denied all facts simply because Germans didn't report them.

You're using the _exact_ logic that Joerg Lorenz (admittedly DK) used.
o The fact is reliably reported
o Yet, you appear to believe the facts are wrong.

And yet, your ONLY evidence is a complete lack of further reports!
o Which is EXACTLY the DK-skewed logic that Joerg Lorenz applied.

HINT: Joerg was so dead wrong that even nospam & Jolly Roger had to explain
to him that the lack of something being reported in the German media does
not, in and of itself, prove that the facts reliably reported elsewhere,
are false.

Simple adult 3-word question for you Alan Baker, to support your logic.

*What reference do you have that explicitly says the WSJ was wrong?*
o Name just one

[arlen holder]

On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 10:12:23 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> You have never to my knowledge quoted source material here.

Hi Alan Baker,

Your behavor perplexes me as it is not an adult behavior...
o I literally gave you the EXACT post from nospam that I used for Christs' sake.

Why is it that I can invest 2 seconds to find the cite in nospam's post
o And yet, you can't?

Your behavior is akin to a filibuster where no amount of logic can proceed.
o I suspect you do this on purpose - becuase you hate the facts themselves.

When you deny the existence of the cite ... (which even nospam knows exists)
o You can then deny (out of hand, without reading the cite) anything you want

Therefore, you can prevent any adult discussion of the logical ramifications.

It's a classic Apologist technique you're performing Alan Baker.
1. Deny all facts you don't like out of hand
2. Obstinately refuse to even read the cites provided (by nospam even!)
3. Then continue to deny all facts you don't like

Classic.

[arlen holder]

On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 10:12:38 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> THEN QUOTE IT HERE.

Uv Nyna Onxre,

Lbhe orunibe crecyrkrf zr nf vg vf abg na nqhyg orunivbe...
b V yvgrenyyl tnir lbh gur RKNPG cbfg sebz abfcnz gung V hfrq sbe Puevfgf'
fnxr.

Jul vf vg gung V pna vairfg 2 frpbaqf gb svaq gur pvgr va abfcnz'f cbfg
b Naq lrg, lbh pna'g?

Lbhe orunivbe vf nxva gb n svyvohfgre jurer ab nzbhag bs ybtvp pna cebprrq.
b V fhfcrpg lbh qb guvf ba checbfr - orphnfr lbh ungr gur snpgf gurzfryirf.

Jura lbh qral gur rkvfgrapr bs gur pvgr ... (juvpu rira abfcnz xabjf
rkvfgf)
b Lbh pna gura qral (bhg bs unaq, jvgubhg ernqvat gur pvgr) nalguvat lbh
jnag

Gurersber, lbh pna cerirag nal nqhyg qvfphffvba bs gur ybtvpny
enzvsvpngvbaf.

Vg'f n pynffvp Ncbybtvfg grpuavdhr lbh'er cresbezvat Nyna Onxre.
1. Qral nyy snpgf lbh qba'g yvxr bhg bs unaq
2. Bofgvangryl ershfr gb rira ernq gur pvgrf cebivqrq (ol abfcnz rira!)
3. Gura pbagvahr gb qral nyy snpgf lbh qba'g yvxr

Pynffvp.

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-03-19 10:17 a.m., arlen holder wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 09:56:13 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> You took a single article from last year and insisted that it proved
>> Apple was restarting iPhone X production.
>>
>> Do you admit that has not happened?
>>
>> Yes or no.
>
> Hi Alan Baker,

That is not an answer, and none of what followed is an answer.

Do you agree to those facts?

:-)

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-03-19 10:25 a.m., arlen holder wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 10:12:23 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> You have never to my knowledge quoted source material here.
>
> Hi Alan Baker,
>
> Your behavor perplexes me as it is not an adult behavior...
> o I literally gave you the EXACT post from nospam that I used for Christs' sake.

You posted a link to a Usenet post.

If it contained what you claimed, you could have posted the original
material as a quote and a link to that original source.

You did not.

You still have not.

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-03-19 10:27 a.m., arlen holder wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 10:12:38 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> THEN QUOTE IT HERE.
>

> Uv Nyna...

Tjpm jwapnxvodji dn xpoz, wpo mzqzvgn cjr gdoogz tjp vxopvggt cvqz oj nvt.

[arlen holder]

On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 10:35:20 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> Do you agree to those facts?

[nospam]

In article <q6r8q1$mcf$1...@news.mixmin.net>, arlen holder

<ar...@arlen.com> wrote:

>
> > THEN QUOTE IT HERE.
>
> Uv Nyna Onxre,
>
> Lbhe orunibe crecyrkrf zr nf vg vf abg na nqhyg orunivbe...
> b V yvgrenyyl tnir lbh gur RKNPG cbfg sebz abfcnz gung V hfrq sbe Puevfgf'
> fnxr.

that's what happens when you have a convoluted pile of scripts just to
read usenet. one of them has a bug and activated rot13, for absolutely
no reason whatsoever.

[arlen holder]

On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 10:37:34 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> Tjpm jwapnxvodji dn xpoz, wpo mzqzvgn cjr gdoogz tjp vxopvggt cvqz oj nvt.

At least mine made sense.

o Here is the rot13 unscramble of yours...
Gwcz wjncakibqwv qa kcbm, jcb zmdmita pwe tqbbtm gwc ikbcittg pidm bw aig.

o Here is the rot13 unscramble of mine...

Hi Alan Baker,

Your behavor perplexes me as it is not an adult behavior...
o I literally gave you the EXACT post from nospam that I used for Christs' sake.

[Alan Baker]

You mean other than the fact that Apple HAS NOT RESTARTED iPhone X
production?

You agree that that has not happened, right?

That's a yes or no question.

[arlen holder]

On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 13:45:15 -0400, nospam wrote:

> that's what happens when you have a convoluted pile of scripts just to
> read usenet. one of them has a bug and activated rot13, for absolutely
> no reason whatsoever.

Hehhehheh...

I give you credit that I can't ever hand to Alan Baker, nospam.
o At least you comprehend that it was scrambled using Rot13 algorithms.

However, I think it whooshed over Alan Baker's head since his retort
doesn't appear to be "rot13" scrambled (I only checked it once though).

Did Alan Baker use a sensible scramble mechanism?
o Or did he just make it all up?

[Alan Baker]

Indeed.

What's classic is that you didn't even imagine there might be other
options that ROT13...

"Your obfuscation is cute, but reveals how little you actually have to say."

>

[Alan Baker]

Classic.

[arlen holder]

On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 10:36:21 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> You posted a link to a Usenet post.
>
> If it contained what you claimed, you could have posted the original
> material as a quote and a link to that original source.

Hi Alan Baker,

I gave you EXACTLY the same information that nospam gave me.

Why is it that I can find the link in nospam's post in 2 seconds...
o And yet, after a score of posts, you _still_ can't find that link?

HINT: Not only did I find nospam's link, but I found the _reference_ inside
of nospam's link (hint... it's underlined in blue in your browser).

BTW, to adults viewing this silly charade Alan Baker is playing, it's
normal for apologists to deny all facts they happen to not like.

What they incessantly do is refuse to acknowledge the references.
By refusing to read the references, they can _continue_ to deny facts.

Why do they incessantly do this?
o I don't know why.

You can see that they do it.

A. They deny facts.
B. They deny any links you provide to those facts.
C. That allows them to continue to the deny the facts.

It makes no difference in their charade whether you provide the link or not.
o They do this, presumably, to maintain their purely imaginary beliefs (IMHO).

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-03-19 10:55 a.m., arlen holder wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 10:36:21 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> You posted a link to a Usenet post.
>>
>> If it contained what you claimed, you could have posted the original
>> material as a quote and a link to that original source.
>
> Hi Alan Baker,
>
> I gave you EXACTLY the same information that nospam gave me.
>
> Why is it that I can find the link in nospam's post in 2 seconds...
> o And yet, after a score of posts, you _still_ can't find that link?

Not "can't": won't.

If you want to support what you say, say it here, directly.

[arlen holder]

On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 10:46:46 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> You mean other than the fact that Apple HAS NOT RESTARTED iPhone X
> production?
>
> You agree that that has not happened, right?
>
> That's a yes or no question.

Hi Alan Baker,

Your belief system is exactly the same as Joerg Lorenz' belief system.

Joerg clearly believed that, since the German media didn't report on
something, that _all_ the other reliable American, Canadian, and British
media had reported on, that the facts that were reported, must have been
false.

Do you realize how Pegged-Left Dunning-Kruger you prove to be, Alan Baker?

The Dunning-Kruger bank robber had a similar type of belief system as you.
o Literally, the lack of a WSJ contradiction, to you, is a contradiction.

[arlen holder]

On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 10:52:51 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> Indeed.
>
> What's classic is that you didn't even imagine there might be other
> options that ROT13...
>
> "Your obfuscation is cute, but reveals how little you actually have to say."

Hehhehheh...

If you used a "classic" obfuscation, then I ask you the 2-word adult test:
o Name it

[arlen holder]

On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 10:53:13 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> Classic.

[arlen holder]

On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 10:56:43 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> If you want to support what you say, say it here, directly.

I've provided the exact link so many times, Alan Baker, that it's not
funny.

Clearly...
It makes no difference in your charade whether I provide the link or not.

You deny facts you don't like, simply because you don't like them.
o By refusing to read the links, you can continue to deny the facts.

Its YOUR game Alan Baker.
o Not mine.

I immediately clicked on nospam's links
o I read them, and, more to the point, I _comprehended_ what they said.

You don't appear to do either, Alan Baker:
a. You don't even bother to click on the links to read them, and,
b. You don't seem to comprehend anything, as a result

BTW, you can't even _find_ the link in nospam's dozen-line post!
o Which shows everyone how impossible it is to deal with you as an adult

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-03-19 11:01 a.m., arlen holder wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 10:46:46 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> You mean other than the fact that Apple HAS NOT RESTARTED iPhone X
>> production?
>>
>> You agree that that has not happened, right?
>>
>> That's a yes or no question.
>
> Hi Alan Baker,
>

> Your belie...

That is not an answer.

Has Apple restarted iPhone X production?

Yes or no.

[Alan Baker]

I didn't say I used a classic obfusction.

What I said was that it was classic that you lacked the imagination to
understand that there might be options other than ROT13 for obfuscating
text.

I'll leave figuring out what I did as an exercise for you.

:-)

[Alan Baker]

You can't figure it out?

Aww.

I guess you're just not very bright, are you?

I even gave you a HUGE hint.

:-)

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-03-19 11:07 a.m., arlen holder wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 10:56:43 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> If you want to support what you say, say it here, directly.
>
> I've provided the exact link so many times, Alan Baker, that it's not
> funny.

Providing a link to a Usenet thread or to a Usenet post in insufficient.

[arlen holder]

On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 11:35:23 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> Providing a link to a Usenet thread or to a Usenet post in insufficient.

FACT:
o Nospam provided the link, which I found in, oh, 2 seconds.

LOGIC:
o You, Alan Baker, _still_ can't find that link - even after a score of posts!

FACT:
o Alan Baker can't find the link that I nospam reported very clearly.

LOGIC:
o There's (clearly) something (very) wrong with Alan Baker's abilities.

a. The Apologist can't find a link _everyone_ else can easily find.
b. And yet, the Apologist denies the facts it contains, out of hand.
c. Clearly without ever even _finding_ nor ever _reading_ the cite.

LOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF THOSE FACTS:

If the Apple Apologist Alan Baker clearly can't even _find_ the link...
o What do you think are his chances of correctly assessing what it says?

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-03-19 11:44 a.m., arlen holder wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 11:35:23 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> Providing a link to a Usenet thread or to a Usenet post in insufficient.
>
> FACT:
> o Nospam provided the link, which I found in, oh, 2 seconds.

No. That is not all "FACT" simply because you say so.

See if you can figure out what in your statement is merely assertion
without my having to explain it.

>
> LOGIC:
> o You, Alan Baker, _still_ can't find that link - even after a score of posts!

Not logic. Sorry.

>
> FACT:
> o Alan Baker can't find the link that I nospam reported very clearly.

Assertion.

[arlen holder]

On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 11:34:12 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> I'll leave figuring out what I did as an exercise for you.

*Facts instantly DESTROY the belief system of the Apple Apologists.*
o That! Is why Apologists hate facts.

Luckily, your Apologist friend Jolly Roger has "figured" it out for us.
o What's similar with Apple Apologists is you're consistently the same.

1. You deny all facts, out of hand, simply because you don't like them
2. You then repeatedly refuse to even read the cites (let alone comprehend)
3. After NOT reading the cites, you go back to denying facts you don't like

And, you, like Snit, can do this childish loop, literally, F-O-R-E-V-O-R!

It's classic.
o Alan Baker does it
o Snit does it
o Jolly Roger does it,
etc.

I think I know (perhaps) why you Apple Apologists do this consistently.

HINT:
o All Marketing is in the business of creating imaginary belief systems!

DOUBLEHINT:
o Facts appear to horrifically _threaten_ your imaginary belief system.

TRIPLEHIINT:
o Facts instantly DESTROY your "logic" for owning the imaginary products!

That's why facts hurt you so much.
o Just look at the vitriol inherent in Jolly Roger's post on this topic for example.

Jolly Roger's entire belief system is purely imaginary.
o Hence, facts instantly DESTROY the entire imaginary belief system he owns

Since facts instantly DESTROY the apologists' belief system...
o The apologist is vehemently allergic to facts

That's why JR's recent post is so jam-packed with vitriol & vicious hatred!

On 19 Mar 2019 18:12:13 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

> From: Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com>
> Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.system,misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.mobile.android,rec.photo.digital,alt.comp.freeware,alt.cellular
> Subject: Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) is Guilty of Infringing on Three Qualcomm Patents
> Date: 19 Mar 2019 18:12:13 GMT
> Message-ID: <gfcpnt...@mid.individual.net>
> ....
> LOL! Useless know-nothing Apple-bashing troll who constantly claims to
> be smarter than everyone else in the room doesn't possess the critical
> thinking facilities to recognize or figure out how to decipher an
> ultra-simple shift cypher. You just can't help but shove your big,
> stinky foot in your pwn mouth, can you? You are King of Self Pwns.
> Pathetic loser.
> ...
> JR

Notice how vicious Jolly Roger gets simply from actual facts?
o Why?

The simple answer is that facts instantly DESTROY the entire imaginary
belief system that Jolly Roger has built up over the years.

Clearly, Jolly Roger _hates_ not only having his entire belief system
DESTROYED by mere facts, but he just as clearly hates the messenger of mere
facts.

*Facts instantly DESTROY the belief system of the Apple Apologists.*
o That! Is why the apologists hate facts.

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-03-19 12:05 p.m., arlen holder wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 11:34:12 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> I'll leave figuring out what I did as an exercise for you.
>

> *Facts inst...

Can you not figure it out, then?

I gave you a HUGE hint.

:-)

[arlen holder]

On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 11:32:00 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> Has Apple restarted iPhone X production?

This is the best answer to that question known to date, Alan Baker:
o Wall Street Journal: Not So Big in Japan
<https://www.wsj.com/articles/not-so-big-in-japan-apple-cuts-price-of-iphone-xr-to-boost-sales-1542896625>
"Apple suppliers have also recently resumed making the iPhone X,
the 2017 model that Apple had stopped selling at its own stores,
people familiar with the matter said."

The fact you can't find, read, nor comprehend links, is a warning sign Alan.
o Even the Dunning-Kruger bank robber should have seen the warning signs

If you want to claim that the complete absence of any contradiction to that
reliably reported information, is the _entire basis_ of your belief system,
then, go ahead.

Heck, the DK bank robber was sincere thinking the lemon juice worked.
o So I don't doubt in the least that you sincerely _believe_ what you say

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-03-19 12:08 p.m., arlen holder wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 11:32:00 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> Has Apple restarted iPhone X production?
>
> This is the best answer to that question known to date, Alan Baker:
> o Wall Street Journal: Not So Big in Japan
> <https://www.wsj.com/articles/not-so-big-in-japan-apple-cuts-price-of-iphone-xr-to-boost-sales-1542896625>
> "Apple suppliers have also recently resumed making the iPhone X,
> the 2017 model that Apple had stopped selling at its own stores,
> people familiar with the matter said."

A prediction that is now nearly four months out of date is no answer.

Let's play a game, shall we?

I'll ask simple yes or no questions, and you answer them.

First question:

Are you willing to play?

Answer it, and we'll proceed to the next question.

:-)

[arlen holder]

On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 12:27:05 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> A prediction that is now nearly four months out of date is no answer.

At least you truly _believe_ what you say, Alan Baker.

The DK bank robber was sincere thinking the lemon juice worked.

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-03-19 12:33 p.m., arlen holder wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 12:27:05 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> A prediction that is now nearly four months out of date is no answer.
>
> At least you truly _believe_ what you say, Alan Baker.

Belief is unnecessary, "Arlen".

The WSJ published an article on November 23, 2018 that quoted "people
familiar with the matter" who apparently said that Apple had restarted
production of the iPhone X

There is no evidence at all that that actually happened.

None of that requires belief.

[arlen holder]

On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 13:20:23 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> Belief is unnecessary, "Arlen".
>
> The WSJ published an article on November 23, 2018 that quoted "people
> familiar with the matter" who apparently said that Apple had restarted
> production of the iPhone X
>
> There is no evidence at all that that actually happened.
>
> None of that requires belief.

Hi Alan Baker,

I'm glad we are at the same level (finally) in this discussion.
o Below, I wish to sincerely teach you something about facts & logic.

They are two _different_ things:
FACT + LOGIC.

I'm trying to work with you as an adult would work with you.
o I know the facts (I have always known these facts, since I reported them)
o At this point, many posts later, you seem to also (now) know the facts.

That's good we agree on the facts, because normally apologists spend the
entire thread refuting facts everyone knew from the very first post.

Normally, adults agree on facts instantaneously instead of arguing them
o Both facts & adults are funny that way

Now that we agree on facts, we can begin to proceed to assessments.

FACT
o The WSJ reported the "fact" using "reliable sources"
o Many reliable news outfits re-reported the WSJ report
o Zero sources on the net (to date) have any additional information
o Zero sources on the net (to date) confirm or deny the reported fact

The good news is that, _finally_, after all these posts, you agree on fact.
o Only _after_ adults agree on facts can they logically _begin_ assessment.

LOGIC:
What adult assessment do we make of these facts that we both agree on?
o Bear in mind that neither of us is right or wrong in our assessment

What is your assessment and what is my assessment of _those_ same facts?
o I think you're saying that it didn't happen, right?

What is my assessment of those very same facts?
o I trust the WSJ "reliable sources" where I presume they're keeping quiet

Both you and I are sort of at the stage where the lemon-juice bank robber
"tested" himself that the lemon juice trick hid his face from the security
camera before he went off and robbed that bank.

We're ASSESSINING the logical ramifications of these agreed upon facts.
1. You think the lack of any evidence means it's not happening
2. I think the lack of evidence (either way) means it "could" be happening

I'm not saying it _did_ happen, nor am I saying it isn't happening.
o You seem to be assessing that it didn't happen
o I am assessing that we don't know, either way, whether it did, or will, or won't.

Your assessment is fair and I completely back you up on your assessment.
o Any logical adult would wonder why there isn't ANY corroborating evidence

But remember your original statement which is, and I quote:
"How's that claim of yours that Apple is putting the iPhone X
back into production working out for you?"
Which you made in response to my statement, and I quote:
"Adults form a belief system based on actual facts."

What you were implying, and which I inferred you implied, was that I was
"wrong", where, I only reported the facts, which, after many posts, you
AGREED with the facts (see the list of facts above).

Speaking to you as an adult, I want you to learn what I'm trying to teach
you Alan Baker, which is a VERY IMPORTANT CONCEPT.

A. We both agree on the facts, right?
B. It's OK to disagree on the logical assessment of those facts.

What's wrong is for you to imply I'm wrong on my *FACTS*
when the _real_ issue you have is that you disagree with my
*LOGICAL ASSESSMENT* of those facts.

Notice that I do not disagree with your logical assessment of those facts.
I simply disagree with your prior implication that the facts are wrong.

Whether or not my logical assessment is correct, my facts are right.
o Facts are funny that way

HINT: My logical assessment is _also_ right, by the way.
o Since my assessment leaves room for iPhone X production, or not.

It's only your logical assessment which "may" be wrong
o Since your assessment doesn't leave any room for production.

In summary, I welcome, for the first or second time only, that you _can_
have an adult discourse. My main advice to you is to first understand what
is a fact versus what is a logical assessment.

Try not to disagree on facts from reliable sources (hint, I've never been
wrong on my facts); where you're welcome to disagree on the logical
assessment of those facts.

They are two _different_ things:
FACT + LOGIC.

[arlen holder]

On Mon, 18 Mar 2019 20:35:02 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> How's that claim of yours that Apple is putting the iPhone X back into
> production working out for you?

<WARNING: Adult concepts are stated below.>

FACT + LOGIC

For those reading this thread in the distant future, please note:
1. Sixteen (almost all utterly childish) cascaded posts after this retort
2. We (Alan Baker & I) _finally_ come to agreement on the facts

This is our agreement on the facts:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/6yjbZWpBad4/py7D4C6dAwAJ>

The fact is that the facts as I reported them were _never_ wrong.
o Alan Baker simply confused facts from logical assessment of those facts

They're different things, fact & logic:
o Most of the time, Apologists spend _all_ their time refuting obvious fact
o Adults, on the other hand, spend their time discussing the assessments

In this case, the apologists literally _confused_ fact from logic!
o It took sixteen posts to get the apologists to discern the difference!

Note: It took those sixteen posts for _ALAN_ to agree on the basic facts.
o I knew those facts were correct when I first reported those facts.

Note: It took exactly 1 post for me to agree on Alan's assessment
o That's because adults process logic only after understanding fact

These 16 posts are a perfect example of how Apologists differ from normal adults.

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-03-20 8:33 a.m., arlen holder wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Mar 2019 20:35:02 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> How's that claim of yours that Apple is putting the iPhone X back into
>> production working out for you?
>
> <WARNING: Adult concepts are stated below.>
>
> FACT + LOGIC
>
> For those reading this thread in the distant future, please note:
> 1. Sixteen (almost all utterly childish) cascaded posts after this retort
> 2. We (Alan Baker & I) _finally_ come to agreement on the facts
>
> This is our agreement on the facts:
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/6yjbZWpBad4/py7D4C6dAwAJ>
>
> The fact is that the facts as I reported them were _never_ wrong.
> o Alan Baker simply confused facts from logical assessment of those facts

You assumed that a single news source must be fact.

[arlen holder]

On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 08:35:20 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> You assumed that a single news source must be fact.

Hi Alan Baker,

I _thought_ we were discussing things like adults do.
o That means after we agree on the facts,
o We can begin to discuss the logical implications of those facts.

But you're _still_ confusing facts with logical assessments of those facts.
o They're _different_ things, Alan Baker - and you need to realize that.

FACT + LOGIC
o It appears you missed the point that facts & logic are different things.

Adults don't generally disagree on facts
o Facts are funny that way.

Only the apologists disagree on basic obvious well proven facts
o Apologists are funny that way.

Where adults can disagree is on logical assessment of those facts.
o You still don't seem to be able to process there's a difference

FACT & LOGIC are different things, Alan Baker.
o *Facts are not the same thing as the logical assessment of those facts.*

You don't disagree with the facts.
o You disagree with the logical assessment of those facts.

It seems that we have these logical assessments, where we're both right:
o Notice we both start with the SAME FACTS (finally!)

Alan Baker:
o FACT: There is no evidence either way other than the original statement.
o LOGIC: It isn't happening.

Arlen Holder:
o FACT: There is no evidence either way other than the original statement.
o LOGIC: It might be happening or it might not be happening (we don't know)

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-03-20 8:21 a.m., arlen holder wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 13:20:23 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> Belief is unnecessary, "Arlen".
>>
>> The WSJ published an article on November 23, 2018 that quoted "people
>> familiar with the matter" who apparently said that Apple had restarted
>> production of the iPhone X
>>
>> There is no evidence at all that that actually happened.
>>
>> None of that requires belief.
>
> Hi Alan Baker,
>
> I'm glad we are at the same level (finally) in this discussion.
> o Below, I wish to sincerely teach you something about facts & logic.
>
> They are two _different_ things:
> FACT + LOGIC.
>
> I'm trying to work with you as an adult would work with you.
> o I know the facts (I have always known these facts, since I reported them)
> o At this point, many posts later, you seem to also (now) know the facts.
>
> That's good we agree on the facts, because normally apologists spend the
> entire thread refuting facts everyone knew from the very first post.
>
> Normally, adults agree on facts instantaneously instead of arguing them
> o Both facts & adults are funny that way
>
> Now that we agree on facts, we can begin to proceed to assessments.
>
> FACT
> o The WSJ reported the "fact" using "reliable sources"

They wrote an article.

YOU insisted (over and over and over) that it must be true.

> o Many reliable news outfits re-reported the WSJ report

Which means nothing.

> o Zero sources on the net (to date) have any additional information
> o Zero sources on the net (to date) confirm or deny the reported fact

And there are no iPhone X's for sale.

Don't forget that.

>
> The good news is that, _finally_, after all these posts, you agree on fact.
> o Only _after_ adults agree on facts can they logically _begin_ assessment.
>
> LOGIC:
> What adult assessment do we make of these facts that we both agree on?
> o Bear in mind that neither of us is right or wrong in our assessment

You were wrong.

>
> What is your assessment and what is my assessment of _those_ same facts?
> o I think you're saying that it didn't happen, right?

I didn't happen.

>
> What is my assessment of those very same facts?
> o I trust the WSJ "reliable sources" where I presume they're keeping quiet

Are you doubling down on being wrong?

You're trying to insist that it's still going to happen?

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

>
> Both you and I are sort of at the stage where the lemon-juice bank robber
> "tested" himself that the lemon juice trick hid his face from the security
> camera before he went off and robbed that bank.
>
> We're ASSESSINING the logical ramifications of these agreed upon facts.
> 1. You think the lack of any evidence means it's not happening

I think that the lack of new iPhone X's four MONTHS after the original
story means it's not happening.

> 2. I think the lack of evidence (either way) means it "could" be happening

By that standard, one can make pretty much any statement at all and
insist it "could" be happening.

BTW, why the quotes around "could"?

:-)

>
> I'm not saying it _did_ happen, nor am I saying it isn't happening.

You seem to want to have it both ways.

> o You seem to be assessing that it didn't happen

I know it didn't happen.

That's what the complete lack of new iPhone X's on the "shelves" means.

:-)

> o I am assessing that we don't know, either way, whether it did, or will, or won't.
>
> Your assessment is fair and I completely back you up on your assessment.
> o Any logical adult would wonder why there isn't ANY corroborating evidence
>
> But remember your original statement which is, and I quote:
> "How's that claim of yours that Apple is putting the iPhone X
> back into production working out for you?"
> Which you made in response to my statement, and I quote:
> "Adults form a belief system based on actual facts."
>
> What you were implying, and which I inferred you implied, was that I was
> "wrong", where, I only reported the facts, which, after many posts, you
> AGREED with the facts (see the list of facts above).

You were... ...wrong.

>
> Speaking to you as an adult, I want you to learn what I'm trying to teach
> you Alan Baker, which is a VERY IMPORTANT CONCEPT.

You cannot teach me anything, little man.

>
> A. We both agree on the facts, right?
> B. It's OK to disagree on the logical assessment of those facts.
>
> What's wrong is for you to imply I'm wrong on my *FACTS*
> when the _real_ issue you have is that you disagree with my
> *LOGICAL ASSESSMENT* of those facts.

You were wrong, and you know it.

>
> Notice that I do not disagree with your logical assessment of those facts.
> I simply disagree with your prior implication that the facts are wrong.

The facts were never wrong.

YOU were wrong.

>
> Whether or not my logical assessment is correct, my facts are right.
> o Facts are funny that way

You do not know the difference between a fact and an assertion.

>
> HINT: My logical assessment is _also_ right, by the way.
> o Since my assessment leaves room for iPhone X production, or not.

Ummmm... ...no.

You need to look up "retcon".

>
> It's only your logical assessment which "may" be wrong
> o Since your assessment doesn't leave any room for production.
>
> In summary, I welcome, for the first or second time only, that you _can_
> have an adult discourse. My main advice to you is to first understand what
> is a fact versus what is a logical assessment.
>
> Try not to disagree on facts from reliable sources (hint, I've never been
> wrong on my facts); where you're welcome to disagree on the logical
> assessment of those facts.

LOL!

[arlen holder]

On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 08:59:29 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> They wrote an article.
> YOU insisted (over and over and over) that it must be true.

Hi Alan Baker,

*You need to look at your CONFIDENCE level versus your KNOWLEDGE level!**
<https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1600/1*LnYi2NSShCTl0Dl5k3gAwg.jpeg>

You _still_ do not appear to comprehend that these are different things:
o FACT + LOGIC

You perfectly fit the "CONFIDENCE" curve with "NO KNOWLEDGE", Alan Baker.
<https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1600/1*t2sx5h0UF-kljgC2sj2msw.jpeg>

> You were wrong.

When you say I am wrong, are you saying my "facts" are wrong?
o Or are you saying my "logical assessment" is wrong (in your opinion)?

HINT: My facts are never wrong.

You don't yet comprehend how much knowledge you are MISSING!
<https://i.redd.it/0uwiikcqgjn01.gif>

>> What is your assessment and what is my assessment of _those_ same facts?
>> o I think you're saying that it didn't happen, right?
>
> I didn't happen.

Ah. I see.

You're exactly like the Dunning-Kruger bank robber Alan Baker.
o What are you going to say if it actually _is_ happening?

What are your SOURCES for this insider information, Alan Baker?
o HINT: The DK robber was as sure as you are, that the lemon juice worked.

You perfectly fit the "I think I know" curve shown in the graph below:
<https://i.imgur.com/j5kTJCY.png>

> Are you doubling down on being wrong?
> You're trying to insist that it's still going to happen?
> LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Stop this nonsense Alan Baker,
o Here's where you instantly dropped to the level of a child.

It took you SIXTEEN posts to simply agree on the published facts.
o Worse, you don't comprehend the difference between FACT & LOGIC

You clearly doubt that the WSJ was accurate in what they reported
o I leave room for the WSJ reliable sources to be, well, reliable.

You, like the Dunning-Kruger bank robber, leave no room for error
o I _always_ left room for error.

You don't appear to be able to get over the hump in this graph:
<https://static.wixstatic.com/media/a51a72_9cad8376ce0e4b5c9d9756b095346b47~mv2.png>

> I think that the lack of new iPhone X's four MONTHS after the original
> story means it's not happening.

You are high above the "confidence threshold" in this graph, Alan Baker:
<https://static1.squarespace.com/static/50bb95ade4b05ce489457f37/t/556c3021e4b0edfe51896a33/1433153572052/>

Notice very important things, Alan Baker!

BOTH OF US:
o You and I have the SAME FACTS (that took you sixteen posts to realize)

YOU:
o You assess that it isn't happening (which I accept is a valid assessment)

ME:
o I assess that it may or may not be happening (which includes your assessment)

I realize you never took a LOGIC 101 class in college (I doubt you even
matriculated based on my assessment of your inability to comprehend the
difference between fact & logical assessment of that fact)... so this will
go over your head, but I make this statement for adults to assess.

It's incongruous for me to agree with your logical assessment and yet, for
you to disagree with mine, since mine not only encompasses entirely your
logical assessment, but mine also leaves room for the WSJ "reliable
sources" to be correct.

HINT: I realize you, Alan Baker, don't comprehend that key sentence
o But others, who are adults, will instantly agree with the irony.

> BTW, why the quotes around "could"?

Alan,
You seem to think this is a silly game you are playing.\

I've been very patient with you.
o When you act like an adult, I treat you like an adult
o When you act like a child, I treat you like a child.

Clearly, you're in the left side of "Mount S" in this graph:
<https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1600/1*t2sx5h0UF-kljgC2sj2msw.jpeg>

You are supremely CONFIDENT of your assessment of the facts.
o To you, "it didn't happen".

I'm more to the middle of that graph, Alan Baker.
o I'm saying it "could" happen and it "might not" happen.

The quotes are to underscore the _difference_ between how YOU think, and
how I think, Alan Baker.

HINT: Your confidence in the ACCURACY of your logical assessment ability is
what puts you very far to the left in the graph above, where my assessment
leaves room for both options (hence I'm more in the middle of that graph).

> You seem to want to have it both ways.

Jesus Christ Alan Baker.
o We're not playing silly little games.

I assessed the facts where we both agreed (after sixteen posts) on those
facts, which, by the way, I knew from the start since I'm the one who
reported those facts to the newsgroup, so, I didn't learn anything from you
in those sixteen posts other than the fact that it takes sixteen posts for
you to realize what normal adults realized before the first post.

You need to look at your CONFIDENCE level versus your KNOWLEDGE
<https://i.warosu.org/data/biz/img/0087/70/1522980629985.png>

> I know it didn't happen.
> That's what the complete lack of new iPhone X's on the "shelves" means.

You perfectly fit the "CONFIDENCE" curve with "NO KNOWLEDGE", Alan Baker.
<https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1600/1*t2sx5h0UF-kljgC2sj2msw.jpeg>

> You were... ...wrong.

Your confidence in your ability to assess fact is why you're pegged left:
<https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1600/1*t2sx5h0UF-kljgC2sj2msw.jpeg>

> You cannot teach me anything, little man.

Notice how threatened by logic you are?
o You instantly resort to childish taunts simply by being exposed to logic.

What's interesting is that Jolly Roger did EXACTLY the same thing here:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/6yjbZWpBad4/1Ghep4kQBgAJ>

And nospam does it all the time.
o You apologists are like little children, _threatened_ by facts.

> You were wrong, and you know it.

You apologists can't seem to distinguish between fact & logic.
o Even after a score of posts, you _still_ don't know the difference.

And yet, you're supremely confident even with your utter lack of knowledge!
<https://www.speednik.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2018/03/2018-03-06_21-53-34_323034.jpg>

> The facts were never wrong.
> YOU were wrong.

You really need to figure out that a fact is different from a logically
derived assessment of that fact.

You have SUPREME CONFIDENCE that you're right.
o Just like the lemon juice bank robber had that SAME confidence!

But you have no more knowledge than I do.
o Which puts you EXACTLY pegged left in all these DK graphs!
<https://i.warosu.org/data/lit/img/0113/53/1529602073719.png>

Notice how much CONFIDENCE you have in your assessment?
o I don't have the same confidence that you have.

HINT: We both lack the factual knowledge, but you certainly do not lack in
confidence of your assessment of the few facts we both have.

Look at this graph and tell us where that puts both you and me, Alan:
<https://static.wixstatic.com/media/951c4e_0c1cd5499e054f1a947ec2d6b7103e58~mv2.jpg>

HINT: *Look at the section titled "recognition of knowledge gaps", Alan!*

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-03-20 9:44 a.m., arlen holder wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 08:59:29 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> They wrote an article.
>> YOU insisted (over and over and over) that it must be true.
>
> Hi Alan Baker,
>
> *You need to look at your CONFIDENCE level versus your KNOWLEDGE level!**
> <https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1600/1*LnYi2NSShCTl0Dl5k3gAwg.jpeg>

You need some new material.

>
> You _still_ do not appear to comprehend that these are different things:
> o FACT + LOGIC
>
> You perfectly fit the "CONFIDENCE" curve with "NO KNOWLEDGE", Alan Baker.
> <https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1600/1*t2sx5h0UF-kljgC2sj2msw.jpeg>
>
>> You were wrong.
>
> When you say I am wrong, are you saying my "facts" are wrong?
> o Or are you saying my "logical assessment" is wrong (in your opinion)?

I'm saying your conclusion was wrong.

>
> HINT: My facts are never wrong.
>
> You don't yet comprehend how much knowledge you are MISSING!
> <https://i.redd.it/0uwiikcqgjn01.gif>
>
>>> What is your assessment and what is my assessment of _those_ same facts?
>>> o I think you're saying that it didn't happen, right?
>>
>> I didn't happen.
>
> Ah. I see.
>
> You're exactly like the Dunning-Kruger bank robber Alan Baker.
> o What are you going to say if it actually _is_ happening?

It isn't... ...happening.

It has been four MONTHS.

>
> What are your SOURCES for this insider information, Alan Baker?
> o HINT: The DK robber was as sure as you are, that the lemon juice worked.
>
> You perfectly fit the "I think I know" curve shown in the graph below:
> <https://i.imgur.com/j5kTJCY.png>
>
>> Are you doubling down on being wrong?
>> You're trying to insist that it's still going to happen?
>> LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
>
> Stop this nonsense Alan Baker,
> o Here's where you instantly dropped to the level of a child.

LOL!

>
> It took you SIXTEEN posts to simply agree on the published facts.
> o Worse, you don't comprehend the difference between FACT & LOGIC

I never had a disagreement about the facts, little man.

>
> You clearly doubt that the WSJ was accurate in what they reported
> o I leave room for the WSJ reliable sources to be, well, reliable.

Sorry, but that is not a conclusion you can draw from the facts.

I doubt that the sources that the WSJ had were accurate.

>
> You, like the Dunning-Kruger bank robber, leave no room for error
> o I _always_ left room for error.
>
> You don't appear to be able to get over the hump in this graph:
> <https://static.wixstatic.com/media/a51a72_9cad8376ce0e4b5c9d9756b095346b47~mv2.png>
>
>> I think that the lack of new iPhone X's four MONTHS after the original
>> story means it's not happening.
>
> You are high above the "confidence threshold" in this graph, Alan Baker:
> <https://static1.squarespace.com/static/50bb95ade4b05ce489457f37/t/556c3021e4b0edfe51896a33/1433153572052/>
>
> Notice very important things, Alan Baker!
>
> BOTH OF US:
> o You and I have the SAME FACTS (that took you sixteen posts to realize)

Nope.

>
> YOU:
> o You assess that it isn't happening (which I accept is a valid assessment)

You're getting it wrong... ...again.

>
> ME:
> o I assess that it may or may not be happening (which includes your assessment)

Ten years from now, will you still insist that it "may or may not be
happening"?

Yes or no.

>
> I realize you never took a LOGIC 101 class in college (I doubt you even
> matriculated based on my assessment of your inability to comprehend the
> difference between fact & logical assessment of that fact)... so this will
> go over your head, but I make this statement for adults to assess.
>
> It's incongruous for me to agree with your logical assessment and yet, for
> you to disagree with mine, since mine not only encompasses entirely your
> logical assessment, but mine also leaves room for the WSJ "reliable
> sources" to be correct.

How do you know they're "reliable", little man?

The WSJ didn't describe them as such.

There is a reason that hearsay evidence isn't admissible in court.

Can you figure out why?

>
> HINT: I realize you, Alan Baker, don't comprehend that key sentence
> o But others, who are adults, will instantly agree with the irony.
>
>> BTW, why the quotes around "could"?
>
> Alan,
> You seem to think this is a silly game you are playing.\

This is a silly game.

>
> I've been very patient with you.
> o When you act like an adult, I treat you like an adult
> o When you act like a child, I treat you like a child.

Whereas I treat you like a child all the time for the same reasons.

:-)

>
> Clearly, you're in the left side of "Mount S" in this graph:
> <https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1600/1*t2sx5h0UF-kljgC2sj2msw.jpeg>
>
> You are supremely CONFIDENT of your assessment of the facts.
> o To you, "it didn't happen".

Because it didn't.

>
> I'm more to the middle of that graph, Alan Baker.
> o I'm saying it "could" happen and it "might not" happen.
>
> The quotes are to underscore the _difference_ between how YOU think, and
> how I think, Alan Baker.

Except that's not what putting a word in quotes is normally used to
indicate, little man.

>
> HINT: Your confidence in the ACCURACY of your logical assessment ability is
> what puts you very far to the left in the graph above, where my assessment
> leaves room for both options (hence I'm more in the middle of that graph).

And you still haven't figured out what that means regarding the
Dunning-Kreuger Effect.

>
>> You seem to want to have it both ways.
>
> Jesus Christ Alan Baker.
> o We're not playing silly little games.

I am.

>
> I assessed the facts where we both agreed (after sixteen posts) on those
> facts, which, by the way, I knew from the start since I'm the one who
> reported those facts to the newsgroup, so, I didn't learn anything from you
> in those sixteen posts other than the fact that it takes sixteen posts for
> you to realize what normal adults realized before the first post.

I never disagreed with the facts.

The fact is that the WSJ posted an article. That is the only fact there is.

>
> You need to look at your CONFIDENCE level versus your KNOWLEDGE
> <https://i.warosu.org/data/biz/img/0087/70/1522980629985.png>
>
>> I know it didn't happen.
>> That's what the complete lack of new iPhone X's on the "shelves" means.
>
> You perfectly fit the "CONFIDENCE" curve with "NO KNOWLEDGE", Alan Baker.
> <https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1600/1*t2sx5h0UF-kljgC2sj2msw.jpeg>
>
>> You were... ...wrong.
>
> Your confidence in your ability to assess fact is why you're pegged left:
> <https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1600/1*t2sx5h0UF-kljgC2sj2msw.jpeg>
>
>> You cannot teach me anything, little man.
>
> Notice how threatened by logic you are?
> o You instantly resort to childish taunts simply by being exposed to logic.

Nope.

<blah, blah, blah>

[arlen holder]

On 19 Mar 2019 18:13:25 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

>>> Did Alan Baker use a sensible scramble mechanism?
>>> o Or did he just make it all up?
>>>
>>

>> Classic.
>
> But he's like, really smart, y'all. Smarter than everyone here, combined
> even! ; )

Hi Jolly Roger,

I kind of miss your child-like responses to my factual & logical threads.
o You finally realized that facts and logic just aren't your forte

The facts and logic are such that:
o If Apple wins the big one, Qualcomm owes Apple almost nothing at all
o Yet, if Qualcomm wins, *Apple _owes Qualcomm_ that billion dollars!*

Since I'm only about facts & logic, the more I know the stronger I get
o For you, Jolly Roger, facts actually _weaken_ your entire belief system

A new fact came out today in this report:
o Apple Infringes Qualcomm Patent
<https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-26/apple-infringes-qualcomm-patent-judge-recommends-iphone-ban>

In that article, this sentence is critical to understand WHY Qualcomm
likely won't owe any money at all even if Apple wins the big one, and, more
importantly, why *it's _Apple_ on the hook for the billion dollars*, if
they lose!

"Apple ... has _directed_ its contractors to _stop paying_ Qualcomm
until the two sides can reach a new deal."

I realize even these trivially simple facts whoosh over your head Jolly
Roger, but most people have at least average intelligence, where they
understand that there is a triad involved in this billion dollars.

The facts and logic are such that:
o If Apple wins the big one, Qualcomm owes Apple almost nothing at all
o *Yet, if Qualcomm wins, Apple _owes Qualcomm_ that billion dollars!*

Any adult of average intelligence can easily comprehend that's what's at stake.

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-03-26 2:16 p.m., arlen holder wrote:
> On 19 Mar 2019 18:13:25 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>>>> Did Alan Baker use a sensible scramble mechanism?
>>>> o Or did he just make it all up?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Classic.
>>
>> But he's like, really smart, y'all. Smarter than everyone here, combined
>> even! ; )
>
> Hi Jolly Roger,
>
> I kind of miss your child-like responses to my factual & logical threads.
> o You finally realized that facts and logic just aren't your forte
>
> The facts and logic are such that:
> o If Apple wins the big one, Qualcomm owes Apple almost nothing at all
> o Yet, if Qualcomm wins, *Apple _owes Qualcomm_ that billion dollars!*

Ignoring your deflections, have you figured out the scrambling scheme I
used yet?

[arlen holder]

o Apple and Qualcomm drop all of their legal disputes
<https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/16/tech/qualcomm-apple-settle-legal-disputes/index.html>

Facts first; then logic.

What I find interesting is that I easily deduced that no matter how this
turned out, Qualcomm would NOT owe Apple any money (simply because I
comprehended the facts of the case when it came to the billion dollars).

Common morons, like nospam & Alan Baker, repeatedly said otherwise:
o But apologists _never_ seem to comprehend even the _simplest_ of facts.

In this case, it was exactly as I had surmised based on the facts:
"The settlement includes an unspecified payment from Apple
to chipmaker Qualcomm (QCOM)"

Yet again, the apologists prove to be utter morons.
o Qualcomm seeks $31 million from Apple ($1.41 per iPhone with Intel radio
chips) for 3 patent infringements in half the iPhones sold
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/-u600QXp0Js/NEEUjpjjBwAJ>

o Apple ... and... Three Qualcomm Patents
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/6yjbZWpBad4/s5oZlSmGBQAJ>

What I find common with the apologists are two fundamental traits:
o Apologists can't seem to comprehend even the simplest of facts
o Hence, Apologists almost always prove to own imaginary belief systems

They deny facts out of hand
o Why?

I don't know why but I suspect facts threaten their imaginary beliefs.

[Anonymous]

In article <q96ivm$66q$1...@news.mixmin.net>

[Tiger_Wooden]

>I don't know why but I suspect facts threaten their imaginary beliefs.

Like the fanmorons who insist Michael Jackson wasn't a gay pedophile.

[Filip454]

W dniu 2019-04-18 o 13:27, Tiger_Wooden pisze:

>> I don't know why but I suspect facts threaten their imaginary beliefs.
>
> Like the fanmorons who insist Michael Jackson wasn't a gay pedophile.
>

Michael Jackson was NOT a pedophile. It was a big cannon aimed at him by
Sony. Go read about it.

--
Filip454
[filip454....@gmail.com]

[Anonymous]

In article <q9g0kv$hms$3...@dont-email.me>
Filip454 <filip454....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> W dniu 2019-04-18 o 13:27, Tiger_Wooden pisze:

[Nomen Nescio]

In article <q9g0kv$hms$3...@dont-email.me>
Filip454 <filip454....@gmail.com> wrote:
>

> W dniu 2019-04-18 o 13:27, Tiger_Wooden pisze:
> >> I don't know why but I suspect facts threaten their imaginary beliefs.
> >
> > Like the fanmorons who insist Michael Jackson wasn't a gay pedophile.
> >
>
> Michael Jackson was NOT a pedophile. It was a big cannon aimed at him by
> Sony. Go read about it.

What would you call a adult-aged man who likes sleeping naked
with little boys, sucking their penises and trying to put his up
their bums?

A homosexual hebephile?

[Anonymous]

In article <56a781ff19d2c092...@dizum.com>

Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com> wrote:
>
> In article <q9g0kv$hms$3...@dont-email.me>
> Filip454 <filip454....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >

> > W dniu 2019-04-18 o 13:27, Tiger_Wooden pisze:

[Filip454]

W dniu 2019-04-21 o 00:38, Nomen Nescio pisze:

> In article <q9g0kv$hms$3...@dont-email.me>
> Filip454 <filip454....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>

>> W dniu 2019-04-18 o 13:27, Tiger_Wooden pisze:

>>>> I don't know why but I suspect facts threaten their imaginary beliefs.
>>>
>>> Like the fanmorons who insist Michael Jackson wasn't a gay pedophile.
>>>
>>
>> Michael Jackson was NOT a pedophile. It was a big cannon aimed at him by
>> Sony. Go read about it.
>
> What would you call a adult-aged man who likes sleeping naked
> with little boys, sucking their penises and trying to put his up
> their bums?
>
> A homosexual hebephile?
>

[citation needed]

--
Filip454
[filip454....@gmail.com]

[John McWilliams]

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Sun, 17 Mar 2019 17:55:46 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> 'Weird, there were two Qualcomm v. Apple cases decided last week and you
> only reported on the one Qualcomm won but skipped over the one [where]
> they lost out on billions.'


As you know, all I care are about the facts.
o I can handle the complexity inherent in the math of a plus b plus c.

But most apologists appear to be unable to comprehend that simple math.

Notice that the facts aren't simple enough for apologists to comprehend:
o In that Qualcomm _rebates_ some of the costs they're claiming.

To see how much money Apple surrendered to Qualcomm, you just have to
comprehend the numbers.
o I apologize that the facts are too complex for apologists to comprehend

People like Alan Baker & nospam can't comprehend this rebate
o But I would expect all sentient adults to comprehend the math

a. Manufacturers pay Qualcomm
b. Apple re-imburses the manufacturers
c. Qualcomm rebates "some" of that money back to Apple.

The real question is what is the math:
a. Manufacturers paid about $12 to $20 per device
b. Presumably Apple reimbursed that entire amount
c. But how much did Qualcomm _rebate_ back to Apple, Steve?

I am now just getting to reading your supporting facts:
"UBS estimates that the terms of the new agreement show
an average royalty of between $8 and $9"
<https://appleinsider.com/articles/19/04/18/apple-payment-to-qualcomm-estimated-at-6-billion-with-9-per-iphone-sold-in-royalties>.

As you know, I'm aware of that cost, where I previously had "averaged" it
to $8.50 per device when I claimed that, as far as I knew from what I read
of what was reported in the media, Apple was paying 113% more in royalties,
so I'm very interested in how you arrived at Apple paying less.

Particularly since Apple's bargaining position sucked, by all accounts,
where your own reference above called Apple's pre-bargaining position a
"tough position" to be in.

So we can easily agree that Apple is paying about $8.50 per phone
o Adults don't waste time agreeing on obvious facts

Let's look at:
"Before Apple instructed them to stop paying,
contract manufacturers were paying Qualcomm 5% for every iPhone,
translating into $12 to $20 per device"
<https://www.fool.com/investing/2019/01/14/heres-how-much-apple-was-paying-qualcomm-in-royalt.aspx>

This article says Apple was paying Qualcomm a billion dollars a year.
o CNET reported it was $7.50 per device in royalties
o Apple wanted it to be $1.50 per device
o The contract Apple signed was based on the value of the entire device

Those are facts all adults but the apologists can agree on, right?

Moving on...
o Apple would _love_ a "direct license" to Apple - but that's not gonna happen

The way it works is what nospam & Alan Baker can't seem to comprehend, which is:
o Qualcomm licenses it's IP to the (4?) contract manufacturers
o Those (4?) contract manufacturers pay Qualcomm that royalty
o Apple then reimburses those contract manufacturers
o In addition, there's a _rebate_ that

Presumably those contract manufacturers have good lawyers and business
people, so they _signed_ this contract with Qualcomm (and with Apple).

Likewise, we know Apple has the best lawyers on the planet, and the best
business people, who _also_ signed this contract with Qualcomm.

Are those not all facts?
o I trust that all adults agree that these are basic obvious facts.

Now look at:
"Before Apple instructed them to stop paying, contract manufacturers
were paying Qualcomm 5% for every iPhone, translating into $12 to
$20 per device."

The next sentence gives us the _missing_ rebate amount:
"Qualcomm used to give Apple rebates that effectively reduced its
royalty burden. Those rebates brought the per-device royalty down
to $7.50."

So there is the old math right there, is it not?
a. Manufacturers paid about $12 to $20 per device
b. Presumably Apple reimbursed that entire amount
c. Qualcomm rebates Apple to an end result of about $7.50 per device

As you know, I'm all about facts & logic deduced from those facts.
o Some apologists claim Apple's royalites went _down_
o I had claimed the facts showed they went _up_

This appears to be the math:
o Apple was paying about $7.50 per device
o Apple is now paying about $8.50 per device

That sure sounds like _up_ to me.

[Arlen G. Holder]