What it would change is how you "don't know how you're describing it as 'illegal'. "
Once the court trial is over, you will know "how" it should be described as illegal, as before, you were incorrect on not being able to say why it was illegal.
And what it will do is help you understand why comments that you make such as "Apple has less than a 50% market share on smart phones.", that incorrectly attempt to imply that Apple is not engaging in anti-competitive practices, is an incorrect thing to imply.
> A bit of an hysterical and morally unjust witch hunt.
Ah, so instead of saying that you may not really understand how anti-trust law works, you are going to say that the whole court system was rigged, if the court rules against Apple in any way?
Anti-trust law is not particularly controversial, also.
> you are going to say that the whole court system was rigged
You're just inventing random things that I don't think and haven't said. I don't know know where you got 'rigged' from for example. That's not a quote from me or an intelligent interpretation of what I've said.
If you find yourself constantly replying 'so you're saying' or 'so you'll say' stop and think why you think you need to rephrase everything and speculate on what the other person may say rather than going off directly what was actually said in order to make a point.
I don't think you're arguing in good faith here or actually want to understand other opinions - you seem pretty intent on deliberately misinterpreting as strongly as possible - so I'll leave you to it.
You compared the apple court cases to the salem witch trials, and compared it to a "morally unjust witch hunt".
Oh sorry, you said "Maybe there's a parallel there?". Not like that matters though. It is obvious what you are attempting to say here.
Like, C'mon. By comparing a current anti-trust court case, to the salem witch trials, you are attempting to delegitimize the process.
When you say stuff like "Maybe there's a parallel there?", you are attempting to imply that the current trials are similar to the salem witch trials. Thats what you are saying when you asking if there is a parallel there.
You even said "Why would the court's opinion change my moral opinion on whether something is (illegal)"
You straight up asked why the courts opinion on something, would change your opinion on whether it "IS" illegal. (Yes, you also included the word "should", but you also said "is" as well)
If a court says that Apple's actions are illegal, then that is a pretty good reason for you to change your mind on whether those actions are illegal, and it is silly for you to then compare well respected judges, and uncontroversial laws, to the freaking salem witch trials!
You can't just back off from your comparison to the salem witch trials now. It is clear that you are attempting to delegitimize the trial.
That is an extreme comparison. You can't just make that comparison, and then get surprised when I point out how extreme that comparison is.
> We'll see if you were right or not, to question why/how/when their actions are illegal.
Why would the court's opinion change my moral opinion on whether something is or should be illegal or not? Unless there's new info.
The Salem Witches were found guilty in a court, for example. Maybe there's a parallel there? A bit of an hysterical and morally unjust witch hunt.