> This is the exact same line Sidney Powell is using in her defense against Dominion: "'No Reasonable Person' Thought Her Election Fraud Claims Were Fact" [0]. Amused but not surprised to see this from her, I am quite aghast to see this from Apple.
The sentence in the filing is true: no reasonable person would see her opinion about an event as a fact. Opinions are not facts. Powell's problem is that her "facts" used to support her opinion are flaming dumpster-fire ridiculous and Loony Toons level crazy. (My opinion, also not a fact, is that she had a really bad filter for technical information, and so ended up filing complete trash in court.)
Apple is also making an opinion claim here: "buy" in an Apple context does not mean "buy" in the colloquial context. I think it's a dumb argument mostly unsupported by facts (don't know how well supported it is by law), but, again, it's their opinion.
Only the judge's opinion really matters, as well as the customer's when she decides not to "buy" this crap from hostile streaming services.
So if I "buy" an Apple M1 series computer, am I renting it or buying it? The only thing Apple can do to hardware is to quit supporting it via software updates, but I am still free to use it with the last supported software as long as it runs. (Depending on make/model/build quality, that may actually stop before software support ends like the 2016-2017 MBPs.)
There's pretty convincing evidence that you own that computer. Your ability to use it in some fashion (e.g. as a hammer) is not dependent on Apple permitting that use.
The sentence in the filing is true: no reasonable person would see her opinion about an event as a fact. Opinions are not facts. Powell's problem is that her "facts" used to support her opinion are flaming dumpster-fire ridiculous and Loony Toons level crazy. (My opinion, also not a fact, is that she had a really bad filter for technical information, and so ended up filing complete trash in court.)
Apple is also making an opinion claim here: "buy" in an Apple context does not mean "buy" in the colloquial context. I think it's a dumb argument mostly unsupported by facts (don't know how well supported it is by law), but, again, it's their opinion.
Only the judge's opinion really matters, as well as the customer's when she decides not to "buy" this crap from hostile streaming services.