The courts gave the idiots an injunction, so while you are right they are not exactly claiming it, they are claiming it is likely true.

And the courts are (a part) of the gvt last time I checked.

So the gov wants to claim the FDA did not regulate mifepristone hard enough, but this is perfectly fine. What a world.

I feel like “so easy to implement” still understates it. It is literally the default option: don’t crate and enfore a dumb rule. They have to go out of their way to make their product shittier.

Also, you should not buy an apple product, if for no other reason, than because they can just change their mind at any time. As long as the appstore is the only way to install apps, you have no control over your own device.

How about you take your strawman argument somewhere else? I never said you need just one. But the company clearly did not need as many, if they were able to let them go. Economy of scale I guess.

In this case, it kills unproductive jobs. Payroll people are necessary but at the end of the day, they don’t produce anything you would want to buy. This means that if you keep more administrative jobds than you need, there will be fewer actuall things to go around. Hence everyone will be poorer on average (or realistically speaking, the rich will be poorer in the current system, but that is a different issue).

Anyway, keeping unproductive jobds to reduce unenployment is a dumb idea and is one of the main reason why communism sucked so much.

Last I checked, you can just download a youtube video. There are plenty of websites and some apps for that. No need to play it in the bacground.

Not about infringement as much as getting caught and not being able to sell the watches that were surely expensive to develop.

Well, if I was on the board or a shareholder, I would be much more pissed about patent infringment that should have been easy to prevent and hints at incompetence over lower than expected sales which is just hard to predict.

In a defamation lawsuit, it would not be X that had to prove it was a lie. It would be CCDH that had to prove it had evidence for their claims (notice that it does not need to be true, only has to be reasonable for CCDH to believe it is true based on evidence they had).