Why don't you look up the meaning of 'hearsay' evidence and it's value in a legal sense.
It's what makes most of your post meaningless drivel.
But yet the DOJ is using this "hearsay" to launch an investigation. Then all the individuals minus Steveo will be subpenaed and will testify under oath, then things will progress. You act like the things Gator is saying are his ideas, this is stuff Steve Jobs is known for saying.
But yet the DOJ is using this "hearsay" to launch an investigation. Then all the individuals minus Steveo will be subpenaed and will testify under oath, then things will progress. You act like the things Gator is saying are his ideas, this is stuff Steve Jobs is known for saying.
That's standard practice to launch a probe to determine whether there is any teeth in the heresay.
The purpose of antitrust laws is to preserve a competitive marketplace. The purpose of a competitive marketplace is ultimately to provide the best products to consumers at the lowest prices.
The DOJ is on OUR side. These huge megacorporations are free to do what they want, so long as they don't abuse their power in a manner which hurts people like you and me.
We should all be glad that the DOJ is looking into this. They are not our enemy - big corporations who collude to get rid of competition are our enemy.
Please tell me exactly what Apple has done that falls under the restrictions of either the Sherman or Clayton acts.
All they've done is told the publishers "we'll let you set your prices at whatever level you want". How is that collusive-especially when compared to Amazon who said "we'll tell you what price to charge and you can not change it"?
I can't tell you what Apple has done that would cause it to violate antitrust laws because I don't have all the facts of the case and am not qualified to make that determination even if I knew every fact. All I'm telling you is that a group of qualified individuals at the DOJ believe that there is potential that Apple along with publishers is acting uncompetitively.
I can't tell you what Apple has done that would cause it to violate antitrust laws because I don't have all the facts of the case and am not qualified to make that determination even if I knew every fact. All I'm telling you is that a group of qualified individuals at the DOJ believe that there is potential that Apple along with publishers is acting uncompetitively.
I see. So it's nothing more than a fishing expedition. Thanks for admitting that.
Let's look at the most famous antitrust case in computing. MS made IE free to pull bring down netscape unfairly. What I see here is Apple charging the customer more in order to pay the publisher more fairly so how is that an anti-competitve move?
I believe the point of contention was the whole thing about not pricing lower than the ibooks price. Plus publishers didn't like Amazon under pricing their titles and so with their Amazon contracts ending they demanded that Amazon follow the same rules Apple was offering or lose the titles. Mind you the publishers could have just dropped Amazon over the pricing issue. Or simply changed the contracts so Amazon simply paid the same and had to sell at the publisher's price. etc.
Exactly. I really don't understand why so many people are defending Apple or the Department of Justice when they don't have all the facts. I don't mean this as an insult to anyone, but only dumb people argue a point without all the facts. Let things run their course and what happens, happens.
Only smart ass lawyers at the DOJ think there is the potential for anti-trust...
God, the DOJ really has their plate full these days.
What a waste of MY tax dollars to try to squash the innovation that Apple has created.
Once again, just like SOPA and PIPA, the lawmakers and enforcers in the good ol' US of A are chasing the tail of the dog.
I believe the point of contention was the whole thing about not pricing lower than the ibooks price. Plus publishers didn't like Amazon under pricing their titles and so with their Amazon contracts ending they demanded that Amazon follow the same rules Apple was offering or lose the titles. Mind you the publishers could have just dropped Amazon over the pricing issue. Or simply changed the contracts so Amazon simply paid the same and had to sell at the publisher's price. etc.
Fair points. Thanks for helping me see it more clearly.
I see. So it's nothing more than a fishing expedition. Thanks for admitting that.
Admitting what? I'm not on trial here. I explained the same thing to you twice and in neither explanation did I say that Apple was guilty. Both times I said that they are doing an investigation because of the possibility that something illegal was happening. Thank you for finally agreeing.
I believe the point of contention was the whole thing about not pricing lower than the ibooks price. Plus publishers didn't like Amazon under pricing their titles and so with their Amazon contracts ending they demanded that Amazon follow the same rules Apple was offering or lose the titles. Mind you the publishers could have just dropped Amazon over the pricing issue. Or simply changed the contracts so Amazon simply paid the same and had to sell at the publisher's price. etc.
There's nothing illegal about clauses saying that you can't sell to anyone else for a lower price. It even has a name ('most favored nation clause') derived from the fact that these clauses were first used in International trade.
Now, the Supreme Court has started restricting MFN clauses slightly, but the rulings are complex and narrow. In the end, they really come down to this:
MFN clauses are not, by themselves, illegal. Agency pricing is not, by itself, illegal. There is really no restriction on the use of either of these clauses. HOWEVER, it is theoretically possible to use either (or both of them) to restrict competition by colluding with either suppliers or competitors. If illegal collusion occurred, the MFN clause could be part of the wrong-doing.
In order to make a case against Apple (much less to win a case), the DOJ is going to have to prove that Apple colluded with the publishers with the intent of restricting competition - and that's going to be nearly impossible to prove.
So the essence of your opinion would be either there's no truth to this pending Apple antitrust suit rumor to begin with, or it's all a bluff by the DoJ since they almost certainly can't prove anything anyway. Is that somewhat accurate?
So the essence of your opinion would be either there's no truth to this pending Apple antitrust suit rumor to begin with, or it's all a bluff by the DoJ since they almost certainly can't prove anything anyway. Is that somewhat accurate?
Possibly.
Or the DOJ is looking into it and will find that there's nothing worth pursuing.
Or the DOJ will take it to court and Apple will get off.
Or any number of other options. I just don't see a single shred of evidence that suggests that Apple has done anything illegal - and so far, no one here has been able to cite any clauses of the Clayton or Sherman Acts (or anything else for that matter) that Apple has violated.
Or the DOJ is looking into it and will find that there's nothing worth pursuing.
Or the DOJ will take it to court and Apple will get off.
Or any number of other options. I just don't see a single shred of evidence that suggests that Apple has done anything illegal - and so far, no one here has been able to cite any clauses of the Clayton or Sherman Acts (or anything else for that matter) that Apple has violated.
Why would that be a surprise? Do you really think someone here knows the inside story, factual knowledge of the case if there is one at all? Who here would know any of the inside details on what has been discovered during an investigation and thus what might have been illegal (if anything) unless they work in Apple management, part of the DoJ investigation, or head up one of the publishers.
Show of hands please if any of you are here...
Otherwise it's only common sense that no one could say Apple did (or didn't) do anything the DoJ would have issue with. We're all just a bunch of forum guys guessing what's going on. The players are the only ones with the inside scoop. I was simply curious if you thought the whole thing was pretty much made up. Of course none of us have any basis to pass judgement on the merits of the case, whatever it is.
It can be fun to discuss, but we're all guessing until or if the DoJ has more to reveal.
Why would that be a surprise? Do you really think someone here knows the inside story, factual knowledge of the case if there is one at all? Who here would know any of the inside details on what has been discovered during an investigation and thus what might have been illegal (if anything) unless they work in Apple management, part of the DoJ investigation, or head up one of the publishers.
Show of hands please if any of you are here...
Otherwise it's only common sense that no one could say Apple did (or didn't) do anything the DoJ would have issue with. We're all just a bunch of forum guys guessing what's going on. The players are the only ones with the inside scoop. I was simply curious if you thought the whole thing was pretty much made up. Of course none of us have any basis to pass judgement on the merits of the case, whatever it is.
It can be fun to discuss, but we're all guessing until or if the DoJ has more to reveal.
Yes, but the point is that there's absolutely no public evidence that Apple has done anything wrong and no one is able to point to a single law Apple has broken. Nor is there any evidence that the DOJ is even investigating Apple other than a few of the same rumors that have circulated for years.
Yet the Apple haters are crowing about how much trouble Apple is in.
I just think anyone should buy from Barnes and Noble. Amazon books only work on Kindle devices. I'm not sure about iBook working on other devices but I know Barnes and Noble work on multiple devices and can be used on them all at the same time.
I just think anyone should buy from Barnes and Noble. Amazon books only work on Kindle devices. I'm not sure about iBook working on other devices but I know Barnes and Noble work on multiple devices and can be used on them all at the same time.
Amazon's eBooks work on more devices than any of the distributors you mentioned.
Comments
I'm a snore manages to ...
I see what you did there. Very clever.
Why don't you look up the meaning of 'hearsay' evidence and it's value in a legal sense.
It's what makes most of your post meaningless drivel.
But yet the DOJ is using this "hearsay" to launch an investigation. Then all the individuals minus Steveo will be subpenaed and will testify under oath, then things will progress. You act like the things Gator is saying are his ideas, this is stuff Steve Jobs is known for saying.
But yet the DOJ is using this "hearsay" to launch an investigation. Then all the individuals minus Steveo will be subpenaed and will testify under oath, then things will progress. You act like the things Gator is saying are his ideas, this is stuff Steve Jobs is known for saying.
That's standard practice to launch a probe to determine whether there is any teeth in the heresay.
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz
The purpose of antitrust laws is to preserve a competitive marketplace. The purpose of a competitive marketplace is ultimately to provide the best products to consumers at the lowest prices.
The DOJ is on OUR side. These huge megacorporations are free to do what they want, so long as they don't abuse their power in a manner which hurts people like you and me.
We should all be glad that the DOJ is looking into this. They are not our enemy - big corporations who collude to get rid of competition are our enemy.
Exactly.
Please tell me exactly what Apple has done that falls under the restrictions of either the Sherman or Clayton acts.
All they've done is told the publishers "we'll let you set your prices at whatever level you want". How is that collusive-especially when compared to Amazon who said "we'll tell you what price to charge and you can not change it"?
I can't tell you what Apple has done that would cause it to violate antitrust laws because I don't have all the facts of the case and am not qualified to make that determination even if I knew every fact. All I'm telling you is that a group of qualified individuals at the DOJ believe that there is potential that Apple along with publishers is acting uncompetitively.
I can't tell you what Apple has done that would cause it to violate antitrust laws because I don't have all the facts of the case and am not qualified to make that determination even if I knew every fact. All I'm telling you is that a group of qualified individuals at the DOJ believe that there is potential that Apple along with publishers is acting uncompetitively.
I see. So it's nothing more than a fishing expedition. Thanks for admitting that.
Let's look at the most famous antitrust case in computing. MS made IE free to pull bring down netscape unfairly. What I see here is Apple charging the customer more in order to pay the publisher more fairly so how is that an anti-competitve move?
I believe the point of contention was the whole thing about not pricing lower than the ibooks price. Plus publishers didn't like Amazon under pricing their titles and so with their Amazon contracts ending they demanded that Amazon follow the same rules Apple was offering or lose the titles. Mind you the publishers could have just dropped Amazon over the pricing issue. Or simply changed the contracts so Amazon simply paid the same and had to sell at the publisher's price. etc.
If it's half as funny as Gates' was vis-a-vis the Internet Explorer anti-trust thang, I'll pop popcorn to watch it...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANCUvLJ1utg
Exactly. I really don't understand why so many people are defending Apple or the Department of Justice when they don't have all the facts. I don't mean this as an insult to anyone, but only dumb people argue a point without all the facts. Let things run their course and what happens, happens.
Only smart ass lawyers at the DOJ think there is the potential for anti-trust...
God, the DOJ really has their plate full these days.
What a waste of MY tax dollars to try to squash the innovation that Apple has created.
Once again, just like SOPA and PIPA, the lawmakers and enforcers in the good ol' US of A are chasing the tail of the dog.
I believe the point of contention was the whole thing about not pricing lower than the ibooks price. Plus publishers didn't like Amazon under pricing their titles and so with their Amazon contracts ending they demanded that Amazon follow the same rules Apple was offering or lose the titles. Mind you the publishers could have just dropped Amazon over the pricing issue. Or simply changed the contracts so Amazon simply paid the same and had to sell at the publisher's price. etc.
Fair points. Thanks for helping me see it more clearly.
I see. So it's nothing more than a fishing expedition. Thanks for admitting that.
Admitting what? I'm not on trial here. I explained the same thing to you twice and in neither explanation did I say that Apple was guilty. Both times I said that they are doing an investigation because of the possibility that something illegal was happening. Thank you for finally agreeing.
I believe the point of contention was the whole thing about not pricing lower than the ibooks price. Plus publishers didn't like Amazon under pricing their titles and so with their Amazon contracts ending they demanded that Amazon follow the same rules Apple was offering or lose the titles. Mind you the publishers could have just dropped Amazon over the pricing issue. Or simply changed the contracts so Amazon simply paid the same and had to sell at the publisher's price. etc.
There's nothing illegal about clauses saying that you can't sell to anyone else for a lower price. It even has a name ('most favored nation clause') derived from the fact that these clauses were first used in International trade.
Now, the Supreme Court has started restricting MFN clauses slightly, but the rulings are complex and narrow. In the end, they really come down to this:
MFN clauses are not, by themselves, illegal. Agency pricing is not, by itself, illegal. There is really no restriction on the use of either of these clauses. HOWEVER, it is theoretically possible to use either (or both of them) to restrict competition by colluding with either suppliers or competitors. If illegal collusion occurred, the MFN clause could be part of the wrong-doing.
In order to make a case against Apple (much less to win a case), the DOJ is going to have to prove that Apple colluded with the publishers with the intent of restricting competition - and that's going to be nearly impossible to prove.
So the essence of your opinion would be either there's no truth to this pending Apple antitrust suit rumor to begin with, or it's all a bluff by the DoJ since they almost certainly can't prove anything anyway. Is that somewhat accurate?
Possibly.
Or the DOJ is looking into it and will find that there's nothing worth pursuing.
Or the DOJ will take it to court and Apple will get off.
Or any number of other options. I just don't see a single shred of evidence that suggests that Apple has done anything illegal - and so far, no one here has been able to cite any clauses of the Clayton or Sherman Acts (or anything else for that matter) that Apple has violated.
Possibly.
Or the DOJ is looking into it and will find that there's nothing worth pursuing.
Or the DOJ will take it to court and Apple will get off.
Or any number of other options. I just don't see a single shred of evidence that suggests that Apple has done anything illegal - and so far, no one here has been able to cite any clauses of the Clayton or Sherman Acts (or anything else for that matter) that Apple has violated.
Why would that be a surprise? Do you really think someone here knows the inside story, factual knowledge of the case if there is one at all? Who here would know any of the inside details on what has been discovered during an investigation and thus what might have been illegal (if anything) unless they work in Apple management, part of the DoJ investigation, or head up one of the publishers.
Show of hands please if any of you are here...
Otherwise it's only common sense that no one could say Apple did (or didn't) do anything the DoJ would have issue with. We're all just a bunch of forum guys guessing what's going on. The players are the only ones with the inside scoop. I was simply curious if you thought the whole thing was pretty much made up. Of course none of us have any basis to pass judgement on the merits of the case, whatever it is.
It can be fun to discuss, but we're all guessing until or if the DoJ has more to reveal.
Why would that be a surprise? Do you really think someone here knows the inside story, factual knowledge of the case if there is one at all? Who here would know any of the inside details on what has been discovered during an investigation and thus what might have been illegal (if anything) unless they work in Apple management, part of the DoJ investigation, or head up one of the publishers.
Show of hands please if any of you are here...
Otherwise it's only common sense that no one could say Apple did (or didn't) do anything the DoJ would have issue with. We're all just a bunch of forum guys guessing what's going on. The players are the only ones with the inside scoop. I was simply curious if you thought the whole thing was pretty much made up. Of course none of us have any basis to pass judgement on the merits of the case, whatever it is.
It can be fun to discuss, but we're all guessing until or if the DoJ has more to reveal.
Yes, but the point is that there's absolutely no public evidence that Apple has done anything wrong and no one is able to point to a single law Apple has broken. Nor is there any evidence that the DOJ is even investigating Apple other than a few of the same rumors that have circulated for years.
Yet the Apple haters are crowing about how much trouble Apple is in.
I just think anyone should buy from Barnes and Noble. Amazon books only work on Kindle devices. I'm not sure about iBook working on other devices but I know Barnes and Noble work on multiple devices and can be used on them all at the same time.
Amazon's eBooks work on more devices than any of the distributors you mentioned.