or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Gatorguy

So you got the answer to "who settled what in the EU" and don't actually disagree with anything I wrote, much less with the statement that Apple made the right choice to settle to avoid a potential 10% fine.(and a point I thought you too were making). Your issue must be with something Singularity said or didn't say.Well that took awhile.
There's a couple of sections that would seem to apply. Paragraph 21:FAILURE OF CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE THE PRODUCTS, SOFTWARE OR SERVICES AS AGREED If Contractor fails to properly and satisfactorily perform the Services or provide the Products or Software ordered by the District under a purchase order that has been received by Contractor (a"breach"), and, except to the extent of a delay arising from a Force Majeure Event, if any of the following conditions occur:a. a breach...
I'm getting more confused with each of your posts. What exactly are you arguing about? That there was not an active anti-trust investigation when Apple settled so they were never in danger of a 10% fine? If that's not it perhaps you could clue me in. If you're going to insult me at least tell me what for. As it is you've lost me sir.
???Are you perhaps trying to say Apple didn't settle any antitrust charges in Europe? The Commission statements would disagree with you if that's your position. I initially thought you might be unaware of it but perhaps there's some other point you're attempting to make.
?? No idea what you mean. Aren't fines always for breaking rules? That's what the announced antitrust investigation of Apple and the publishers was meant to find out wasn't it?http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-11-1509_en.htm?locale=enYou and I both agree the right move was to settle as it's really not worth chancing. I've no idea what Singularity's thought's on it are.Here's how fines are determined for Competition Law...
Yup, seemed like the sensical approach to me too. It's tough to deal with the EU.BTW, in the last paragraph the EU Commission notes that if one of the companies were to " break commitments made binding on them, the Commission can impose a fine of up to 10% of its annual worldwide turnover, without having to find an infringement of the antitrust rules." They do seem to like their 10% threats don't they?
The superintendent suggested to Apple that they work with Pearson to get the contract. There were some number of private communications between Supt. John Deasy, Pearson and Apple before the contract was supposedly put out to bid. It was all a bit shady from the get-go IMHO. With 20 boxes of documents seized by the FBI it won't be the last we hear about it.
There were questions about the contract a few months back. That's why it's not hard to find a copy on the web. I think it's odd that so many posted comments as facts in this thread without checking the contract to see who the responsible party is.
You shoulda' asked sooner Here 'ya go. I had it in my cloud drive from awhile back but it's also on the web if you look.http://tinyurl.com/nlawmhh
New Posts  All Forums: