or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › DoJ reportedly planning antitrust suit against Apple, publishers over e-books
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

DoJ reportedly planning antitrust suit against Apple, publishers over e-books - Page 3

post #81 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

You mean the book publishers in concert with Apple have already agreed to not compete on pricing and refuse to sell to any retailer who would sell at a lower price, therefor a level playing field for them?

Here's what is claimed to be wrong with Apple's plan:
"We told the publishers, 'We'll go to the agency model, where you set the price, and we get our 30%, and yes, the customer pays a little more, but that's what you want anyway,'" Mr. Jobs was quoted as saying by his biographer, Walter Isaacson.

The publishers were then able to impose the same model across the industry, Mr. Jobs told Mr. Isaacson. "They went to Amazon and said, 'You're going to sign an agency contract or we're not going to give you the books,' " Mr. Jobs said."

Unfortunate that the quotes were directly attributed to Mr. Jobs and frankly I'm darn surprised that he saw no issues with the plan. In hindsight, colluding with publishers to set prices and deny other seller's the right to market books at their own prices should be an obvious red flag to Apple. Perhaps not the best decision if they had it to do over IMHO

"The Justice Department believes that Apple and the publishers acted in concert to raise prices across the industry, and is prepared to sue them for violating federal antitrust laws, the people familiar with the matter said."

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.
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #82 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


I'm a snore manages to ...

I see what you did there. Very clever.
post #83 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

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.
post #84 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellacool View Post

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.
post #85 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

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.


Edited by jarroyo1031 - 8/2/13 at 9:48pm
post #86 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

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.
post #87 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakefinance View Post

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.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #88 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

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.

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #89 of 99
It would be funny to see how Tim Cook's deposition goes.

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

   I am long on my shares of AAPL at $37.00

Reply

   I am long on my shares of AAPL at $37.00

Reply
post #90 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by jarroyo1031 View Post

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 am long on my shares of AAPL at $37.00

Reply

   I am long on my shares of AAPL at $37.00

Reply
post #91 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

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.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #92 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

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.
post #93 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

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.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #94 of 99
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?
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #95 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

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.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #96 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

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.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #97 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

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'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #98 of 99
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.
post #99 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by JackMohack View Post

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.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
  • DoJ reportedly planning antitrust suit against Apple, publishers over e-books
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › DoJ reportedly planning antitrust suit against Apple, publishers over e-books