or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › DoJ: Apple considered 'illegally dividing the digital content world with Amazon'
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

DoJ: Apple considered 'illegally dividing the digital content world with Amazon'

post #1 of 96
Thread Starter 
In its newly filed lawsuit against Apple, the U.S. Department of Justice asserts that the iPad maker considered a content partnership with Amazon that would have allowed Apple to "own" digital delivery of audio and video.

The justice department's complaint doesn't go into detail, but does suggest that Apple considered forging a deal with Amazon. The sentence in the lawsuit, noted by All Things D, suggests Amazon would have retained control of the e-book market while Apple stuck to video and audio.

"in addition to considering competitive entry at that time, though, Apple contemplated illegally dividing the digital content world with Amazon, allowing each to 'own the category' of its choice — audio/video to Apple and e-books to Amazon," the lawsuit reads.

Because the Department of Justice doesn't explain this accusation, author Peter Kafka noted that "it's not uncommon for lawsuits to contain big helpings of theatrics, with accusations and context that won't end up having any bearing in court."

Though the alleged deal between Apple and Amazon never came to pass, the department still believes that Apple colluded with book publishers to fix prices of digital content. It filed suit against Apple and the publishers on Wednesday in a New York district court.

Named in the suit in addition to Apple are Hachette, HarperCollins, Simon & Schuster, Penguin and Macmillan. Filings in court revealed that Simon & Schuster, Hachette and HarperCollins have already settled with the department to avoid the suit, while Macmillan and Penguin intend to fight the complaint.




Now, the government is seeking a settlement from the hold-outs — Apple, Macmillan and Penguin — that would allow Amazon and others to return to a "wholesale model." That would allow retailers to set the prices for the books they sell.

A total of 16 states have also joined the fray against Apple and book publishers by filing their own lawsuits. They claim that the agreements made with Apple have cost consumers $100 million.

Connecticut Attorney General George Jepsen said that settlements reached with Hachette and HarperCollins will pay out $52 million in "consumer restitution." States involved in the complaint are Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, and West Virginia.

With the launch of its iBooks platform, Apple convinced e-book publishers to switch to an "agency model" for sales, allowing them to set prices. Previously, Amazon used a "wholesale model" in which it would set its own prices, sometimes even at a loss, and upset publishers.

[ View article on AppleInsider ]
post #2 of 96
Apple convinced e-book publishers to switch to an "agency model" for sales, allowing them to set prices. Previously, Amazon used a "wholesale model" in which it would set its own prices, sometimes even at a loss, and upset publishers.

Which is it? Did Apple have to convince publishers to switch away from the agency model to a model Apple wanted, or were the publishers themselves upset by the agency model?
post #3 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Connecticut Attorney General George Jepsen said that settlements reached with Hachette and HarperCollins will pay out $52 million in "consumer restitution."

And this 52 million will obviously go back to the consumers and not the government.

post #4 of 96
Apple convinced publishers to switch to their model, which has made it impossible for Amazon to compete.

Apparently this is better than Amazon's model which made it impossible for anyone else to compete?
post #5 of 96
Yeah right. That accusation is just tripe for the NYTimes to splash across its front page, further painting Apple as a big bad bully.
post #6 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Because the Department of Justice doesn't explain this accusation, author Peter Kafka noted that "it's not uncommon for lawsuits to contain big helpings of theatrics, with accusations and context that won't end up having any bearing in court."

That's the most important sentence in the article. Lots of theatrics.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mbarriault View Post

Apple convinced publishers to switch to their model, which has made it impossible for Amazon to compete.

Apparently this is better than Amazon's model which made it impossible for anyone else to compete?

Let's see if we can follow this:

1. Amazon had a strong majority (something like 80% or more) of the eBook market.
2. Amazon says that Apple's pricing model means that consumers have to pay more.
3. Amazon was known to be selling many items at a loss.

So if Amazon simply matches Apple's pricing model, they'd be making MORE money, not less. So why can't Amazon compete?
"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 #7 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheUnfetteredMind View Post

And this 52 million will obviously go back to the consumers and not the government.


I can't wait to get my check for 1/7 of $1.
post #8 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheUnfetteredMind View Post

And this 52 million will obviously go back to the consumers and not the government.


Yeah just imagine what the public schools could do with 52 million.
post #9 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feynman View Post

Yeah just imagine what the public schools could do with 52 million.

Football stadiums.
post #10 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feynman View Post

Yeah just imagine what the public schools could do with 52 million.

Hire 10 super-intendents at 520k per year for 10 years?

Hire Bain Capital for $52 million to see how they can save money by getting rid of teachers and books?

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #11 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Hire 52 super-intendents at 520k per year for 10 years?

Hire Bain Capital for $52 million to see how they can save money by getting rid of teachers and books?

$52 million is ~1/20th of Austin ISD's 2011 - 2012 adopted budget.
post #12 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

That's the most important sentence in the article. Lots of theatrics.



Let's see if we can follow this:

1. Amazon had a strong majority (something like 80% or more) of the eBook market.
2. Amazon says that Apple's pricing model means that consumers have to pay more.
3. Amazon was known to be selling many items at a loss.

So if Amazon simply matches Apple's pricing model, they'd be making MORE money, not less. So why can't Amazon compete?

I think you just further proved my point, that the lawsuit is ridiculous and is designed to favour Amazon.
post #13 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristophB View Post

Football stadiums.

I wonder how much a HS football stadium costs. Is $52 million enough?

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #14 of 96
God forbid anyone impinges on Amazon's monopoly...

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

    AT&T believes their LTE coverage is adequate

Reply

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

    AT&T believes their LTE coverage is adequate

Reply
post #15 of 96
In other news, the DoJ retroactively files suit against Netscape for selling their browser at a profit when MS's Internet Explorer was given away, thus customers pay less.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #16 of 96
Sounds to me like this was retaliation of Apple going after Amazon for pushing $69cent songs and taking away market share. But in this case Apple coludes with the publishers to drive up the price of eBooks. Bad Apple.
This is some serious sheet.
post #17 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Hire 52 super-intendents at 520k per year for 10 years?

Hire Bain Capital for $52 million to see how they can save money by getting rid of teachers and books?

52*520k*10≠52MM

Anyway, those both sound like marvelous options, but how beautifully ironic would it be if they bought iPads for students?
post #18 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

That's the most important sentence in the article. Lots of theatrics.



Let's see if we can follow this:

1. Amazon had a strong majority (something like 80% or more) of the eBook market.
2. Amazon says that Apple's pricing model means that consumers have to pay more.
3. Amazon was known to be selling many items at a loss.

So if Amazon simply matches Apple's pricing model, they'd be making MORE money, not less. So why can't Amazon compete?

If Amazon were to set their prices at the level of what Apple charges through their iBooks plattforms customers will have very little incentive to get the content off Amazon as iOS makes it easier and more intuitive to get it off Apple. Amazon can only compete by having the option to sell for the same content cheap(er).
post #19 of 96
DoJ hasn't batted an eye at the banking institutions that conspired to destroyed the US economy through fraud, but it sees a case in publishers selling ebooks on the open market for $13 rather than $10.

WTF.

What an incompetent bunch of morons. Or perhaps just tools of the system. It's getting hard to take America seriously anymore.

Maybe the $52 million can be invested into the domestic army seeking to invade citizens' homes looking for marijuana. It would probably buy two paramilitary tanks or a set of flack jackets and rocket launchers for the ATF to pursue its policy of prohibition via domestic terrorism.

Next up: investigate the Facebook conspiracy to sell virtual farmland for nonsense points. Then take down the tech cabal offering free email accounts in an effort to bankrupt the US Postal Service.

Maybe rig the election for Romney and send the US from quasi-fascist republic to a full on military theocracy where you get thrown in prison unless you tithe the mormons.
post #20 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

That's the most important sentence in the article. Lots of theatrics.



Let's see if we can follow this:

1. Amazon had a strong majority (something like 80% or more) of the eBook market.
2. Amazon says that Apple's pricing model means that consumers have to pay more.
3. Amazon was known to be selling many items at a loss.

So if Amazon simply matches Apple's pricing model, they'd be making MORE money, not less. So why can't Amazon compete?



OK, lets explain this again because some of you are not getting the point.



Amazon is competing by offering a lower price. Now when the top 6 publishers collude with Apple, set a e-book price, and tell Amazon to accept the same terms or lose their business, then that is illegal. Amazon could not lower prices in order to force competition. How come Apple just couldn't follow Amazon's suit and take a loss? Are you really defending the corporations bottom line? So you would rather pay more, and line the companies pocket, instead of saving money?


Please do not be blinded because this is Apple. Every corporations bottom line is to get as much money as they can. We should all be on the side of the consumer, not the company. If Google colluded with the RIAA, set the price of MP3 songs and then forced Apple to raise their price, I would assume everyone would be up in arms against this.

Apple, Google, Amazon, MSoft are all great companies, however that doesn't mean I want to be screwed out of my hard earned money by them.
post #21 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbarriault View Post

Apple convinced publishers to switch to their model, which has made it impossible for Amazon to compete.

Apparently this is better than Amazon's model which made it impossible for anyone else to compete?

Right- just like Steve Jobs and Apple convinced the music industry to let it sell using a $99 cent per song model.
Who could compete with that?
Tower?
Virgin?
All gone.
post #22 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by [Greg] View Post

52*520k*10≠52MM

Anyway, those both sound like marvelous options, but how beautifully ironic would it be if they bought iPads for students?

Yikes! That what was bad math.

I think an iPad can be a huge beneficial for students but I think at this point $52 million would be better spend on improving the classes themselves.


Quote:
Originally Posted by charlitos View Post

If Amazon were to set their prices at the level of what Apple charges through their iBooks plattforms customers will have very little incentive to get the content off Amazon as iOS makes it easier and more intuitive to get it off Apple. Amazon can only compete by having the option to sell for the same content cheap(er).

You can read your Kindle books in many more places than with iBooks that Amazon still has a major leg up.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #23 of 96
This article from Apple Insider misstates the basis of the DOJ's lawsuit. The "collusion" with Amazon is merely a passing mention in the complaint. It is not why Apple and the publishers are being sued. Amazon is not a named defendant.

The primary complaint is that Apple and the publishers colluded among themselves to raise the sale price of e-books. If true, it's price fixing and it's illegal.
post #24 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by iSheldon View Post

Right- just like Steve Jobs and Apple convinced the music industry to let it sell using a $99 cent per song model.
Who could compete with that?
Tower?
Virgin?
All gone.

1) http://www.amazon.com/b/ref=dm_bb_69...rd_i=163856011

2) So now you're moving the goal posts to blame Apple for physical book stores going out of business because Apple sells eBooks?

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #25 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by gerbinto View Post

Amazon is competing by offering a lower price. Now when the top 6 publishers collude with Apple, set a e-book price, and tell Amazon to accept the same terms or lose their business, then that is illegal.

I'm not sure how that's illegal? It seems to be business competition..

If I owned a restaurant, and I had coke on my fountain soda, and pepsi offered me a lower price, I'd take it.. If coke rep came back to me and said "hey what's the deal?" , I told them I got a lower price. The same would go in Logistics (freight companies bidding for lanes).
post #26 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections View Post

DoJ hasn't batted an eye at the banking institutions that conspired to destroyed the US economy through fraud, but it sees a case in publishers selling ebooks on the open market for $13 rather than $10.

WTF.

What an incompetent bunch of morons. Or perhaps just tools of the system. It's getting hard to take America seriously anymore.

Maybe the $52 million can be invested into the domestic army seeking to invade citizens' homes looking for marijuana. It would probably buy two paramilitary tanks or a set of flack jackets and rocket launchers for the ATF to pursue its policy of prohibition via domestic terrorism.

Next up: investigate the Facebook conspiracy to sell virtual farmland for nonsense points. Then take down the tech cabal offering free email accounts in an effort to bankrupt the US Postal Service.

Maybe rig the election for Romney and send the US from quasi-fascist republic to a full on military theocracy where you get thrown in prison unless you tithe the mormons.

Let me just drop this right here:

http://www.nasdaq.com/article/top-us...20120209-01506


$25 billion settlement...I would say they have done something against the banks.
post #27 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlitos View Post

If Amazon were to set their prices at the level of what Apple charges through their iBooks plattforms customers will have very little incentive to get the content off Amazon as iOS makes it easier and more intuitive to get it off Apple. Amazon can only compete by having the option to sell for the same content cheap(er).

nonsense, you have to be delusional to think iBooks is anywhere near Kindle - getting a better price is just icing on the cake.
post #28 of 96
[QUOTE=AppleInsider;2093653]In its newly filed lawsuit against Apple, the U.S. Department of Justice asserts that the iPad maker considered a content partnership with Amazon that would have allowed Apple to "own" digital delivery of audio and video.

Then why the hell isn't Amazon part of the lawsuit? Seriously, you title alone intimates this should be so.....

This is all Bull ShiX!
post #29 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

I wonder how much a HS football stadium costs. Is $52 million enough?

Yes, but not by as much as you might imagine. A local high school put up at $20 M stadium about 5 years ago. A competing district asked the voters to approve a $75 M (!!!!) bond issue for a competing stadium. Fortunately, it was shot down.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gerbinto View Post

OK, lets explain this again because some of you are not getting the point.



Amazon is competing by offering a lower price. Now when the top 6 publishers collude with Apple, set a e-book price, and tell Amazon to accept the same terms or lose their business, then that is illegal. Amazon could not lower prices in order to force competition. How come Apple just couldn't follow Amazon's suit and take a loss? Are you really defending the corporations bottom line? So you would rather pay more, and line the companies pocket, instead of saving money?


Please do not be blinded because this is Apple. Every corporations bottom line is to get as much money as they can. We should all be on the side of the consumer, not the company. If Google colluded with the RIAA, set the price of MP3 songs and then forced Apple to raise their price, I would assume everyone would be up in arms against this.

Apple, Google, Amazon, MSoft are all great companies, however that doesn't mean I want to be screwed out of my hard earned money by them.

Who says that price is the only way to compete? Amazon has Kindle Books which gives them a great advantage - their books are cross-platform and can be played on any device that the customer wishes to buy. They also have the advantage of being the #1 online bookseller in the world. Jumping immediately to "price is the only way we can compete" is a logical fallacy.
"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 #30 of 96
I don't understand what's wrong here. The Agency Model is just how Apple does business. The iTunes store works the same whether it's an app or a book or a piece of music being sold. You set the price, they take 30% and the product is sold by them.

Now, if the publishers are trying to force Amazon to take the agency model or they don't want to sell them the books, that's a potential antitrust case. But I don't see where Apple is involved. Surely it should be allowed to sell books on the terms it offers and publishers accept? (I think this is why Apple is staying in the suit and the publishers are settling.)

Amazon's prices are often significantly lower for books. If the books are available on both iBooks and Amazon at roughly the same price, I will go with iBooks because the presentation is superior. Also, if you are an author, Amazon's terms are much less generous than Apple's. Apple pays you only 1/3 of sales in many cases. It will pay you 70% (which is what Apple pays) if you sign special agreements, but it charges you for bandwidth and has other fees. Apple's fees are a straight-up 30% and you will always get 70% (subject of course to minimum payments and other standard terms).

So if you want to support authors who self-publish, Apple is offering a significantly better deal and you should buy your books through the iBookstore instead of Kindle.

D
post #31 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by domerdel2 View Post

I'm not sure how that's illegal? It seems to be business competition..

If I owned a restaurant, and I had coke on my fountain soda, and pepsi offered me a lower price, I'd take it.. If coke rep came back to me and said "hey what's the deal?" , I told them I got a lower price. The same would go in Logistics (freight companies bidding for lanes).

What you described is competition and it's perfectly legal. What Apple and the publishers are alleged to have done is collude to limit competition, which is illegal.

To use your example, if Coke, Pepsi and all other major soda makers agreed, among themselves, that neither would charge less than $5 per bottle of soda, then the restaurant would be forced to pay $5, even if it was possible for an established seller to sell at $3 per bottle. That's anti-competitive price fixing, and it's illegal.
post #32 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlitos View Post

If Amazon were to set their prices at the level of what Apple charges through their iBooks plattforms customers will have very little incentive to get the content off Amazon as iOS makes it easier and more intuitive to get it off Apple. Amazon can only compete by having the option to sell for the same content cheap(er).

Or they could make the product better. One of the points about competiion, no? Some like hardcover, some wait for paperback, some like kindle, some like iBooks, some wait a few hundred years for it to be released on http://www.gutenberg.org/ .
post #33 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Dennis View Post

I don't understand what's wrong here. The Agency Model is just how Apple does business. The iTunes store works the same whether it's an app or a book or a piece of music being sold. You set the price, they take 30% and the product is sold by them.

Now, if the publishers are trying to force Amazon to take the agency model or they don't want to sell them the books, that's a potential antitrust case. But I don't see where Apple is involved. Surely it should be allowed to sell books on the terms it offers and publishers accept? (I think this is why Apple is staying in the suit and the publishers are settling.)

Amazon's prices are often significantly lower for books. If the books are available on both iBooks and Amazon at roughly the same price, I will go with iBooks because the presentation is superior. Also, if you are an author, Amazon's terms are much less generous than Apple's. Apple pays you only 1/3 of sales in many cases. It will pay you 70% (which is what Apple pays) if you sign special agreements, but it charges you for bandwidth and has other fees. Apple's fees are a straight-up 30% and you will always get 70% (subject of course to minimum payments and other standard terms).

So if you want to support authors who self-publish, Apple is offering a significantly better deal and you should buy your books through the iBookstore instead of Kindle.

D

It's illegal if Apple colluded with the publishers to present Amazon with the ultimatum: accept our agency agreement, or none of us will allow you to sell new releases for 7 months after Apple is allowed to. That's what is alleged to have happened.
post #34 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajr View Post

It's illegal if Apple colluded with the publishers to present Amazon with the ultimatum: accept our agency agreement, or none of us will allow you to sell new releases for 7 months after Apple is allowed to. That's what is alleged to have happened.

If Apple did indeed do that then I agree wholeheartedly that Apple is wrong and should be punished.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #35 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by domerdel2 View Post

I'm not sure how that's illegal? It seems to be business competition..

If I owned a restaurant, and I had coke on my fountain soda, and pepsi offered me a lower price, I'd take it.. If coke rep came back to me and said "hey what's the deal?" , I told them I got a lower price. The same would go in Logistics (freight companies bidding for lanes).


If you want to give a free soda or half off that soda if someone buys a burger at your restaurant - PEPSI comes and tells you - you can not - because they set the price you can sell Pepsi at your store, and they have a deal with the Deli around the corner where no one can sell Soda cheaper over their price.

So when you go to COCA-COLA and tell them you want to buy soda from them they tell you the same thing - you have no choice, you sell at the price they tell you to.

at the same time Coca-Cola and Pepsi get together and say Soda will cost 2.00

At that point The price is artificial, it is fixed.
post #36 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by domerdel2 View Post

I'm not sure how that's illegal? It seems to be business competition..

If I owned a restaurant, and I had coke on my fountain soda, and pepsi offered me a lower price, I'd take it.. If coke rep came back to me and said "hey what's the deal?" , I told them I got a lower price. The same would go in Logistics (freight companies bidding for lanes).

What you failed to grasp about the Amazon situation is this:

When Apple and the publisher's colluded to set e-book prices, the big publishers told Amazon to restructure their contract to match it or lose their business. So if Amazon did no agree to change their model, they would LOSE their e-book titles. Not much of a choice and at the same time no company can offer lower prices to compete.

Do you see the difference between what Apple did and your example? In your example Pepsi could offer you that lower price and compete. No one forced Pepsi to set that price. Now if Pepsi and coke got together and said that they would only offer one price, then that would be collusion and it's illegal.

I hate to cite Wikipedia but they had the most information available on one site:

"Collusion is an agreement between two or more persons, sometimes illegal and therefore secretive, to limit open competition by deceiving, misleading, or defrauding others of their legal rights....It is an agreement among firms to divide the market, set prices, or limit production..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collusion

Therefore the problem is not the fact that Apple entered these clauses with the publishers, its that they set prices and then forced every other business to accept those prices. Which is collusion and illegal.
post #37 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

If Apple did indeed do that then I agree wholeheartedly that Apple is wrong and should be punished.

They'd better have more evidence than a quote from a biography of a guy who cannot be brought to testify. A quote explaining agency model and what the mutual benefit to both companies would be.
post #38 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

So now you're moving the goal posts to blame Apple for physical book stores going out of business because Apple sells eBooks?

Nice try - but no I am not. I'm not blaming anyone for anything that pushed the price down in my favor. Apple in this case supposedly colluded with publishers to strangle eBook market share from Amazon by forcing them to raise their prices to match Apple's and at the same time getting more money for the greedy publishers hence driving my buying price up. Some else blamed Amazon for that which you've just mentioned. I blame neither- it's simple digital evolution. Same for Kodak film. But in your world nothing lasts forever- except Apple- right?
post #39 of 96
I just don't know what's wrong with Apple here.

I would think they would be doing backflips at the thought of losing money on each book sold.

In fact, they should apply that idea to hardware as well.

Would be a brilliant move
post #40 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections View Post

DoJ hasn't batted an eye at the banking institutions that conspired to destroyed the US economy through fraud, but it sees a case in publishers selling ebooks on the open market for $13 rather than $10.

WTF.

What an incompetent bunch of morons. Or perhaps just tools of the system. It's getting hard to take America seriously anymore.

Maybe the $52 million can be invested into the domestic army seeking to invade citizens' homes looking for marijuana. It would probably buy two paramilitary tanks or a set of flack jackets and rocket launchers for the ATF to pursue its policy of prohibition via domestic terrorism.

Next up: investigate the Facebook conspiracy to sell virtual farmland for nonsense points. Then take down the tech cabal offering free email accounts in an effort to bankrupt the US Postal Service.

Maybe rig the election for Romney and send the US from quasi-fascist republic to a full on military theocracy where you get thrown in prison unless you tithe the mormons.

Maybe they can that the $52 million and add it to Wall St. bonuses! You just have to look hard enough to see the good instead of only seeing the bad!

Yeah, it's a joke. Trillions down the tubes on invasions and Wall St. bailouts, huge piles of undeclared cash bankrolling crooked politicians, politicians who will actively distance themselves from scientific understanding while advocating theocracy, all communications snooped on globally, every bank transaction monitored, and ebook pricing and mobile device address books are the top priority. I feel much safer already.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › DoJ: Apple considered 'illegally dividing the digital content world with Amazon'