or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Judge says evidence will likely show Apple culpable in e-book price fixing case
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Judge says evidence will likely show Apple culpable in e-book price fixing case

post #1 of 133
Thread Starter 
In rare pre-trial "tentative view," Judge Denise Cote said the U.S Department of Justice will likely be able to prove that Apple colluded with major book publishers to falsely inflate the prices of e-books sold through the iBookstore.

iBooks


According to in-court reports from Reuters, Judge Cote offered her view at a hearing for the court trial set for June 3, saying she came to the tentative conclusion after looking over a portion of the evidence.

"I believe that the government will be able to show at trial direct evidence that Apple knowingly participated in and facilitated a conspiracy to raise prices of e-books, and that the circumstantial evidence in this case, including the terms of the agreements, will confirm that," Judge Cote said.

She was quick to note, however, that the opinion was not final as all of the evidence had yet to be accounted for.

Though unusual, the jurist's statements did not come unsolicited, as DOJ lawyer Mark Ryan requested she share any thoughts on the case given the evidence at hand. The "tentative view," which came down negatively for Apple, was based largely on correspondence from a six-week period between December 2009 and January 2010.

The emails Judge Cote alluded to could include a conversation between late Apple cofounder Steve Jobs and then CEO of News Corp. James Murdoch, a page of which was published last week."We strongly disagree with the court's preliminary statements about the case today." - Apple lawyer Orin Snyder

"We strongly disagree with the court's preliminary statements about the case today," Apple counsel Orin Snyder said in a prepared statement. "We look forward to presenting our evidence in open court and proving that Apple did not conspire to fix prices."

Thursday's pretrial hearing was largely procedural, with counsel for both parties dealing with matters of testimony and trial length. Judge Cote did mention, however, that she was already drafting a written decision which would be fleshed out and published once proceedings wrap up.

At the trial, Apple will argue that it did not collude to raise e-book prices under a so-called "agency model" pricing agreement with five major book publishers. Under the deal, publishers were allowed to set prices of owned content under a most favored nations agreement, which precluded them from selling the books elsewhere for less.

Apple's model was a change from the wholesale model used by market leader Amazon, under which publishers sold content in bulk, while resellers were able to establish pricing and discounts as they saw fit.

In related news, book publisher Penguin, which was one of the five houses alleged to have conspired to raise e-book prices with Apple, settled a class-action suit on Wednesday. The publishing house paid out $75 million to 33 U.S. State Attorneys General and numerous private class plaintiffs.
post #2 of 133

What a crock of shit. 

post #3 of 133
You know, reading the emails between Steve Jobs and the book people, I think Steve had good intentions but, if there's laws against conspiring to increase prices across an industry, I'm afraid he may have indeed played a pivotal roll in breaking them.
post #4 of 133

Sounds like grounds to have the case thrown out and moved to another court.

 

Since when do judges make guilty pronouncements before being presented with all the evidence?

 

I found this film of the judge getting ready for the "court":-

 

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 #5 of 133

post #6 of 133
Look over there, there's a pot of money. I don't get the price fixing aspect of this when there are alternate stores. Doesn't that automatically make it not price fixing?
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #7 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by sapporobabyrtrns View Post

Based on what? The fact that you are a Tim Cook pants dweller and that Apple can do no wrong? Apple is not your friend or the friend of anyone. They are as evil and greedy as Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, Nokia, etc... The moment you wake up to understand this, the better for you and your ill-informed comments.

I agree with Slurpy. Based on the known emails there is nothing from Apple or Jobs that shows any colluding. Jobs covered a huge range of scenarios in his email about what he thinks the future will hold for ebooks if Amazon were to be allowed to continue dumping and how he thinks this will be bad for the market in the long run. There is zero evidence in those emails of any underhanded dealings. In fact, we can deduce from the emails that Jobs was directing his comment to a single person, not a group of people represented by each publisher, which means they clearly show no conspiracy as it's been painted. In fact, the emails so far show this to be correspondence with the last, single hold out of the major publisher days before the iPad announcement. Everything shows Apple working with each publisher independently. Whether the publishers got together in some back room meeting to put the screws to Amazon is another story but so far nothing shows Apple was involved in any of that. Personally I don't think the publishers did that either. There was simply no reason to. They all independently disliked Amazon weakening their brand and product by selling it at a reduced price. They knew this would hurt the publishers in the long run and probably realized that Amazon's dumping would not be sustainable in the long run.

"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 #8 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

Look over there, there's a pot of money. I don't get the price fixing aspect of this when there are alternate stores. Doesn't that automatically make it not price fixing?

The seven major publishers (somehow) all agreed at once that the minimum price for a "Bestseller" e-book could not be less than $12.99. No book seller, Amazon included, could sell from that specific category at a lower price. The minimum price was fixed.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #9 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


I agree with Slurpy. Based on the known emails there is nothing from Apple or Jobs that shows any colluding. Jobs covered a huge range of scenarios in his email about what he thinks the future will hold for ebooks if Amazon were to be allowed to continue dumping and how he thinks this will be bad for the market in the long run. There is zero evidence in those emails of any underhanded dealings. In fact, we can deduce from the emails that Jobs was directing his comment to a single person, not a group of people represented by each publisher, which means they clearly show no conspiracy as it's been painted. In fact, the emails so far show this to be correspondence with the last, single hold out of the major publisher days before the iPad announcement. Everything shows Apple working with each publisher independently. Whether the publishers got together in some back room meeting to put the screws to Amazon is another story but so far nothing shows Apple was involved in any of that. Personally I don't think the publishers did that either. There was simply no reason to. They all independently disliked Amazon weakening their brand and product by selling it at a reduced price. They knew this would hurt the publishers in the long run and probably realized that Amazon's dumping would not be sustainable in the long run.

Hasn't only a portion of a single email been released to public view so far? I agree that there's been no smoking gun produced but then the trial hasn't even started yet.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #10 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

Look over there, there's a pot of money. I don't get the price fixing aspect of this when there are alternate stores. Doesn't that automatically make it not price fixing?

 

The deal specified that the books couldn't be sold cheaper anywhere else. If my understanding is correct, that's the crucial part.

post #11 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Hasn't only a portion of a single email been released to public view so far? I agree that there's been no smoking gun produced but then the trial hasn't even started yet.

There have been at least several full emails going back and forth between Jobs and one person of one publisher.

"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 #12 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL View Post

The deal specified that the books couldn't be sold cheaper anywhere else. If my understanding is correct, that's the crucial part.

That looks to be the reason Amazon complained. Apple hurt Amazon simply by entering that market but they killed Amazon's monopoly when they dictated rules of the agency model. Without that none of this would have ever happened. Amazon's dumping seems more elicit than Apple's agency model.

"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 #13 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


There have been at least several full emails going back and forth between Jobs and one person of one publisher.

Thanks Soli! That was an interesting set I hadn't yet seen.

 

So Jobs told Murdock he already had 4 or the major publishers in agreement with him on prices and publisher terms, contract in hand? That might explain how the price coordination was done. I imagine those agreements will end up public if this goes to trial and give a clearer picture of how much in agreement the publisher's were. You're right tho, no proof of collusion in that specific exchange.


Edited by Gatorguy - 5/24/13 at 3:38am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #14 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL View Post

The deal specified that the books couldn't be sold cheaper anywhere else. If my understanding is correct, that's the crucial part.

Ah, I see. Yup, that's price fixing. Interesting. Besides, $12.99 is too much for a digital book.
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #15 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

Ah, I see. Yup, that's price fixing. Interesting. Besides, $12.99 is too much for a digital book.

That is not the definition of price fixing. The agency pricing model makes no statement of what the price will be. An ebook could be set from free to infinity. Apple's requirement was that they would not be be undersold, which meant that Amazon would not be allowed to dump their books at, say, $4.99 to kill iBookstore if the publishers chose to sell them at $9.99. Again, in no way has been shown that Apple has fixed any price.

"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 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


That is not the definition of price fixing. The agency pricing model makes no statement of what the price will be. An ebook could be set from free to infinity. Apple's requirement was that they would not be be undersold, which meant that Amazon would not be allowed to dump their books at, say, $4.99 to kill iBookstore if the publishers chose to sell them at $9.99. Again, in no way has been shown that Apple has fixed any price.


But isn't that ultimately price fixing? What if Amazon tries to run a sale on a specific book? That would mean that the specific book would have to be sold at the same price in the iBook store. So that's essentially setting the lowest price for a book across all retailers.

post #17 of 133
""I believe that the government will be able to show at trial direct evidence that Apple knowingly participated in and facilitated a conspiracy to raise prices of e-books, and that the circumstantial evidence in this case, including the terms of the agreements, will confirm that,"

"circumstanstial"

So the judge has an opinion based on some of the evidence which is circumstantial? Why does the DOJ insist on releasing snippets of e-mails that look bad on their own, but in context of the entire e-mail aren't that bad at all? And why is the DOJ allowing a judge to "render a verdict" before the trial? I'm beginning to wonder why this information is even being released. Is it to pressure Apple? To get them to settle because they have a weak case?

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #18 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrodriguez View Post


But isn't that ultimately price fixing? What if Amazon tries to run a sale on a specific book? That would mean that the specific book would have to be sold at the same price in the iBook store. So that's essentially setting the lowest price for a book across all retailers.

Had the agreement stood Amazon could not have "run a sale" on any of that group of books. The minimum price was fixed per contract. By pure happenstance each one of those publishers arrived at the same minimum price in those contracts tho they hadn't talked to one another to compare terms. Believe it or not.


Edited by Gatorguy - 5/24/13 at 4:06am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #19 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrodriguez View Post


But isn't that ultimately price fixing? What if Amazon tries to run a sale on a specific book? That would mean that the specific book would have to be sold at the same price in the iBook store. So that's essentially setting the lowest price for a book across all retailers.

So you're saying that if Amazon varies the price of an item that it's price fixing? Where is the fixed price in any of this? No, it doesn't mean that the same book on the iBookstore would have to be sold at the same price.

"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 #20 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


So you're saying that if Amazon varies the price of an item that it's price fixing? Where is the fixed price in any of this? No, it doesn't mean that the same book on the iBookstore would have to be sold at the same price.

Correct. They could have sold it for a higher price.

 

The minimum guaranteed gross profit for Apple on each title in that book group was $3.89 per sale. It would never be lower if the agreement had held because no other seller would be permitted to sell for less that $12.99.


Edited by Gatorguy - 5/24/13 at 4:15am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #21 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Had the agreement stood Amazon could not have "run a sale" on any of that group of books. The minimum price was fixed per contract. By pure happenstance each one of those publishers arrived at the same minimum price in those contracts tho they hadn't talked to one another. Believe it or not.

Lots of independent ideas are the same. This isn't because they colluded but simply because of other factors that multiple parties experienced. Let's remember that regardless of what Amazon was selling the publisher's products there were set prices on ebooks from each publisher. Then you have the publishers already selling physical books against each other. They are in the same business and their research into the best pricing models probably line up pretty damn close for different types of books without ever having to speak to each other. If we use similar prices as proof of anything then we need take a hard look at Dollar Tree and Dollar General. 1biggrin.gif
Edited by SolipsismX - 5/24/13 at 4:17am

"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 #22 of 133
Christ!

I hope the outcome of this investigation doesn't lower the cost of eBooks purchased through Apple by me.

That would really piss me off...

(>_<)
post #23 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Correct. They could have sold it for a higher price.


That's correct, but illogical, and therefore insignificant. By Apple stipulating that the publishers weren't allowed to sell a book at a lower price in a competing service, it became price fixing. It's the same as what Microsoft has been rumored to do with the current Xbox 360. They are rumored to have developers sign agreements that if they make games for the Xbox 360, that the same game on a competing consoles cannot look or perform better than the Xbox version.
 

Even Jobs himself said that pricing books higher than $12.99 wouldn't work, therefore if a publisher sets a price higher in Amazon over iBook store, it wouldn't sell and they would waste their time by setting it at a higher price.

post #24 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


Lots of independent ideas are the same. This isn't because they colluded but simply because of other factors that multiple parties experienced. Let's remember that regardless of what Amazon was selling the publisher's products there were set prices on ebooks from each publisher. Then you have the publishers already selling physical books against each other. They are in the same business and their research into the best pricing models probably line up pretty damn close for different types of books without ever having to speak to each other. If we use similar prices as proof of anything then we need take a seriously look at Dollar Tree and Dollar General. 1biggrin.gif

Like I said it was purely by chance that each of the largest publishers arrived at the same minimum price to the penny, and applied to the same group of books, and required all sellers to agree to the same non-negotiable terms. Not at all hard to believe that they all arrived at the exact same place independently. The philosophy of Occams's razor tells you that.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #25 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

""I believe that the government will be able to show at trial direct evidence that Apple knowingly participated in and facilitated a conspiracy to raise prices of e-books, and that the circumstantial evidence in this case, including the terms of the agreements, will confirm that,"

"circumstanstial"

So the judge has an opinion based on some of the evidence which is circumstantial? Why does the DOJ insist on releasing snippets of e-mails that look bad on their own, but in context of the entire e-mail aren't that bad at all? And why is the DOJ allowing a judge to "render a verdict" before the trial? I'm beginning to wonder why this information is even being released. Is it to pressure Apple? To get them to settle because they have a weak case?

I have to ask what exactly is going to qualify this as a 'fair trial' when all of the things you mention have occurred? It reads like something out a dystopian future world novel!
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #26 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrodriguez View Post

Even Jobs himself said that pricing books higher than $12.99 wouldn't work, therefore if a publisher sets a price higher in Amazon over iBook store, it wouldn't sell and they would waste their time by setting it at a higher price.

That's complete BS! In the documents we have Job does not say that selling prices higher than $12.99 wouldn't work. He mentions both $12.99 -AND- $14.99 as upper limits, but wait, there is more... his exact wording is 'we simply don’t think the ebook market can be successful with pricing higher than $12.99 or $14.99." You see that? We, as in Apple, don't think. Opinion! OPINION! O-P-I-N-I-O-N!

Jobs then follows that up immediately with "Heck, Amazon is selling these books at $9.99, and who knows, maybe they are right..." You see that? They, as in Amazon, might be right. He then continues on that even Apple might fail and then states another opinion that even higher prices would lead to everyone failing.

"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 #27 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


That's complete BS! In the documents we have Job does not say that selling prices higher than $12.99 wouldn't work. He mentions both $12.99 -AND- $14.99 as upper limits, but wait, there is more... his exact wording is 'we simply don’t think the ebook market can be successful with pricing higher than $12.99 or $14.99." You see that? We, as in Apple, don't think. Opinion! OPINION! O-P-I-N-I-O-N!

Jobs then follows that up immediately with "Heck, Amazon is selling these books at $9.99, and who knows, maybe they are right..." You see that? They, as in Amazon, might be right. He then continues on that even Apple might fail and then states another opinion that even higher prices would lead to everyone failing.

It's not COMPLETE BS, when what I said was completely right. I only omitted the $14.99.

post #28 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Sounds like grounds to have the case thrown out and moved to another court.

Since when do judges make guilty pronouncements before being presented with all the evidence?

Yep. The judge says that she saw only part of the evidence - yet publicly stated that she thinks Apple is guilty. Clear grounds for dismissal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

The seven major publishers (somehow) all agreed at once that the minimum price for a "Bestseller" e-book could not be less than $12.99. No book seller, Amazon included, could sell from that specific category at a lower price. The minimum price was fixed.

Nonsense. Apple never said any such thing. In fact, Apple specifically said that some books would sell for less:
http://gizmodo.com/5457759/the-price-of-ebooks-for-the-apple-tablet-1299-or-1499
"Book publishers' last-minute negotiations with Apple revealed by the WSJ: Apple is pushing for bestsellers to cost $12.99 or $14.99—and some books $9.99"

Pushing for $12.99-14.99 is NOT the same as setting a minimum price.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL View Post

The deal specified that the books couldn't be sold cheaper anywhere else. If my understanding is correct, that's the crucial part.

Crucial, but not illegal. Most Favored Nation clauses in contracts have been upheld consistently by the courts.
"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 #29 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Like I said it was purely by chance that each of the largest publishers arrived at the same minimum price to the penny, and applied to the same group of books, and required all sellers to agree to the same non-negotiable terms. Not at all hard to believe that they all arrived at the exact same place independently. The philosophy of Occams's razor tells you that.


So why did they all plead guilty to price fixing if they were all innocent?

post #30 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Like I said it was purely by chance that each of the largest publishers arrived at the same minimum price to the penny, and applied to the same group of books, and required all sellers to agree to the same non-negotiable terms. Not at all hard to believe that they all arrived at the exact same place independently. The philosophy of Occams's razor tells you that.

I guess you never buy gasoline.

Gas prices in most cities are within a few cents of each other - no matter where you shop. And when there's an increase, all the stations increase prices at the same time. It's not uncommon for prices to jump by $0.10 to $0.15 per gallon at every single retailer in my city overnight.

There's absolutely nothing illegal about watching to see what competitors do and then matching it.
"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 #31 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrodriguez View Post

It's not COMPLETE BS, when what I said was completely right. I only omitted the $14.99.

No, you didn't. Besides being incorrect on the price values Jobs thought would be too high for ebook you included no consideration for the opinions stated but instead stated it as if he said that they would outright fail over $12.99, no the we think they would fail priced over 14.99 or any of the other uncertainties he stated, including that Amazon might be right.

"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 #32 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


I agree with Slurpy. Based on the known emails there is nothing from Apple or Jobs that shows any colluding. Jobs covered a huge range of scenarios in his email about what he thinks the future will hold for ebooks if Amazon were to be allowed to continue dumping and how he thinks this will be bad for the market in the long run. There is zero evidence in those emails of any underhanded dealings. In fact, we can deduce from the emails that Jobs was directing his comment to a single person, not a group of people represented by each publisher, which means they clearly show no conspiracy as it's been painted. In fact, the emails so far show this to be correspondence with the last, single hold out of the major publisher days before the iPad announcement. Everything shows Apple working with each publisher independently. Whether the publishers got together in some back room meeting to put the screws to Amazon is another story but so far nothing shows Apple was involved in any of that. Personally I don't think the publishers did that either. There was simply no reason to. They all independently disliked Amazon weakening their brand and product by selling it at a reduced price. They knew this would hurt the publishers in the long run and probably realized that Amazon's dumping would not be sustainable in the long run.


We have only a snapshot of what is being presented. Don't you think we should give the judge the benefit of the doubt given her training, knowledge and experience, not to mention her access to the body of evidence unavailable to us (even if it still is incomplete)?

 

There is simply no basis for us to judge. Fine, we are entitled to our opinions. But to agree with slamming a judge?

post #33 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Yep. The judge says that she saw only part of the evidence - yet publicly stated that she thinks Apple is guilty. Clear grounds for dismissal.

 

Dismissal on what grounds? And if she's seen evidence most of us haven't, and made an estimated guess as to the outcome, I don't see how most of AI is saying there is no case. Apple is not a godlike company that does no wrong. They only released a few emails, yet they have a lot more evidence to support a price fixing scheme. They might have emails of Apple consulting with the other publishers and pushing their $12.99 price, and telling publishers about the evil Amazon model.

post #34 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by ankleskater View Post


We have only a snapshot of what is being presented. Don't you think we should give the judge the benefit of the doubt given her training, knowledge and experience, not to mention her access to the body of evidence unavailable to us (even if it still is incomplete)?

There is simply no basis for us to judge. Fine, we are entitled to our opinions. But to agree with slamming a judge?

1) From what I read the judge only say a part of an email before making this statement.

2) My statement "Based on the known emails..." indemnifies my comment quite well.

3) I don't care about anyone's title. I hold no one is such esteem that they are beyond reproach or incapable of being bias or wrong. I will question everything and everyone were I see fit and expect all other reasonable people to do the same.

"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 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrodriguez View Post

Dismissal on what grounds? And if she's seen evidence most of us haven't, and made an estimated guess as to the outcome, I don't see how most of AI is saying there is no case. Apple is not a godlike company that does no wrong. They only released a few emails, yet they have a lot more evidence to support a price fixing scheme. They might have emails of Apple consulting with the other publishers and pushing their $12.99 price, and telling publishers about the evil Amazon m

And if and when they do we'll read and judge them accordingly, but you're being a hypocrite here. You start off by saying that she's entitled to her educated guess on the evidence she's seen but then say we aren't allowed to speak up on the evidence we've seen.

"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 #36 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrodriguez View Post


But isn't that ultimately price fixing? What if Amazon tries to run a sale on a specific book? That would mean that the specific book would have to be sold at the same price in the iBook store. So that's essentially setting the lowest price for a book across all retailers.

Keep in mind the clause only applied to new releases, and publishers could get around the clause by not offering a particular title to Apple. Most importantly the Murdoch emails show Apple did not collude. It worked out the deals indepentently.
post #37 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


No, you didn't. Besides being incorrect on the price values Jobs thought would be too high for ebook you included no consideration for the opinions stated but instead stated it as if he said that they would outright fail over $12.99, no the we think they would fail priced over 14.99 or any of the other uncertainties he stated, including that Amazon might be right.

 

Because those "opinions" are irrelevant given the context. He was sympathizing to the other party's fears of entering into a risky deal that could fail by acknowledging that it could fail, however he needed to do something soon or else Amazon could take his entire e-book profits in the future. Salesman tactics.

 

So no, it wasn't his "opinion". He masked it as an opinion, but really he believed it wouldn't work. Why would the other publishing agencies sign the deal at the same exact $12.99?

post #38 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

And if and when they do we'll read and judge them accordingly, but you're being a hypocrite here. You start off by saying that she's entitled to her educated guess on the evidence she's seen but then say we aren't allowed to speak up on the evidence we've seen.

Good point. I, however, hope Apple opted for a jury trial because the judge made comments when the case first started she thought Apple likely guilty.
post #39 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


I guess you never buy gasoline.

Gas prices in most cities are within a few cents of each other - no matter where you shop. And when there's an increase, all the stations increase prices at the same time. It's not uncommon for prices to jump by $0.10 to $0.15 per gallon at every single retailer in my city overnight.

There's absolutely nothing illegal about watching to see what competitors do and then matching it.

There's a mandatory minimum price on gasoline? Having owned independent (not oil company owned or controlled) convenience stores I can factually state that wasn't the case. While the wholesale price didn't vary all that much from supplier to supplier (but it did vary unlike the book agreement) we were free to set our own retail price, even selling at a loss if we wanted. In fact we sometimes ran nickel-off-gas Friday afternoon sales to encourage those folks with freshly-cashed paychecks to stop by for their profitable beer and cigarette purchases too. Some even bought candy for the kids.1biggrin.gif

 

Running a sale on new-release "Best-selling" books to pull in buyers of other products was something the new contracts from that group of publishers wouldn't permit. Your comparison to gasoline sales isn't similar at all.

 

No doubt you already knew the flaw in your comparison anyway. . . I hope.


Edited by Gatorguy - 5/24/13 at 5:24am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #40 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrodriguez View Post

Because those "opinions" are irrelevant given the context. He was sympathizing to the other party's fears of entering into a risky deal that could fail by acknowledging that it could fail, however he needed to do something soon or else Amazon could take his entire e-book profits in the future. Salesman tactics.

So no, it wasn't his "opinion". He masked it as an opinion, but really he believed it wouldn't work. Why would the other publishing agencies sign the deal at the same exact $12.99?

1) You'll need to prove that Jobs had absolutely no doubts about the future before you attempt to continue but what I find interesting is this pedestal you're placing Jobs on. You really think he had no doubts or concerns? I do. Sure, he had many great successes in business but there are plenty of examples of him not getting it right which tell a reasonable person that Jobs was fallible.

2) So why the $12.99 (which was not the price for all books) and not the $14.99 price that was also mentioned in his emails? If you think it's impossible for publishers that have been selling against each other to have researched and come up with a similar pricing model then you'll have to prove they were colluding, but you have yet to show, much less even mention, that they've also then must have colluded with print books for at least decades now.

"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
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Judge says evidence will likely show Apple culpable in e-book price fixing case