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 - Page 2

post #41 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?

Judges are appointed. Generally politics are the basis for the appointment, not all the other qualities you mention. Further, judges don't always understand the issues before them because district courts hear so many different types of cases.

Anybody is entitled to an opinion based on the evidence they have seen. Moreover, this judge displayed bias at the onset of this case, and it is odd to offer such an opinion before a trial.
post #42 of 133

In 1970 I worked for a gas station and the corporation everyday would ask us what the stations near us was selling gas for when we told them they would say to lower or raise ours to be a couple cents lower than the other stations.
 

post #43 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

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.

Are juries ever a good move for corporations, especially ones as large as Apple, even if you're not guilty, if the plaintiffs can plant a seed that it's the big bad corporation trying to stick it to the little guy? We've seen many times before just on this forum the "they can afford it" mantra. I would imagine that would carry over to a jury of Apple's non-peers, too.

"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 #44 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by mwhiteco View Post

In 1970 I worked for a gas station and the corporation everyday would ask us what the stations near us was selling gas for when we told them they would say to lower or raise ours to be a couple cents lower than the other stations.

Collusion!

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


Collusion!

Price competition!

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #46 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?

They all signed at the same prices because that is the pricing structure wanted. As long as Apple approached them individually, which the Murdoch email suggests it did, there is no collusion.
post #47 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 model.

Based on the grounds of preconceived bias. She admits that she only saw some of the evidence and has already reached a decision on the probable outcome. That's bias.

As for the rest, there's a lot of talk and a lot of innuendo, but in all of this, no one has released anything that shows that Apple clearly participated in price fixing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

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.

No one ever said there was a minimum price for gasoline. You claimed that there must be collusion because the publishers all came up with the same price. I posted a counterexample - gasoline pricing - which demonstrates that it's possible for all the retailers to have the same price without colluding. Instead of admitting that you were wrong, you do your usual nonsense of making straw man arguments and pretending that it was about minimum prices.

i.e., you were wrong. As usual.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

Judges are appointed. Generally politics are the basis for the appointment, not all the other qualities you mention. Further, judges don't always understand the issues before them because district courts hear so many different types of cases.

Anybody is entitled to an opinion based on the evidence they have seen. Moreover, this judge displayed bias at the onset of this case, and it is odd to offer such an opinion before a trial.

Actually, in some cases, judges are elected. Of course, that doesn't change anything else you said - knowledge of the law is certainly not a prerequisite for getting elected.
"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 #48 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrodriguez View Post


I never said AI weren't allowed to speak on the evidence, but AI talks about how ridiculous this judge is for making a pre-judgement based on MUCH MORE evidence than has been released, yet AI wants to make a judgement based on the LIMITED evidence released.

I can understand if people want to interpret the evidence released as "Not enough", but to bash a judge who has the entire case in her hands is just childish and fanboyish.

I agree with others that it seems odd that a judge is speaking up publicly about how she thinks a case will go before she hears the plaintiff and defendant argue their cases, but perhaps that's just something we need to expect in a modern era of communication.

I don't see it calling for a mistrial because she wasn't tightlipped about her initial impression but it does make me wonder: What if someone on a jury heard a judge chime in about a case instead of just presiding over it, would that affect their opinion? Will the judge also state her opinions of guilt and innocence during the trial?

Sure, we're all bias by nature because we are finite by nature, but the courts are suppose to be blind despite being run by man. I think this weighing in well before the trial begins is just calling into question the adage "innocent until proven guilty." This goes for everyone, which includes if Judge Koh had said long before the trial that she will likely side against Samsung in last year's case with Apple.

"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 #49 of 133
Have any of you ever actually been inside a book store? Notice how the book comes with prices already printed on it from the publisher?
post #50 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post
No one ever said there was a minimum price for gasoline. You claimed that there must be collusion because the publishers all came up with the same price. I posted a counterexample - gasoline pricing - which demonstrates that it's possible for all the retailers to have the same price without colluding. Instead of admitting that you were wrong, you do your usual nonsense of making straw man arguments and pretending that it was about minimum prices.

i.e., you were wrong. As usual.
 

Oh geez o'Pete JR. The publishers set a minimum retail price as you well know or should. What would that have to do with minimum wholesale price from the gas companies that you allude to, assuming that one existed?? The sellers can still offer whatever consumer prices they want. Not so under the contract terms that each of the seven major publishers "independently arrived at" without any coordination among them.


Edited by Gatorguy - 5/24/13 at 6:15am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #51 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by macmtnman View Post

Have any of you ever actually been inside a book store? Notice how the book comes with prices already printed on it from the publisher?

Ignoring your initial smarmy question what you're referring to is MSRP. US Fair Trade permits a manufacturer to set or suggest prices.

"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 #52 of 133
Always wondered why e- books are as much or more as regular books
post #53 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.

 

You're right, that would be perfectly legal.

 

However, if all the gas station owners got together for dinner the night before and made an agreement to all raise their prices by $0.15 at 8:00am the next day that would be illegal.

 

The real reasons gas prices are usually pretty much the same at all the gas stations in a town is because most of them are buying their gas from the same supplier, who charges them all the same price, so they tend to charge you the same price.  If all the gas stations in town are buying their gas from the same supplier for $3.50 a gallon, chances are they are all going to charge you around $3.60 a gallon.  Yes that is about all the profit gas stations make off gas, around $0.10 a gallon, that's why most of them sell cigarettes, snacks, food etc, that is where they make their real profits.

 

Price matching, is not collusion.  Collusion is when the people setting the prices have a conversation and agree on a set price together.  Or they use someone as a go between to have the same conversation and knowingly set the same prices.

 

MSRP pricing is not collusion.  That is the manufacturer's recommended price, but they don't care what you actually sell it for.  You are free to sell it for more or less if you want.

 

MAP pricing is the lowest price a manufacturer allows you to advertise (or sometimes sell) a product for.  This still isn't collusion though as the retailers are free to sell it at a lower price without advertising it, or to include other incentives like free gift cards, etc. along with it to effectively make it cheaper tham MAP.  MAP is closer to collusion, but it still isn't because it is the product manufacturer/supplier setting the price.  The seller is technically still free to sell the product however they want, but if they ignore MAP they manufacturer/supplier can decide to no longer do business with them.

 

If the one of the publishing companies decided on their own to set a MAP on their e-books, and to only allow their sellers to sell at or above that MAP that would have been fine.  If publisher 2 saw what publisher 1 did and decided to do the same thing that would have been fine too.  But as soon as there was a middle man (Apple) going around telling all of them what the others were doing, and trying to get them all to do the same thing, that became collusion.  As others have said, the publishers realize this and have already agreed that what they did was wrong and have moved on.  Apple just seems to be sticking their head in the sand and pretending they didn't have anything to do with it, which appears to be false.

 

As far as the article goes, the headline did make it look like the judge was biased.  It sounded like she was leaning toward Apple being guilty before seeing any true evidence, just from her preconcieved information.  However, upon reading further you find that she has actually looked over actual evidence that is going to be presented in the case, and is using that to form an early opinion.  She even goes on to stress that it is just an earlyopinion though, and not her final judgement.  Depending on what other evidence she hasnt' seen yet, and everything that goes on in the actual proceedings could change her decision by the end, but right now she is making a prediction on what she has seen so far.  And she only made this comment because she was asked to.  It's not like she was walking around telling everyone she was out to screw Apple over.  To me this seems perfectly reasonable.


Edited by Beerstalker - 5/24/13 at 6:31am
post #54 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?

In a civil case most of the evidence is circumstantial, and a verdict is determined on a balance of probability. Snippets of evidence that's taken out of context is common practice.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #55 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

In a civil case [...] a verdict is [...] out of context.

It would seem that way. 1biggrin.gif

"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 #56 of 133
It always amazed me that an ebook from Apple or Amazon for that matter was always so expensive compared to the hardcover version. I refuse to believe that producing, storing and shipping represent such a small fraction of the total cost of a book. Guess profit margins for ebooks are calculated on another formula such as how much can we squeeze the customer til he goes back to hardcover?
post #57 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

...

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

...

 

Then SHUT UP and act professional !!!!!  Seems everyone wants to grandstand these days.

post #58 of 133
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.


So how come bestsellers were available in iTunes for $9.99?

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 #59 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by dbtinc View Post

It always amazed me that an ebook from Apple or Amazon for that matter was always so expensive compared to the hardcover version. I refuse to believe that producing, storing and shipping represent such a small fraction of the total cost of a book. Guess profit margins for ebooks are calculated on another formula such as how much can we squeeze the customer til he goes back to hardcover?

There are plenty of other factors to consider. For some reason in the digital age we've gotten this notion that anything electronic is somehow free to produce unlimited copies, and unfortunately file sharing has made that convenient enough to appear true. Two big reasons for the pricing is to not affect the physical book sales and fraud. IOW, they need to consider how an eBook will affect both a physical book sale, which includes if that one copy of the ebook is then distributed to others illegally. As you're aware a physical book can only be in one place at a time.

Part of the publishers displeasure with Amazon is that Amazon was selling their products at a loss which has had a negative effect on the product's perceived value. It's odd¡ that no one is saying they colluded with their issues over Amazon's dumping.

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


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

Settling is not an admission of guilt. Some might say they thought it was too expensive to fight but I doubt that seeing how Penguin was just fined $75 million, I'd say it would've been more expensive to lose.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #61 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 to compare terms. Believe it or not.

 

The price of the equivalent paperback books, $12.99 which were selling in those dead things once known as book stores.

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 #62 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

It would seem that way. 1biggrin.gif

A perfect example is OJ Simpson, not guilty in a criminal court but guilty in a civil one.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #63 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post


So how come bestsellers were available in iTunes for $9.99?

From one of those 7 publishers Hill60? Apple violated the contract terms they had just agreed to with that group? Well of course they didn't and you know that. Apple wasn't permitted to sell from that specific category and published by the group of seven for any less than $12.99. 

 

You're more than welcome to refute that with some citation to the contrary Hill60. You've already implied you have some to offer proving the $12.99 minimum price for new release best-sellers from those specific publishers wasn't true. Bring it on.


Edited by Gatorguy - 5/24/13 at 6:54am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #64 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.

1/2 * BS still equals BS.
post #65 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

 

The price of the equivalent paperback books, $12.99 which were selling in those dead things once known as book stores.

...at whatever price the bookseller wanted to offer, even free as a promo if they wished, That price printed on the spine was suggested, not a minimal mandate. You apparently would like readers to believe booksellers could not sell for less that the suggested price, just as most of the major publishers tried to set minimal contractually-mandated prices for e-books.

 

You can argue that Apple did nothing wrong, nor any of the publishers for that matter. Know that you make that argument appear to be on shaky ground when you stoop to implying things to be true that really aren't to make your case. 

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #66 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrodriguez View Post


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

 

They didn't plead guilty, they settled without ANY plea, guilty or otherwise.

 

Why?

 

...because this is a kangaroo court, the Judge just showed that, it's like something out of Alice in Wonderland ($0.00 - iBooks).

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 #67 of 133
I imagine Jeff Bezos reading this and saying: "The suspense killing me! Hope it will last."
post #68 of 133

This is not good for Apple (or justice).  Any time someone says "I believe ____" in a public way, they are going to be inclined to stick with that opinion and give extra credence to things that make them "correct" (even if they don't understand/admit that they are doing so).  People don't like to be wrong and especially don't like to admit they were wrong.  Bummer.

post #69 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

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

Exactly my first thought!

post #70 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?

 

Gross incompetence based on a predetermined PUBLIC statement of GUILT before a trial has started.

 

Training, knowledge and experience of a kindergarten child with a complete lack of understanding of what the "presumption of innocence" means.

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 #71 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 model.

 

Apple did NOT set prices so how could they "fix" them?

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 #72 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

(Apple set a minimum price)

 

Thousands of iBooks are $0.00, that's Apple's "minimum" price.

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 #73 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Apple did NOT set prices so how could they "fix" them?

The issue is more did Apple facilitate price fixing by the publishers but even that isn't necessarily illegal.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #74 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Thousands of iBooks are $0.00, that's Apple's "minimum" price.

So Apple won't let publishers pay customers to download books from iBookstore? OUTRAGEOUS¡

"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 #75 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

From one of those 7 publishers Hill60? Apple violated the contract terms they had just agreed to with that group? Well of course they didn't and you know that. Apple wasn't permitted to sell from that specific category and published by the group of seven for any less than $12.99. 

 

You're more than welcome to refute that with some citation to the contrary Hill60. You've already implied you have some to offer proving the $12.99 minimum price for new release best-sellers from those specific publishers wasn't true. Bring it on.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

 

Thousands of iBooks are $0.00, that's Apple's "minimum" price.

Not from that group of major publishers for the new release category, which is the only segment of e-book sales the price controls applied to. So you're still going to rely on misdirection to prove your point? Your argument is sounding weaker and weaker. 

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #76 of 133
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post
The issue is more did Apple facilitate price fixing by the publishers but even that isn't necessarily illegal.

 

Ma Bell and CERN are guilty of price fixing, then, since they facilitated the ability to communicate the price fixing.

 

So are all automobile manufacturers.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #77 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

The issue is more did Apple facilitate price fixing by the publishers but even that isn't necessarily illegal.

The current evidence shows Apple fixed no price. The current evidence shows Apple did not collude with publishers. The current evidence shows Jobs opinion of where he thought the sweet spot would be, why he thought Amazon's model was harmful and unsustainable in the long run, as well as his his concerns that he may be wrong about all of it despite a decade of digital sales with the iTS. The agency model isn't price fixing. It may be seen as problematic as a business tactic but I'd think Amazon's dumping would be more of an issue, however, it appears not to be from the court's position thus far.

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


I never said AI weren't allowed to speak on the evidence, but AI talks about how ridiculous this judge is for making a pre-judgement based on MUCH MORE evidence than has been released, yet AI wants to make a judgement based on the LIMITED evidence released.

 

I can understand if people want to interpret the evidence released as "Not enough", but to bash a judge who has the entire case in her hands is just childish and fanboyish.

 

The judge has shown she is not impartial and should be struck from this case, immediately.

 

Colluding with the prosecution.

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 #79 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Not from that group of major publishers for the new release category, which is the only segment of e-book sales the price controls applied to. So you're still going to rely on misdirection to prove your point? Your argument is sounding weaker and weaker. 

Consider Apple's position in trying to compete with Amazon's monopoly with ebooks. They were selling them at a loss. This was making them look cheap. This was hurting the perception of the product which would be devastating to the publishers in the long term.

Now consider Apple's offer without the agency model. "We'll let you set the prices and we don't care if Amazon sells them at a loss like they've been doing." That's an automatic failure the Bookstore since the publishers could then set their own prices and Apple would still be undercut by Amazon dumping their content. That means no competition for the ebook market. That means no fair pricing ever because once Amazon had a total lock on the market they could adjust prices as they saw fit without concern about competition.

"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 #80 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

The judge has shown she is not impartial and should be struck from this case, immediately.

Colluding with the prosecution.

That can't accurately be stated with the given information. She made a comment based on what she's read. If we wait for a person to hear all evidence before forming any thought on a subject then we'll be waiting a very long time. if she had said, "I don't anything about the case yet but I'm sure Apple is guilty" then that would be bias.

"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