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 3

post #81 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


The current evidence shows Apple fixed no price. 

Based on that select set of e-mails Apple did not insist on a specific price.

 

What they did appear to insist on was a mandated minimum price and a guaranteed 30% profit with no competing consumer price options other than a higher price.  Amazon and anyone else would be barred from reducing the price below that minimum, which could have negatively impacted Apple's gross profit from that big category from those major publishers if allowed to happen. Would you disagree Soli?

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #82 of 133
No kidding Apple will be found guilty. The government needs money and Apple has it. They always get what they want one way or another. If they can't get to Apple via the IRS then they will get it through other channels. Apple should have given more to the lobbyists and this would not have happened.
post #83 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


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.

I'm not disagreeing that Apple had very valid and logical business reasons for their e-books market pricing efforts.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #84 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.

 

If Apple was guilty of "collusion", why were they selling bestsellers at $9.99 in iTunes, where publishers set the price not Apple.

 

The presence of $9.99 bestselling iBooks regardless of source proves that Apple had NO 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 #85 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

 

If Apple was guilty of "collusion", why were they selling bestsellers at $9.99 in iTunes, where publishers set the price not Apple.

 

The presence of $9.99 bestselling iBooks regardless of source proves that Apple had NO minimum price.

You just can't honestly answer the question I asked you without admitting your comments so far don't apply can you? You keep avoiding cites from the 7 major publishers involved in the DoJ investigation. Why is that? And why are you changing the argument you'd like to disagree with me on to Apple set the minimum price rather than the publishers, regardless of how they got there. I've always said the price was set in the publishers' contract and of course it would be. Apple on their own couldn't dictate the minimum selling price for Amazon on any book segment.


Edited by Gatorguy - 5/24/13 at 7:35am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #86 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. 

 

Apple did not set any prices, it was up to the publishers selling iBooks through iTunes to set the price, if the "seven" publishers chose not to compete with the other publishers also selling iBooks via iTunes at $9.99 that was their problem, not Apple's who opened the playing field for more (and smaller) publishers, increasing competition and consumer choice.

 

The railroad you base these crackpot collusion theories on is getting narrower and narrower, unfortunately your government agencies have strapped Apple to this railway and are heading full steam ahead to a predetermined finding of guilt.

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 #87 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrodriguez View Post


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

Because you cannot fight the US government and win. The government is desperate for cash. Do you think with all of the problems the government has that it really care about the price of books? This is a classic strong-arm extortion racket. Expect to see more of this as they look for new ways to generate revenue. Classic that the judge already leaked the verdict to send Apple a message of what would happen if they went through with the trial. It is the government's version of the Mafia's "How's your family...".
post #88 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

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.

Not quite true. She said that Apple was probably guilty (which is essentially the same as her statement that the DOJ would probably prove its case) on the basis of only partial evidence. That's more than simply expressing an opinion.

Specifically, in a Federal case, the judge may form opinions, but may not prejudge the case:
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Judicial+disqualification%3a+what+every+practitioner+(and+judge)+should...-a078335432
"A judge may form mental impressions and opinions during the course of presentation of evidence so long as she does not prejudge the case."

In this case, the judge has stated that the DOJ will probably win - which is prejudging the case and not allowed under Federal Rules.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

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

Yep.
"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 #89 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

 

Apple did not set any prices, it was up to the publishers selling iBooks through iTunes to set the price, if the "seven" publishers chose not to compete with the other publishers also selling iBooks via iTunes at $9.99 that was their problem, not Apple's.

 

The railroad you base these crackpot collusion theories on is getting narrower and narrower, unfortunately your government agencies have strapped Apple to this railway and are heading full steam ahead to a predetermined finding of guilt.

Well there you go, something I would agree with based on everything I've personally read. Apple did not set $12.99 as the specific minimum selling price on that group of books. The 7 major publishers all agreed to that mandated minimum and identical price with Amazon and every other e-book seller bound by it.

 

At least you finally got past saying the $12.99 minimum didn't exist as you've been doing all along. Baby steps.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #90 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.

 

Not that it has anything to do with this case, but I've noticed that for pretty much any CD, movie, or book, that I've looked to purchase lately I can buy the physical book or disc and have it delivered to my door for cheaper than the downloaded version. Considering the printing, distribution, and delivery costs, that's just crazy.
post #91 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

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.

The price was not fixed. If the publishers allowed another store to sell at a lower price, then Apple could also sell at the same price.  Apple doesn't care what the price is as long as they get their 30% and that Amazon's retail price is the same as Apple's.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #92 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

The price was not fixed. If the publishers allowed another store to sell at a lower price, then Apple could also sell at the same price.  Apple doesn't care what the price is as long as they get their 30% and that Amazon's retail price is the same as Apple's.

Of course Apple would care what the minimum was. 30% of $7 is much different from 30% of $13.

 

On what basis do you claim the $12.99 was a negotiable price per title with the publishers. It was a contractually mandated minimum for that specific category of books in it's entirety, at least until a new contract was due according to the reports.

 

Apple had agreed to contracts from the seven setting $12.99 as the minimum and all other sellers would be required to accept the same according to that Apple contract. Sure sounds like a fixed minimum price to me.


Edited by Gatorguy - 5/24/13 at 8:06am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #93 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Not quite true. She said that Apple was probably guilty (which is essentially the same as her statement that the DOJ would probably prove its case) on the basis of only partial evidence. That's more than simply expressing an opinion.

Specifically, in a Federal case, the judge may form opinions, but may not prejudge the case:
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Judicial+disqualification%3a+what+every+practitioner+(and+judge)+should...-a078335432
"A judge may form mental impressions and opinions during the course of presentation of evidence so long as she does not prejudge the case."

In this case, the judge has stated that the DOJ will probably win - which is prejudging the case and not allowed under Federal Rules.
Yep.

If she's taken off the case because of her comments I will concede that her comments did show she was bias. Otherwise, I wouldn't make a Federal case about it.


PS: What if she actually thought the opposite of what she stated but did so because she felt Apple was likely to to be found not guilty and was planning ahead for the eventuality that the anti-Apple crowd would come out of the woodwork against her. Don't you remember when people said Judge Koh hated Korea… despite being of Korean descent?
Edited by SolipsismX - 5/24/13 at 8:43am

"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 #94 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by iSteelers View Post

No kidding Apple will be found guilty. The government needs money and Apple has it. They always get what they want one way or another. If they can't get to Apple via the IRS then they will get it through other channels. Apple should have given more to the lobbyists and this would not have happened.

Who do you imagine was in the smoke-filled room when "they" decided "the government needs money and Apple has, how about we sue Apple for collusion." 

post #95 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post


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.

 

You can make the arguement that the Murdoch emails don't show that Apple colluded. You CAN'T make the argument that the Murdoch emails show Apple didn't collude.

There seems to be a lot of people that need to come to terms with the fact that Apple is just another big business. They make a lot of the toys we love. I have many of them and have helped many other people make the decision to buy Apple products. But one look at their profit margins should tell us that they also like to squeeze every penny from the consumer that they can. And that's fine, too. I make my buying decisions based on the products value to me. But to think it's inconceivable that Apple may occassionally cross the line in their pursuit of profits and do things that hurt the consumer is fairly naive (in my opinion).
post #96 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin View Post

 

Not that it has anything to do with this case, but I've noticed that for pretty much any CD, movie, or book, that I've looked to purchase lately I can buy the physical book or disc and have it delivered to my door for cheaper than the downloaded version. Considering the printing, distribution, and delivery costs, that's just crazy.

 

It's terrible, isn't it?

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 #97 of 133
It looks like Judge Cote isn't in Love with Tim Cook and Apple the same way all the US Senators are. He wasnt about to complain that he had to update his apps everyday. What a shameful bunch of idiots we have working for us in the Government. The court was also not going to apologize like Rand Paul about being here for not paying your Taxes. Can you imagine... its like being on the Comedy Channel with these bunch of KooKs... Oh wait, it will probably go to the Supreme court and then Apple will get away with the ebooks also.
post #98 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

If she's taken off the case because of her comments I will concede that her comments did show she was bias. Otherwise, I wouldn't make a Federal case about it.

It's already a Federal case - which is why I provided the rules for Federal cases which shows that she should be removed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

PS: What if she actually thought the opposite of what she stated but did so because she felt Apple was likely to to be found not guilty and was planning ahead for the eventuality that the anti-Apple crowd would come out of the woodwork against her. Don't you remember when people said Judge Koh hated Korea… despite being of Korean descent?

There are lunatics with every viewpoint you can imagine, but I can't speak for anyone else. For me, I would have had the same comment if she said that it looked like Apple was not guilty. Judges are not allowed to prejudge a case. Period.
"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 #99 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


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.

 

So we are all in agreement that Apple didn't want to compete with Amazon's current business model and so Apple convinced the publishers to force Amazon to raise their prices to consumers so Apple could get their 30% cut of the selling price. Whether Apple did this by getting them to switch to the agency model is irrelevant. Apple could have chosen to compete by other means.

The question is, would any one publisher have ever gone to Amazon independently and forced the switch to the agency model, knowing that their books would then be priced higher than their competitors books? Or was there a coordinated effort for all of the publishers to make that move at the same time? Would any publisher have made that agreement with Apple if they weren't confident that all of the other publishers were going to go along with it, too?

I do think it was odd that the judge made just a clear indication of where she was leaning before the trail started. But on the other hand I don't know that it's necessarily improper to grounds for a mistrial. Perhaps it's simply a strong suggestion to Apple that they should settle because they had a weak case. Odd that it was made as a public statement if that was the case.

As for the 2nd half of the above paragraph, about it being an "automatic failure" for the iBookstore and that it would inevitably lead to Amazon having total dominance is hogwash and pure conjection. To suggest that Apple couldn't have competed with Amazon is silly. It would have only meant that Apple's profit margins would have been slimmer. Which leads us back to the crux of the case...was their a coordinated effort across the publishing industry to artificially increase prices to consumers?
post #100 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


If she's taken off the case because of her comments I will concede that her comments did show she was bias. Otherwise, I wouldn't make a Federal case about it.


PS: What if she actually thought the opposite of what she stated but did so because she felt Apple was likely to to be found not guilty and was planning ahead for the eventuality that the anti-Apple crowd would come out of the woodwork against her. Don't you remember when people said Judge Koh hated Korea… despite being of Korean descent?

Is it really unheard of for a Federal Judge to comment on a case not yet completed? I thought that Judge Ponder did much the same before eventually dismissing both Apple and Moto cases against each other. 

 

FWIW, "federal trial judges have long had the authority to comment on the evidence. The judge “may not assume the role of a witness. He may analyze and dissect the evidence, but he may not either distort it or add to it. ... This court has accordingly emphasized the duty of the trial judge to use great care that an expression of opinion upon the evidence ‘should be so given as not to mislead, and especially that it should not be one-sided’; that ‘deductions and theories not warranted by the evidence should be studiously avoided.’” Quercia v. United States, 289 U.S. 466, 470 (1933)"

www.lexisnexis.com/lawschool/study/outlines/word/evid.doc

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #101 of 133

This whole matter has been interesting to follow and a bit hard to suss out but right now I see it as a framing dispute. Amazon (with the DOJ acting as proxy) frames Apples effort as price fixing, while it seems to me that Apple is guilty of trying to persuade the publishers to switch to the 'agency model' for pricing ebooks. But that doesn't equate to price fixing.

 

Glossing over some of the comments, I note that books aren't a commodity like gasoline. Titles, which are exclusive to individual publishers, vary widely in popularity and obviously aren't inter-changable. I think that this is less about a $12.99, (or whatever) across the board price than putting the pricing power in the hands of the publishers. Since ebooks are intangible and don't require expensive printing, shipping, prepurchase by retailers, and stockpiling in warehouses and/or stores, it seems that a publisher would have more reason than ever to try to assert pricing control and allow less leverage by retailers. If the publisher of 'The Da Vinci Code' wants to set the price of their hot seller at $12.99 and the publisher of Harry Potter wants to set their ebook price at 13.99, and another publisher who has some new autobiography by a politico wants to sell it for 10.99, why shouldn't they be able to do that? And if you want to read 'The Da Vinci Code', you aren't going to buy 'Lean In', even though its publisher might have set that at a lower price. It seems that there are two issues that are getting confused by a lot of people - one is uniform ebook pricing and the other is who sets the price. Apple uses the agency model of course. If Apple doesn't want Frys to sell an iPod for less than their set price, Frys can't do it. They can offer other incentives to drive customer traffic if they think that makes sense, but that's it. Clearly Apples interest was in giving the publishers the power back and stripping Amazon of its power to offer loss leaders, but I don't think Apple cared much about what price books sold for. Apple is 'guilty' of persuading the major publishers to switch to the agency model for ebooks. I can see Amazon being upset by this, but don't see how its illegal.

post #102 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Is it really unheard of for a Federal Judge to comment on a case not yet completed? I thought that Judge Ponder did much the same before eventually dismissing both Apple and Moto cases against each other. 

FWIW, "federal trial judges have long had the authority to comment on the evidence. The judge “may not assume the role of a witness. He may analyze and dissect the evidence, but he may not either distort it or add to it. ... This court has accordingly emphasized the duty of the trial judge to use great care that an expression of opinion upon the evidence ‘should be so given as not to mislead, and especially that it should not be one-sided’; that ‘deductions and theories not warranted by the evidence should be studiously avoided.’”
Quercia v. United States
,
289 U.S. 466, 470
(1933)"

www.lexisnexis.com/lawschool/study/outlines/word/evid.doc

I certainly don't recall this ever happening before but as I've stated it seems like she worded it in a way I'd think was acceptable and fair.

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

Well there you go, something I would agree with based on everything I've personally read. Apple did not set $12.99 as the specific minimum selling price on that group of books. The 7 major publishers all agreed to that mandated minimum and identical price with Amazon and every other e-book seller bound by it.

At least you finally got past saying the $12.99 minimum didn't exist as you've been doing all along. Baby steps.

The publishers agreed individually. Apple gave choices and that's why some negotiations took longer than others.
post #104 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post


The publishers agreed individually. Apple gave choices and that's why some negotiations took longer than others.

...and inexplicably all arrived at the exact same figures. 

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #105 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

...and inexplicably all arrived at the exact same figures. 

So you're saying that even decades before the iBookstore was formed, before the iTS was created, before Apple was incorporated that any exact pricing models on print books would also be Apple's fault? Of course not! These similar prices exist across all industries for a variety of reasons that have nothing to do with an intermediary painstakingly telling them what every single one of their products will need to be priced at.

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


So you're saying that even decades before the iBookstore was formed, before the iTS was created, before Apple was incorporated that any exact pricing models on print books would also be Apple's fault? Of course not! These similar prices exist across all industries for a variety of reasons that have nothing to do with an intermediary painstakingly telling them what every single one of their products will need to be priced at.

I understand the intent of others to claim I'm saying Apple did something illegal. I'm pretty surprised to see you use the same tact.

(by the way exactly the same and similar prices are obviously quite different, tho you're mixing and matching the two for convenience)

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #107 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Is it really unheard of for a Federal Judge to comment on a case not yet completed? I thought that Judge Ponder did much the same before eventually dismissing both Apple and Moto cases against each other. 

 

FWIW, "federal trial judges have long had the authority to comment on the evidence. The judge “may not assume the role of a witness. He may analyze and dissect the evidence, but he may not either distort it or add to it. ... This court has accordingly emphasized the duty of the trial judge to use great care that an expression of opinion upon the evidence ‘should be so given as not to mislead, and especially that it should not be one-sided’; that ‘deductions and theories not warranted by the evidence should be studiously avoided.’” Quercia v. United States, 289 U.S. 466, 470 (1933)"

www.lexisnexis.com/lawschool/study/outlines/word/evid.doc

 

Convenient that you leave out that this case has not yet started.

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

 

Convenient that you leave out that this case has not yet started.

Wasn't that in the AI article? And of course it's "started", with most/all of the discovery process now complete, hearings and judicial orders made and settlements discussed, negotiated and approved with the other players, the last one this week. As far as I know Apple is the last one involved now.


Edited by Gatorguy - 5/24/13 at 10:26am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #109 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

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.

Agree with you by and large except ...

You're not just questioning. You're making conclusions.

A judge is to be respected not because of her title but because of the process of how she got her job. Despite what you wrote, I believe you're someone who respects that because you are more rational anx thoughtful than other slurpy jrky turkeys here. But it's easy to dismiss get because she's a judge mentioned in the media as opposed to one presiding over one of your cases.
post #110 of 133
A judge giving a PRE-trial "tentative view" is nothing more than a judge revealing their bias against the defendant before any trial has even started! that garbage should be illegal and any judge thinking that way, barred.

Judges are supposed to be objective, weighing ALL the evidence, event he evidence that goes against the evidence that warranted a trial to begin with.

Wow.

No wonder the American legal system is in trouble.
post #111 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Wasn't that in the AI article? And of course it's "started", with most/all of the discovery process now complete, hearings and judicial orders made and settlements discussed, negotiated and approved with the other players, the last one this week. As far as I know Apple is the last one involved now.

A further comment:

 

It seems to me that Judge Cote is making a strong suggestion to Apple that a pre-trial settlement would be their best option. Based on what evidence she is familiar with, and it's probably a lot since she's already had to make several rulings on the publishers settlement offers, Apple is going to find it tough disproving the governments charges. Note this is going to be a bench trial heard by Judge Cote, not a jury trial. If she's familiar enough with the documents submitted so far to form a preliminary opinion she's doing Apple a favor in offering it since no jury is going to be arriving at a verdict in this civil case. It's gonna be her. Judges suggesting pre-trial settlements after reviewing the pertinent docs is nothing new.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #112 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin View Post

So we are all in agreement that Apple didn't want to compete with Amazon's current business model and so Apple convinced the publishers to force Amazon to raise their prices to consumers so Apple could get their 30% cut of the selling price. Whether Apple did this by getting them to switch to the agency model is irrelevant. Apple could have chosen to compete by other means.


The question is, would any one publisher have ever gone to Amazon independently and forced the switch to the agency model, knowing that their books would then be priced higher than their competitors books? Or was there a coordinated effort for all of the publishers to make that move at the same time? Would any publisher have made that agreement with Apple if they weren't confident that all of the other publishers were going to go along with it, too?


I do think it was odd that the judge made just a clear indication of where she was leaning before the trail started. But on the other hand I don't know that it's necessarily improper to grounds for a mistrial. Perhaps it's simply a strong suggestion to Apple that they should settle because they had a weak case. Odd that it was made as a public statement if that was the case.


As for the 2nd half of the above paragraph, about it being an "automatic failure" for the iBookstore and that it would inevitably lead to Amazon having total dominance is hogwash and pure conjection. To suggest that Apple couldn't have competed with Amazon is silly. It would have only meant that Apple's profit margins would have been slimmer. Which leads us back to the crux of the case...was their a coordinated effort across the publishing industry to artificially increase prices to consumers?

Good questions. I'd also like to know is did a publisher try to get Amazon to agree to the agency model beforehand and failed?
"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 #113 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomdri View Post

It looks like Judge Cote isn't in Love with Tim Cook and Apple the same way all the US Senators are. He wasnt about to complain that he had to update his apps everyday. What a shameful bunch of idiots we have working for us in the Government. The court was also not going to apologize like Rand Paul about being here for not paying your Taxes. Can you imagine... its like being on the Comedy Channel with these bunch of KooKs... Oh wait, it will probably go to the Supreme court and then Apple will get away with the ebooks also.

Wait, what?!? Please tell me you are being sarcastic here. "Get away with [it]" suggests that they have been found guilty. That just isn't the case. Also, based on all of the emails that I have seen, I am hard pressed to see where the colluding is happening. Also, you suggest that Apple was wrong about the whole taxes thing. Like I said before, they should pay more, but that is my opinion. The tax laws, however, say they only have to pay the amount they paid (approx. 6 billion dollars). So realistically, Apple wasn't at fault about that, the tax laws are.

Now, back on topic. My largest concern is the judge gave their opinion very publicly about the way the case could go. This is like saying that contestant A on a game show will win (or lose), and I am the person who gets to decide that. Guess what, I will make it happen that way, because I am human and I don't like to be wrong. And I consider myself to be a person of high character and can admit when I am wrong. Without meaning to sound like an egotistical asshat, I am betting that this Judge doesn't have superior character compared to me. So, more than likely, she has just declared which way she is going to rule. As such, that is bias and she should be removed.

-- Mike Eggleston
-- Mac Fanatic since 1984.
-- Proud Member of PETA: People Eating Tasty Animals
-- Wii #: 8913 3004 4519 2027

Reply

-- Mike Eggleston
-- Mac Fanatic since 1984.
-- Proud Member of PETA: People Eating Tasty Animals
-- Wii #: 8913 3004 4519 2027

Reply
post #114 of 133
Wait, so the company that offers to allow book sellers to set their own prices, is the one engaging in "price fixing", but the monopolist-- amazon-- which was paying book sellers $13 to sell books at $10, or in other words, engaging in dumping to maintain their monopoly-- gets off scott free?

This just shows how this is not just a witch hunt from the Dept of Justice, but also using corrupt judges that tell all american business that they cannot get a fair trial.

Apple's real "crime" was not caving in to the DoJ like the publishers did.

This is the rule of pull, not the rule of law. It's profoundly unamerican, but then, the US government hasn't been operating on american principles for quite awhile.
post #115 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessi View Post

Wait, so the company that offers to allow book sellers to set their own prices, is the one engaging in "price fixing", but the monopolist-- amazon-- which was paying book sellers $13 to sell books at $10, or in other words, engaging in dumping to maintain their monopoly-- gets off scott free?

This just shows how this is not just a witch hunt from the Dept of Justice, but also using corrupt judges that tell all american business that they cannot get a fair trial.

Apple's real "crime" was not caving in to the DoJ like the publishers did.

This is the rule of pull, not the rule of law. It's profoundly unamerican, but then, the US government hasn't been operating on american principles for quite awhile.

Amazon would've been in trouble had it been all ebooks they were taking a loss on but it was really just a small selection. Loss leaders are not 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 #116 of 133

blah blah blah....

 

Who cares what evidence has been released or what the e-mails say - nobody here knows if Apple is guilty or not.

 

The disturbing fact about this case is the actions of the DOJ who seem content to try this case in the court of public opinion by releasing bits & pieces of evidence to make Apple look guilty. Or having a judge make a comment about Apple's guilt without even having seen all the evidence herself (she admitted it). That's just downright unprofessional.

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #117 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Is it really unheard of for a Federal Judge to comment on a case not yet completed? I thought that Judge Ponder did much the same before eventually dismissing both Apple and Moto cases against each other. 

FWIW, "federal trial judges have long had the authority to comment on the evidence. The judge “may not assume the role of a witness. He may analyze and dissect the evidence, but he may not either distort it or add to it. ... This court has accordingly emphasized the duty of the trial judge to use great care that an expression of opinion upon the evidence ‘should be so given as not to mislead, and especially that it should not be one-sided’; that ‘deductions and theories not warranted by the evidence should be studiously avoided.’”
Quercia v. United States
,
289 U.S. 466, 470
(1933)"

www.lexisnexis.com/lawschool/study/outlines/word/evid.doc

So?

Your article says that judges have the authority to comment on the evidence. That's certainly true - and happens all the time. That's not at all what we're talking about here.

Judges do NOT have the right to prejudge the conclusions - which is what this judge did. See the link I provided.
"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 #118 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

So?

Your article says that judges have the authority to comment on the evidence. That's certainly true - and happens all the time. That's not at all what we're talking about here.

Judges do NOT have the right to prejudge the conclusions - which is what this judge did. See the link I provided.

I don't see any evidence that she pre-judged. For that to happen she'd have to say "Apple is guilty" or "Apple is not guilty." Anything less is just commentary.

"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 #119 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by 9secondko View Post

No wonder the American legal system is in trouble.

I think the phrase "American legal system" is increasingly oxymoronic.

post #120 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

I don't see any evidence that she pre-judged. For that to happen she'd have to say "Apple is guilty" or "Apple is not guilty." Anything less is just commentary.

"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."

If that's not pre-judging, I don't know what is.
"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
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