or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Google exec's inconsistent testimony weakens DOJ case against Apple in e-book price fixing suit
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Google exec's inconsistent testimony weakens DOJ case against Apple in e-book price fixing suit - Page 2

post #41 of 66
"The clause precludes them from selling said content to other retailers for lower prices."

That is false.

MFN does not prohibit publishers from selling at lower prices. All it does is guarantee that Apple can lower prices to match any competitor should the publishers work out better deals with them.
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
post #42 of 66

Doesn't this case hinge on Apple negotiating with all (or several) of the publishers present at the same time? i.e. Apple reps and publisher reps all met together and hashed out the details of the agreement. Or in this modern age, exchanged emails with several parties at once.

 

If Apple negotiated with each publisher separately, then there is no case. I don't know if Apple could do things like say, "publisher A has agreed to this, will you agree too, publisher B?" i.e. Apple is having one-to-one communications, but is making each party aware of what the other parties are saying.

 

Now if the publishers all got together without Apple present and agreed amongst themselves how to negotiate, then they are guilty of collusion - and they've pled so. (Or settled without pleading either way, they just threw enough money at the DOJ to make the case go away.)

 

Am I understanding this right?

 

- Jasen.

post #43 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasenj1 View Post

Doesn't this case hinge on Apple negotiating with all (or several) of the publishers present at the same time? i.e. Apple reps and publisher reps all met together and hashed out the details of the agreement. Or in this modern age, exchanged emails with several parties at once.

No sir.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #44 of 66
"If it doesn't fit, you must acquit"
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker."
-auxio-
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker."
-auxio-
Reply
post #45 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur View Post

The Department of Justice needs a new name.

Mmmm...

Maybe "The Ministry of Truth".
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker."
-auxio-
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker."
-auxio-
Reply
post #46 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


In the end, it doesn't matter. It's hearsay, whether they told him directly or told one of his team members. As such, it's meaningless.

 

Which is also why I think Jobs e-mails are going to be useless (he's not here to explain them in context) as are comments in his biography (did Isaacson correctly portray what Steve was thinking when he made comments).

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #47 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjtomlin View Post

"The clause precludes them from selling said content to other retailers for lower prices."


MFN does not prohibit publishers from selling at lower prices. All it does is guarantee that Apple can lower prices to match any competitor should the publishers work out better deals with them.

 

Didn't score well on reading comprehension, did you? They can sell to other resellers at lower prices but must immediately sell to Apple at that same price. Hence, "The clause precludes them from selling said content to other retailers for lower prices." It's not that complicated.

 

Maybe some pseudo-code would help:

 

applePrice = publisher.getApplePrice();

amazonPrice = publisher.getAmazonPrice();

 

if (applePrice > amazonPrice) {

   applePrice = amazonPrice;

}

post #48 of 66
I'm confident Apple's iBookstore arrangement and legal language was reviewed by Al Gore before it left the door. Gore being a politician and lawyer would've provided his input as a board member to steer Apple away from potential problems with government.

It's all just more Kabuki theater and distractions.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #49 of 66
This latest DOJ witch hunt is so reminiscent of the one they conducted on John Edwards, where the government didn't have its facts straight and wasted millions of tax payer dollars for nothing.
post #50 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleSince86 View Post

This latest DOJ witch hunt is so reminiscent of the one they conducted on John Edwards, .....

... or on Roger Clemens.

post #51 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleSince86 View Post

This latest DOJ witch hunt is so reminiscent of the one they conducted on John Edwards, where the government didn't have its facts straight and wasted millions of tax payer dollars for nothing.

Or as it has become known, business as usual on Capitol Hill.
post #52 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by caliminius View Post

 

Actually, it says exactly that. The publisher could set prices differently for different resellers, but whatever the lowest price was always what Apple's price would be. It couldn't set a price of $13.99 for Apple and $10.99 for Amazon. If it tried to do that, the Apple price became $10.99. Although it could do the reverse, say set a price of $10.99 for Apple and $13.99 for Amazon.

+1 Perfect analysis. Crystal clear. Here's hoping that Apple's PR Agency (have they got one that's more than a press release machine?) will start getting this simple, clear message out via Apple Management being interviewed, etc. EVEN Pay for some media, Apple! A novel idea that Apple would defend themselves with paid media. (Having said this -- the suit is in progress -- so we'll have to wait).

post #53 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by caliminius View Post

Didn't score well on reading comprehension, did you? They can sell to other resellers at lower prices but must immediately sell to Apple at that same price. Hence, "The clause precludes them from selling said content to other retailers for lower prices." It's not that complicated.


Maybe some pseudo-code would help:


applePrice = publisher.getApplePrice();
amazonPrice = publisher.getAmazonPrice();

if (applePrice > amazonPrice) {

   applePrice = amazonPrice;

}

It's all relative. $5 is a Low price. Amazon could sell it for that and Apple will follow suit. In this scenario, nothing stopped amazon and Apple from selling at a low price. What the clause couldn't do is allow AMZ to sell at 10 but keep Apple at $14. So it takes price away as a selling pt. I don't see how that's different than "price matching".
post #54 of 66
Apparently Thomas forgot to wear his Google Glasses to court...
post #55 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjtomlin View Post
All it does is guarantee that Apple can lower prices to match any competitor should the publishers work out better deals with them.

...work out a worse deal for the publishers... a better deal for the competitor... and thus Apple benefits from the "better deal." Sound very reasonable and legal to me.

 

Why should Apple be undercut by Amazon and hamstrung by the Publishers? The price manipulations were (are) by the Publishers. As far as I could tell, the iBookStore has less titles and mostly a higher price. I've only bought a couple of audio books via iTunes. I still buy most others from Amazon. Having the new titles and more Authors would have me switch from Amazon... I'd like to buy more from Apple at some point.

 

By the way, Steven Pressfield:

 

"Do the Work" ebook -- Kindle $4.99/iBooks $9.99

 

"Turning Pro" both $9.99

 

"The Professional" both $11.99

 

On the other hand, for example, one of his audiobooks, "Do the Work": Amazon $12.81/iTunes $9.95. So I'd buy this audiobook from Apple, duh.

 

There is no collusion. Sorry Judge.


Edited by H2P - 6/7/13 at 1:11pm
post #56 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

So it takes price away as a selling pt. I don't see how that's different than "price matching".

Thus the accusations of price fixing. It takes away any point of shopping around because you know Apple will always have the lowest price. And since there's no particular convenience difference, it becomes moot who you buy from. Thus highly anticompetitive. Especially since Apple has made it inconvenient for anyone but themselves to sell content on their mobile devices. Price matching comes at the expense of profits.
post #57 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by caliminius View Post

Thus the accusations of price fixing. It takes away any point of shopping around because you know Apple will always have the lowest price. And since there's no particular convenience difference, it becomes moot who you buy from. Thus highly anticompetitive. Especially since Apple has made it inconvenient for anyone but themselves to sell content on their mobile devices. Price matching comes at the expense of profits.

How is that anticompetitive? It allows other competitors in the game and forces the them to offer something unique to their stores. With kindle, you can buy once, read any device; With Apple, ease of use with iDevices; With nook, B&N book club; Etc.
post #58 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post

This entire case is built on top of a stack of toothpicks, and lies. How fucking pathetic.

 

Yeah perjury is an ugly thing.

 

The main problem with Google's case is the lack of a point --- Apple had no interest in having an agency model -- it only benefits the publishers and they were a minor part of the e-book market.
post #59 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

 

See where I quoted the Judge.

 

See where the Judge made a determination on the case before being presented with all the evidence.

 

See how the evidence that is coming out is falling apart in a shambles which supports the position I have held since day one i.e. that Apple has done nothing wrong and will be exonerated.

 

That's why I'm "blaming the judge".

 

So the sooner she finds Apple guilty, opening grounds for an appeal to the supreme court, the better.


I must have been still waking up at the time as I wrote that this morning.

post #60 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

They did sign up separately and independently with Apple, with negotiated variations in the terms of the various contracts, one of the big six publishers, Random House rejected Apple's offer altogether.

What? What are all those Random House ebooks doing in iBookstore right now?! They signed separately and then worked something out behind Apple's back...hence they are in hot waters now. As I said, this is more about publishers than it is about Apple. DOJ is wasting time and money in the hopes for squeezing something out of Apple too.
post #61 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Techboy View Post


What? What are all those Random House ebooks doing in iBookstore right now?! They signed separately and then worked something out behind Apple's back...hence they are in hot waters now. As I said, this is more about publishers than it is about Apple. DOJ is wasting time and money in the hopes for squeezing something out of Apple too.

 

Who is missing from this picture:-

 

 

 

I'll give you a hint, it's one of the big SIX publishers whose name starts with R H and wasn't involved in this case at all.

 

Try and keep up.

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 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Who is missing from this picture:-





I'll give you a hint, it's one of the big SIX publishers whose name starts with R H and wasn't involved in this case at all.

Try and keep up.

ROFL! Random House signed up later and hence not part of the lawsuit. They are allowed to keep selling their ebooks in iBookstore under the agency model. Penguin settle fast with DOJ because of the upcoming merger. What else do you need to know? Yup RH realllly rejected Apple!
post #63 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Techboy View Post


ROFL! Random House signed up later and hence not part of the lawsuit. They are allowed to keep selling their ebooks in iBookstore under the agency model. Penguin settle fast with DOJ because of the upcoming merger. What else do you need to know? Yup RH realllly rejected Apple!

 

Which is exactly the point I was making.

 

If you were paying any sort of attention you'd know that this case involves events leading up to Apple's introduction of iBooks and the iPad.

 

Hence the absence of Random House which shows that Apple was dealing with each publisher separately.

 

Apple did nothing wrong and will be exonerated.

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 #64 of 66

@Techboy

 

Each publisher did signed a different agreement with Apple.

 

Penguin was instructed to settle with DOJ and hence Random House which owned 53% of the merged company escaped scott free.

 

Would had been sued if they started selling ebooks on the first day and their 1 year lapse helped them too in addition to the merger.


Edited by AdamC - 6/8/13 at 7:06am
post #65 of 66
Why was the testimony allowed. Doesn't seem consistent with allowable hearsay rules of evidence. At best he heard others say Apple was pressuring. Now, he heard from others that they heard from others that they heard .....
post #66 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fake_William_Shatner View Post

Apple had no interest in having an agency model -- it only benefits the publishers and they were a minor part of the e-book market.

You may not be correct. It appears Steve Jobs wanted the publishers to insist on an agency model with Amazon if Jobs was to sign off publisher agreements.
http://fortunebrainstormtech.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/screen-shot-2013-06-12-at-5-21-23-am.png

That particular draft isn't seen as helpful to Apple's claims of indifference. With Eddy Cue slated to testify Thursday it should be a big day.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Google exec's inconsistent testimony weakens DOJ case against Apple in e-book price fixing suit