or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › US DOJ points to Steve Jobs email as 'smoking gun' in e-book trial [Update: email was draft]
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

US DOJ points to Steve Jobs email as 'smoking gun' in e-book trial [Update: email was draft] - Page 2

post #41 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

I will be deploying additional encryption methods very soon in order to protect myself from unwanted intrusion by hostile forces.

I commend you for this and would encourage everyone to do the same, but keep in mind that the who's who of our communications are highly informative by themselves and even encrypted e-mail still includes the addresses of the sender and recipient(s) in clear text within the message header. Similarly, the call logs obtained by the NSA reveal the networks of people we all communicate with and yield important information about our individual activities without the need to intercept the actual conversations.

post #42 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristophB View Post


.

LEO and prosecutors are allowed to lie to you; permitted to deceive for the suspected greater good. The Justice Department - even their name is deceiving.

 

They are not allowed to lie under oath in court. That is perjury and punishable. They're only permitted to lie during an investigation.

post #43 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by festerfeet View Post

How can a gun smoke when it hasn't been fired?

 

This 'email' was never sent so it never was an email

 

 

As this was never send but purely a draft it doesn't even qualify under the dictionary definition.


What it shows is Steve Jobs' intent. If he wasn't thinking about getting the publishers to change their deals with Amazon, he would not have written it in the first place. That he never sent it shows that it occurred to him that putting that into writing was not such a good idea.

post #44 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkrupp View Post

Please keep in mind that this is not a jury trial. A judge will decide guilt or innocence. And this particular judge stated publicly that she thinks Apple is guilty before the trial even began. In my opinion this is a show trial. Apple will be found guilty no matter what. Dozens of class action lawsuits depend on Apple being guilty and so it will be found guilty.


Exactly. The judge is not going to go against the US government on this one and make them look like fools. This case was decided before the trial even started as per the judge's statements. The government wants a piece of the big Apple pie and will get it one way or another.
post #45 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

The current DoJ is corrupt as hell? Suck on a long big pile of bullspit. The prior DoJ was Hooverian by comparison.

Have you just awoken from a multi year coma? I have to assume that you have not been following the news and current events at all, since the current DOJ is involved in a whole slew of nasty scandals, far worse than anything before. I wouldn't be surprised if we see some people ending up behind bars eventually, hopefully starting from the top and going down.

post #46 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpsro View Post

I commend you for this and would encourage everyone to do the same, but keep in mind that the who's who of our communications are highly informative by themselves and even encrypted e-mail still includes the addresses of the sender and recipient(s) in clear text within the message header. Similarly, the call logs obtained by the NSA reveal the networks of people we all communicate with and yield important information about our individual activities without the need to intercept the actual conversations.

I fully agree, and am aware of what you're saying.

 

Even if they only have the metadata, then they actually have a whole lot. You can know somebody's every move from piecing together just the metadata.

post #47 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

 

Apparently the DoJ are using this to infer "intent".

 

"Thought crimes" are here, it looks like Orwell was out by three decades.

 

Good point, but it is actually six and a bit decades... Orwell finished writing "Nineteen Eighty-Four" in 1949.

post #48 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotoformat View Post

Good point, but it is actually six and a bit decades... Orwell finished writing "Nineteen Eighty-Four" in 1949.

Yeah, but "2014" doesn't have quite the same ring to it.
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 #49 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by EWTHeckman View Post


What it shows is Steve Jobs' intent. If he wasn't thinking about getting the publishers to change their deals with Amazon, he would not have written it in the first place. That he never sent it shows that it occurred to him that putting that into writing was not such a good idea.

Does that include the "intent" to offer new releases at lower prices?
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 #50 of 86

This does look bad for the DoJ.

 

As to those criticizing Holder -- as much as I dislike the guy, there is such a slim chance that he had any actual input into going forward with this.  The DoJ is gigantic, with a vast number of divisions.

post #51 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

Have you just awoken from a multi year coma? I have to assume that you have not been following the news and current events at all, since the current DOJ is involved in a whole slew of nasty scandals, far worse than anything before. I wouldn't be surprised if we see some people ending up behind bars eventually, hopefully starting from the top and going down.

 

Actually, most of these scandals weren't actual scandals.  And few of them have to do with the DoJ.

 

But now we're veering WAY off-topic.

post #52 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by EWTHeckman View Post

They are not allowed to lie under oath in court. That is perjury and punishable. They're only permitted to lie during an investigation.

I did not mean to imply otherwise. I should have been more clear.

Point remains, the rest of us do not have that privilege during their investigation. Nor can we turnabout and prosecute or sue them for it. "Justice" right?
post #53 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

The current DoJ is corrupt as hell? Suck on a long big pile of bullspit. The prior DoJ was Hooverian by comparison.

 

A lot of their political hires are still there, unfortunately.

post #54 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by EWTHeckman View Post


What it shows is Steve Jobs' intent. If he wasn't thinking about getting the publishers to change their deals with Amazon, he would not have written it in the first place. That he never sent it shows that it occurred to him that putting that into writing was not such a good idea.

 

No, it doesn't show intent. What it shows is that Jobs entertained certain ideas at some point, but abandoned them. In fact, the fact that he didn't send it, but sent an entirely different email shows intent of the opposite of what the DoJ argues.

 

Sorry, but "thinking about" something isn't illegal, especially when you obviously abandoned that line of thought.

 

That the DoJ pretends this is a smoking gun, and the Judge doesn't want to hear the evidence, now, that shows intent.

post #55 of 86
Impression I got from Eddy's side of the email was Apple was trying to push the publishers to as low a cost as they could get. Even the original Job's comment was more along the lines of we hope they push Amazon to agency or it will be tough for us to be competitive.
post #56 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristophB View Post


I did not mean to imply otherwise. I should have been more clear.

Point remains, the rest of us do not have that privilege [of lying] during their investigation. Nor can we turnabout and prosecute or sue them for it. "Justice" right?

 

That's why you should never talk to "investigators", especially not without your lawyer present, and even then you should probably assert your 5th Amendment rights. Even an inadvertent misstatement could turn into a prosecution for lying to them.

post #57 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

No, it doesn't show intent. What it shows is that Jobs entertained certain ideas at some point, but abandoned them. In fact, the fact that he didn't send it, but sent an entirely different email shows intent of the opposite of what the DoJ argues.

Sorry, but "thinking about" something isn't illegal, especially when you obviously abandoned that line of thought.

That the DoJ pretends this is a smoking gun, and the Judge doesn't want to hear the evidence, now, that shows intent.

What's latin for "It's the thought that counts"? Perhaps they need to etch that under Lady Justice since it seems to be their new motto.
post #58 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

That's why you should never talk to "investigators", especially not without your lawyer present, and even then you should probably assert your 5th Amendment rights. Even an inadvertent misstatement could turn into a prosecution for lying to them.

Plenty of folks smarter and more lawyered up than me have fallen prey to this. Hard to prove an honest mistatement wasn't intent to lie. Justice is just another protection racket, regardless of who tops the Executive Branch.
post #59 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

 

Sorry, but "thinking about" something isn't illegal, especially when you obviously abandoned that line of thought.

The problem is, it isn't "obvious" that he abandoned that line of thought, merely that he thought better about putting that thought in writing. If he acted consistent with that thought, even if he was never again dumb enough to write it down or be recorded saying it, then the DOJ can show that A) He had that thought, and B) He acted on that thought, which would prove their case.

 

Remember, the publishers did impose agency pricing on Amazon. The DOJ has now shown the other end of the chain, that Steve Jobs was thinking about trying to get that to happen. Now the question is, did he/Apple act to make that happen? I don't know. If they can prove intent (they have), action (unknown), and results (obvious), then they will have proven illegal collusion. If they can't prove that Steve/Apple acted to make his thought into reality, then they should not win.

post #60 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristophB View Post

If they are looking into me here, it's for crimes against the English language. Guilty as charged.

You're all kidding on this "the evil gov'mt got these emails"? DOJ got this information the old fashioned way -- Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, more specifically Part V - Discovery. The FRCP was first implemented in 1938, the purpose of which was to allow all sides to a legal dispute to have access to each side's information prior to trial. Every state now has similar rules, and similar rules apply in criminal proceedings both in federal and state proceedings.
post #61 of 86

Actually I think the Government is trying to save the printing and wholesale distributor business. Honestly the only reason to fight this hard about something as stupid as this is they government must be afraid another heavy industry like printing companies will go by the waste side if people favor low cost e-books over a traditional book. They do not want to see people loose their jobs at printing companies. Why else presue this, so Amazon and keep giving away books at below market prices.

post #62 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by waldobushman View Post

You're all kidding on this "the evil gov'mt got these emails"? DOJ got this information the old fashioned way -- Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, more specifically Part V - Discovery. The FRCP was first implemented in 1938, the purpose of which was to allow all sides to a legal dispute to have access to each side's information prior to trial. Every state now has similar rules, and similar rules apply in criminal proceedings both in federal and state proceedings.

I thought my "crimes against the English language" comment was enough to indicate I was completely sarcastic.
post #63 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by EWTHeckman View Post

The problem is, it isn't "obvious" that he abandoned that line of thought, merely that he thought better about putting that thought in writing. If he acted consistent with that thought, even if he was never again dumb enough to write it down or be recorded saying it, then the DOJ can show that A) He had that thought, and B) He acted on that thought, which would prove their case.

 

Remember, the publishers did impose agency pricing on Amazon. The DOJ has now shown the other end of the chain, that Steve Jobs was thinking about trying to get that to happen. Now the question is, did he/Apple act to make that happen? I don't know. If they can prove intent (they have), action (unknown), and results (obvious), then they will have proven illegal collusion. If they can't prove that Steve/Apple acted to make his thought into reality, then they should not win.

 

No, they haven't shown that he was, "thinking about trying to get that to happen." What they've actually shown is that certain thoughts occurred to him which he did not follow through on. Not sending that email, and sending an entirely different email, shows the intent not to follow that line of action. Now the question is, does the DoJ have any real evidence, is the judge interested in hearing any evidence, or is this a kangaroo court?

 

And, what the publishers did isn't necessarily relevant. In fact, even if we assume Apple was interested in what the DoJ asserts and assume the publishers "imposed" agency pricing on Amazon as part of a coordinated effort among themselves, the 2 ends of the "chain" aren't connected. Even if Apple manipulated them into "imposing" agency pricing on Amazon, the 2 ends of the "chain" aren't connected. Because none of that shows a conspiracy amongst them including Apple.

 

The fact is that this entire case is a just so tale. The DoJ has nothing but smoke and mirrors here, and the court has rendered judgement before hearing the evidence, and even refuses to hear it, or to apply logic. The fact is that the DoJ has nothing that resembles evidence of what they allege. All they have evidence of is that SJ briefly entertained certain thoughts but abandoned them. The idea that he didn't send the email because, "he thought better about putting that thought in writing," is just that, an idea, and unless they have some evidence to support that notion, then they are just speculating on what he might have been thinking when he wrote an email he never sent.

 

The entire case is based on nothing but speculation, on fanciful thinking by the government's lawyers, not on evidence. Showing 2 ends of a chain doesn't prove they are or ever were part of the same chain, and in this case, one of the "ends" appears to be nothing more than a reflection of the other.


Edited by anonymouse - 6/13/13 at 6:40am
post #64 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

That the DoJ pretends this is a smoking gun, and the Judge doesn't want to hear the evidence, now, that shows intent.

 

The judge allowing an unsent email into evidence, and not allowing an objection to be raised by the defense is pretty damning on the judge. 

 

If she(?) rules in favor of Apple in the end, then all will be forgiven.

 

But if not, this should be grounds for appeal, and it would be grounds for me to decide the judge is not objective. 

post #65 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessi View Post

The judge allowing an unsent email into evidence, and not allowing an objection to be raised by the defense is pretty damning on the judge. 

If she(?) rules in favor of Apple in the end, then all will be forgiven.

But if not, this should be grounds for appeal, and it would be grounds for me to decide the judge is not objective. 

I don't yet get all the "appeal" talk. I didn't read the reason given for the sustained objection. Was it something like relevance? Apple would certainly want to object so the word gets out (of the courtroom). Trials are theater.

The judge saying DoJ will be able to show direct evidence of that Apple did something does not mean it won't be debunked. The judge does not get to see all of what Apple has for evidence to the contrary until trial. It may be unpopular but it is my opinion that if the judge believed DoJ could not produce direct evidence or sufficient circumstantial evidence, the case would have been thrown out. By going to trial, it could ultimately help Apple and the market by proving that the model and the MFN are just fine. Given the options, Apple may have preferred a trial.

Anyone here answer a question I have? If things go south for the DoJ, can they bow out so that a judgement is not reached? An actual court ruling in Apple's favor would be much worse for DoJ than them just slinking off to lick their wounds.
Edited by ChristophB - 6/13/13 at 10:20am
post #66 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by EWTHeckman View Post


What it shows is Steve Jobs' intent. If he wasn't thinking about getting the publishers to change their deals with Amazon, he would not have written it in the first place. That he never sent it shows that it occurred to him that putting that into writing was not such a good idea.
Nope. The intent isn't clear, even if the email was sent. "I guess I can live with this" suggests reluctance. And it's not clear where the idea of getting Amazon to go along with the agency model originated. Did the publishers float the idea to Steve Jobs as a quid pro quo for raising the price caps? And if they did, then Steve Jobs and Apple aren't the "ringleaders".
post #67 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sacto Joe View Post

Nope. The intent isn't clear, even if the email was sent. "I guess I can live with this" suggests reluctance. And it's not clear where the idea of getting Amazon to go along with the agency model originated. Did the publishers float the idea to Steve Jobs as a quid pro quo for raising the price caps? And if they did, then Steve Jobs and Apple aren't the "ringleaders".

Might know more details today since it's Eddy's turn on the stand.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #68 of 86

Even if this was sent, I don't buy that it proves anything illegal.

 

There's nothing wrong about Apple (who lacked a presence in eBooks) to not be keen about signing a deal with the publishers only to have the publishers turn around and sell it to Amazon (the dominant player) for cheaper than Apple could get it. 

 

Hence the MFN (which is again not illegal). A clause that says nothing about raising the price, but lowering the price in the event that Apple's price is higher. 

 

Since the publishers were quick to settle, it appears that they may have colluded amongst themselves, deciding that they could take the agency model and raise the price to Apple's suggestion (interestingly, the suggestion was the maximum; a price ceiling, not a floor). But I don't see Apple involved in their possible back room dealings.

post #69 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessi View Post

The judge allowing an unsent email into evidence, and not allowing an objection to be raised by the defense is pretty damning on the judge. 

If she(?) rules in favor of Apple in the end, then all will be forgiven.

But if not, this should be grounds for appeal, and it would be grounds for me to decide the judge is not objective. 

The unsent email seems relevant to the case, but why DOJ objected to Apple pointing out it was unsent and why the judge agreed was not mentioned. No reason pops to mind.
post #70 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendergast View Post

... Since the publishers were quick to settle, it appears that they may have colluded amongst themselves, ...

 

It's just as probable that the publishers settled out of fear of the consequences of not settling and losing, not because of actual guilt. If the current kangaroo court proceedings are an indication, you can hardly blame them. But, given the strong arm tactics of the DoJ and the bias of the court, you cannot conclude that even the publishers were in reality guilty of collusion. Their settlement may merely be a symptom of fear.

post #71 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

 

Apparently the DoJ are using this to infer "intent".

 

"Thought crimes" are here, it looks like Orwell was out by three decades.

 

It irriates me to no end how much time and money the government has forced Apple to spend in defending itself from frivalous alligations that the public doesn't even care about. Top that off with the fact that the government is spending millions of our tax dollars to do it (or printing some more) and that they keep trying to chase away a succesful American company and it's no wonder that our government's approval rating is lower than it ever has been. Not sure what happend to "of the people, by the people, for the people."

iPod, iPad, iPad2, iPad 3, iPad Mini, iPhone, iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4, iPhone 4S, iPhone 5, AppleTV (1,2 & 3), 13" MacBook Pro, 24" Cinema Display, Time Capsule, 21.5" iMac (Mid 2011)

Reply

iPod, iPad, iPad2, iPad 3, iPad Mini, iPhone, iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4, iPhone 4S, iPhone 5, AppleTV (1,2 & 3), 13" MacBook Pro, 24" Cinema Display, Time Capsule, 21.5" iMac (Mid 2011)

Reply
post #72 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

 

It's just as probable that the publishers settled out of fear of the consequences of not settling and losing, not because of actual guilt. If the current kangaroo court proceedings are an indication, you can hardly blame them. But, given the strong arm tactics of the DoJ and the bias of the court, you cannot conclude that even the publishers were in reality guilty of collusion. Their settlement may merely be a symptom of fear.

 

True, hence why I said "appear". I think you'd agree that it does give the appearance of guilt.

 

I have no knowledge of what did or didn't transpire, but it doesn't seem unlikely that they could have illegally colluded.

 

It does seem unlikely that Apple was involved in said alleged collusion. 

post #73 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Update: According to AllThingsD, the email from Jobs submitted into evidence today was a draft of a message which was never sent. In the actual correspondence, a copy of which Apple filed following Wednesday's proceedings, there was no mention of a plan to push Amazon to agency and Jobs actually recognized that wholesale pricing may continue.

Un-frickin'-believable.

 

I think I am ready to put on a tinfoil hat, if this is the state of affairs at the "Justice" Department in this country....

post #74 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

 

No, they haven't shown that he was, "thinking about trying to get that to happen." What they've actually shown is that certain thoughts occurred to him which he did not follow through on. Not sending that email, and sending an entirely different email, shows the intent not to follow that line of action.

Riiiight. Apparently you're unfamiliar with the concept of "plausible deniability".

 

What shows whether or not he followed though on that "line of action" is, by definition, his actions.

post #75 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by EWTHeckman View Post

Riiiight. Apparently you're unfamiliar with the concept of "plausible deniability".

What shows whether or not he followed though on that "line of action" is, by definition, his actions.

And what actions were those?

All the written paperwork Ive seen makes no mention of a price floor (thus raising prices).

Considering this is the DOJ's "smoking gun", there's not much evidence of such actions on Apple's part.
post #76 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by EWTHeckman View Post

Riiiight. Apparently you're unfamiliar with the concept of "plausible deniability".

 

What shows whether or not he followed though on that "line of action" is, by definition, his actions.

How is the DoJ compensating you for your vigorous defence of their 'impartial' and 'non-partisan' interests?

 

Cheers

post #77 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendergast View Post


And what actions were those?

All the written paperwork Ive seen makes no mention of a price floor (thus raising prices).

Considering this is the DOJ's "smoking gun", there's not much evidence of such actions on Apple's part.

 

Like I said, I am not sure whether Apple actually acted in accord with the intent in that draft email. They must demonstrate that Apple acted in a way which created collusion among the publishers. Based on what has been reported here, I don't think the DOJ has demonstrated that beyond reasonable doubt (so far).

 

I personally would not call this draft a "smoking gun". A "smoking gun" settles an entire case beyond reasonable doubt. This is crucially important evidence which shows that Steve Jobs at least considered the idea of collusion, but by itself it does not demonstrate that he actually acted on it.

 

The "price floor" was the retail price. Because of the Agency Model (Publisher sets the selling price) plus MFN (no reseller gets a better deal), no other reseller (including—but not limited to—Amazon) was allowed to sell a particular book for less than whatever wholesale price the publisher was willing to accept plus Apple's 30%. That means no loss leaders, no sales, no dealer willing to settle for a smaller margin to beat the competition. That means that if you wanted to buy the book "My Life as an Apple Fan" (made up title), and you have several ereader platforms, you could not do price shopping to get the best deal. Period.

post #78 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by minicapt View Post

How is the DoJ compensating you for your vigorous defence of their 'impartial' and 'non-partisan' interests?

I've been a certified "bleed in 6 colors" guy for more than 30 years. But that doesn't mean I'm blind, biased, or stupid. The evidence proves only what it proves, no more, no less. That's what I am trying to get you to understand.

post #79 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by EWTHeckman View Post

... This is crucially important evidence ...

 

More like much ado about nothing.

post #80 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by EWTHeckman View Post

[classic words of the troll removed]. But that doesn't mean I'm blind, biased, or stupid. The evidence proves only what it proves, no more, no less. That's what I am trying to get you to understand.

 

Apparently, you don't understand logic or what 'prove' means, because none of your, "trying to get you to understand," posts on the so-called "evidence" show any signs of applying the one or doing the other. In terms of "proof", the DoJ's case is as flimsy as it gets. There's nothing at all to it but unsubstantiated assertions and hand waving. If the evidence can be said to "prove" anything, it's exactly the opposite of this tale the DoJ has concocted.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › US DOJ points to Steve Jobs email as 'smoking gun' in e-book trial [Update: email was draft]