or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Judge says 'issues have shifted' for DOJ e-book trial against Apple
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Judge says 'issues have shifted' for DOJ e-book trial against Apple

post #1 of 42
Thread Starter 
A U.S. District Court Judge presiding over the Department of Justice's antitrust trial against Apple made a cryptic statement on Wednesday, saying the "issues have shifted" after hearing two weeks worth of testimony from both parties.

iBooks


With only one day remaining in the DOJ's e-book case against Apple, Presiding Judge Denise Cote offered her two cents on the previous two weeks of evidentiary findings, with the statement being a possible positive for the defense.

According to in-court reports from Fortune's Philip Elmer-Dewit, Judge Cote made an unsolicited remark regarding what transpired during the proceedings.

"I thought I had prepared so well. I learned a lot," she said. "But you have helped me understand so much more through the evidence. It seems to me the issues have somewhat shifted during the course of the trial. Things change. People have to stay nimble. I'm looking forward to understanding where we are now."

The jurist could be referring to a a rare "tentative view" she offered before the trial got underway in June. At the time, Judge Cote appeared to side with the Justice Departments, saying it would likely be able to prove Apple colluded with five major book publishers to inflate e-book prices.

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

Both sides will give their summations on Thursday, after which Judge Cote will consider the evidence and issue a ruling. There is no set timeline for a decision, but the average is about two months for a bench trial.
post #2 of 42
And what have the issues shifted to?
"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 #3 of 42

What the frick? The title for the story can be taken either way. Either the tide has changed against Apple or for them. I would tend to think that since the Judge didn't say specifically what had changed re: the issues, for either side, and what she commented previously it would more liekly be that Apple had provided evidentiary info that has perhaps changed her mind.

post #4 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

And what have the issues shifted to?

 

The issues have shifted from 'it appears the government has an airtight case' to the judge exclaiming "I love my iPad".

 

Winner = Apple.


Edited by SpamSandwich - 6/19/13 at 4:04pm

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #5 of 42

The old girl ought to be bitch slapped for making such a dumb-ass comment early on - no matter how the ruling turns out.

 

Jurisprudence at its finest!

OMG here we go again...
Reply
OMG here we go again...
Reply
post #6 of 42
Sounds like face-saving may be under way. (After the judge's uninformed pre-trial remarks predicting that she'd decide against Apple.)
post #7 of 42

Yes the video was lovely satire - I'm just not sure what it had to do with the content of the original article's thread . . .
 

post #8 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by BuzDots View Post

The old girl ought to be bitch slapped for making such a dumb-ass comment early on - no matter how the ruling turns out.

 

Jurisprudence at its finest!


and you need to watch your mouth . . .

post #9 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sumergo View Post


and you need to watch your mouth . . .

 

Quite true. Just because you think you are protected by your seeming anonymity on the web, does not make it true. In fact, you are still accountable for slander and libel and could be sued quite easily. Freedom of speech does not protect you from scurrilous statements. Remember, the NSA knows everything about you online.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #10 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by BuzDots View Post

The old girl ought to be bitch slapped for making such a dumb-ass comment early on - no matter how the ruling turns out.

Jurisprudence at its finest!

I honestly laughed out loud when I read this! I think that the lawyer for Apple's defense team should have the right to slap each one of the prosecutor's in the face, followed up finally with the judge being "Pimp Slapped" for her pre-trial arguments.

Yeah, not very professional or realistic…. But damn funny if you think about it. 1biggrin.gif
-- Mike Eggleston
-- Mac Finatic since 1984.
-- Proud Member of PETA: People Eating Tasty Animals
-- Wii #: 8913 3004 4519 2027
Reply
-- Mike Eggleston
-- Mac Finatic since 1984.
-- Proud Member of PETA: People Eating Tasty Animals
-- Wii #: 8913 3004 4519 2027
Reply
post #11 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Quite true. Just because you think you are protected by your seeming anonymity on the web, does not make it true. In fact, you are still accountable for slander and libel and could be sued quite easily. Freedom of speech does not protect you from scurrilous statements. Remember, the NSA knows everything about you online.

Actually slander is "The action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation." and libel is "A published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation." Nothing in his statement could be considered either of those, so his first amendment rights are very much in force. And while yes, the NSA has their hands in everything, I refuse to be crippled by fear.

That is why I post with my actual name, not a pseudonym.
-- Mike Eggleston
-- Mac Finatic since 1984.
-- Proud Member of PETA: People Eating Tasty Animals
-- Wii #: 8913 3004 4519 2027
Reply
-- Mike Eggleston
-- Mac Finatic since 1984.
-- Proud Member of PETA: People Eating Tasty Animals
-- Wii #: 8913 3004 4519 2027
Reply
post #12 of 42

Thanks Spam.

 

My reply to @Buzdots was aimed at his apparently misogynist "bitch slap" attitudes.

 

Whatever the NSA knows, we really need more civility on these forums - critical comments and responses.  Not just some "sad wanker, twelve-year old views".

 

;-(

post #13 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sumergo View Post


and you need to watch your mouth . . .

He's just talking about Cote.
post #14 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zombie Steve View Post

 

Well, I am honored.

 

I thought this video was very funny and spot on in its mockery of the iSheep. I guess Crapple's pretentious ads are more up your's (alley, that is).

 

Clearly they must be up your bum as you keep whining for some Preparation H.

post #15 of 42

Hey Mike,  Real name, pseudonym, avatar, picture of your dog - doesn't matter - much of what we do on this forum is recorded & stored by someone.

 

All I'm asking is that, "as we all go down in history" (in the NSA/ Internet ISP archives) let us do so with some grace and class - addressing the issues in a measured manner rather than going off-thread at the slightest chance.

 

I know you don't do this often, but your "pimp slapped" comment doesn't actually raise the level of the conversation does it?.
 

post #16 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Eggleston View Post


Actually slander is "The action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation." and libel is "A published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation." Nothing in his statement could be considered either of those, so his first amendment rights are very much in force. And while yes, the NSA has their hands in everything, I refuse to be crippled by fear.

That is why I post with my actual name, not a pseudonym.

 

Yes, I specifically included slander because of the increased use of online videos, so the comment could be interpreted as general information. Many younger people have no idea the kind of legal hot water they could get into by making incendiary comments online.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #17 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

 

Yes, I specifically included slander because of the increased use of online videos, so the comment could be interpreted as general information. Many younger people have no idea the kind of legal hot water they could get into by making incendiary comments online.


Dead right again . . .

post #18 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by TeeJay2012 View Post


Pssst. Steve. Samsung makes the cheap plastic shells for their phones...

 

Hey a Galaxy S4 costs RRP $A849 in Australia, I think that's what he was alluding to, the initial rush of S-sheep who bought the ones shipped at that price when lacklustre sales will see pricing drop as fast as Samsung's share price.

 

There's a lot of "shipped" units to clear.

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 #19 of 42

Terrible headline.  Terrible article. When did the judge say this?  Before or after testimony?

 

 

Terrible wording!

oneof52
Reply
oneof52
Reply
post #20 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by gmsquires View Post

What the frick? The title for the story can be taken either way. Either the tide has changed against Apple or for them. I would tend to think that since the Judge didn't say specifically what had changed re: the issues, for either side, and what she commented previously it would more liekly be that Apple had provided evidentiary info that has perhaps changed her mind.

 

The present:-

 

eBooks cost less,

 

consumers have more choice,

 

the market is more open and free.

 

Those "issues".

 

The DoJ are a bunch of hypocritical puppets of the dominant player who went whining to them with this "complaint".

 

Maybe the Judge isn't such a moron after all, she's got a bit of egg on her face due to the guilty pronouncement before the trial, nothing an appeal to the Supreme Court won't fix.

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 #21 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

 

Quite true. Just because you think you are protected by your seeming anonymity on the web, does not make it true. In fact, you are still accountable for slander and libel and could be sued quite easily. Freedom of speech does not protect you from scurrilous statements. Remember, the NSA knows everything about you online.

 

Do you think if they extradite someone like me from Australia, over libellous comments, they could arrange a court near Disneyland, either that or Vegas?

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 #22 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by oneof52 View Post

Terrible headline.  Terrible article. When did the judge say this?  Before or after testimony?

 

 

Terrible wording!

 

At the end of the evidence, the judge's comment is a bit confusing, to say the least.

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 #23 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

 

Do you think if they extradite someone like me from Australia, over libellous comments, they could arrange a court near Disneyland, either that or Vegas?

 

Sorry, it's the eastern district of Texas for you foreigners, if you're lucky, otherwise, Gitmo.

 

Your friends will shake their heads and say, "hill60 always was an unlucky wight."

post #24 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

The present:-

eBooks cost less,

consumers have more choice,

the market is more open and free.

Those "issues".

The DoJ are a bunch of hypocritical puppets of the dominant player who went whining to them with this "complaint".

Maybe the Judge isn't such a moron after all, she's got a bit of egg on her face due to the guilty pronouncement before the trial, nothing an appeal to the Supreme Court won't fix.

Actually, "the issues have shifted" is likely a response to the bomb that B&N dropped on the DOJ's case:

http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/bn-drops-bombshell-in-dojs-price-fixing-case-against-apple
"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 #25 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Eggleston View Post


I honestly laughed out loud when I read this! I think that the lawyer for Apple's defense team should have the right to slap each one of the prosecutor's in the face, followed up finally with the judge being "Pimp Slapped" for her pre-trial arguments.

Yeah, not very professional or realistic…. But damn funny if you think about it. 1biggrin.gif

It's only funny if you're 14 years old. Actually, not so much even then. 

post #26 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by BuzDots View Post

The old girl ought to be bitch slapped for making such a dumb-ass comment early on - no matter how the ruling turns out.

 

Jurisprudence at its finest!

Commenting at its worst.

post #27 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by oneof52 View Post

Terrible headline.  Terrible article. When did the judge say this?  Before or after testimony?

 

 

Terrible wording!

Maybe this will help you (I agree that AI just slapped this story together, and did a pretty bad job).

 

The judge in the Apple e-book antitrust case loves her iPad - Apple 2.0 -Fortune Tech


Edited by elroth - 6/19/13 at 10:55pm
post #28 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Actually, "the issues have shifted" is likely a response to the bomb that B&N dropped on the DOJ's case:

http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/bn-drops-bombshell-in-dojs-price-fixing-case-against-apple

Here are even more details of B&N's testimony:

 

The Apple e-book antitrust trial: Enter Barnes & Noble - Apple 2.0 -Fortune Tech

post #29 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sumergo View Post
we really need more civility on these forums - critical comments and responses.  Not just some "sad wanker, twelve-year old views".

 

 

I read this as highly hypocritical.

post #30 of 42

Don't get your hopes up. The judge will rule against Apple, that's a done deal. Remember, there are a number of state's Attorneys General waiting to pounce on Apple with lawsuits, as well as the class actions being brought. Apple needs to be guilty for this to happen and the lawyers to collect their fees. Money talks and bullshit walks.

 

Yes, I'm a cynic.

post #31 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkrupp View Post

Don't get your hopes up. The judge will rule against Apple, that's a done deal. Remember, there are a number of state's Attorneys General waiting to pounce on Apple with lawsuits, as well as the class actions being brought. Apple needs to be guilty for this to happen and the lawyers to collect their fees. Money talks and bullshit walks.

 

Yes, I'm a cynic.

I'll take that bet. I'm pretty sure Apple wins this one.

post #32 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Actually, "the issues have shifted" is likely a response to the bomb that B&N dropped on the DOJ's case:

http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/bn-drops-bombshell-in-dojs-price-fixing-case-against-apple

Looks like "Egg On Face" is being served for breakfast.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #33 of 42

It looks like the Publisher lawyers was a bunch of pussy, they advised their client to settle out of court as the less costly solution to the government coming after them. This is why the DoJ went after Apple. If Publisher lawyer was balls like apple and they all stood together the DoJ probably would have gone away.

 

The DoJ probably used the prisoner dilemma to get the publisher to fold.

post #34 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64 View Post

It looks like the Publisher lawyers was a bunch of pussy, they advised their client to settle out of court as the less costly solution to the government coming after them. This is why the DoJ went after Apple. If Publisher lawyer was balls like apple and they all stood together the DoJ probably would have gone away.

 

The DoJ probably used the prisoner dilemma to get the publisher to fold.

 

That's possible. Also, the publishers don't have Apple's resources, so, for them, the settlement may have been more of a business decision than a legal one. It's also possible that the publishers were guilty of collusion while Apple is not, although, none of them, I believe, was required to admit wrongdoing. (Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean there wasn't wrongdoing.)

 

The problem I see here, and which Apple may need to follow up on with further legal action, against the government, is that the very terms of the settlements the DoJ forced on the publishers are anti-competitive and favor Amazon. Given the evidence that has come out in this trial, it's almost impossible to see this as some sort of honest misunderstanding by the DoJ of what was really going on. It's impossible to believe that the DoJ is that stupid.

post #35 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64 View Post

It looks like the Publisher lawyers was a bunch of pussy, they advised their client to settle out of court as the less costly solution to the government coming after them. This is why the DoJ went after Apple. If Publisher lawyer was balls like apple and they all stood together the DoJ probably would have gone away.

The DoJ probably used the prisoner dilemma to get the publisher to fold.

While I don't personally believe Apple is guilty of antitrust violations regarding e-books, the fact they agreed to a settlement with the EU is a bit confusing. If they honestly believe nothing they did was legally questionable, why cave to EU authorities?
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #36 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


While I don't personally believe Apple is guilty of antitrust violations regarding e-books, the fact they agreed to a settlement with the EU is a bit confusing. If they honestly believe nothing they did was legally questionable, why cave to EU authorities?

 

Maybe because they didn't feel they'd get a fair shake from the legal system in the EU?

 

Of course, you can continue to ignore all the testimony in this trial so far and pretend that the facts are as yo'd like them to be. So, if you don't personally believe Apple is guilty of collusion, why are you attempting to make an implicit argument that they are based on what happened with the EU?

 

Sorry, but as usual, your statements are pathetically inconsistent, and the motives behind your post embarrassingly transparent. This is why you don't deserve respect.

post #37 of 42

So when do B&N or Apple or any other book retailer get to file suit against Amazon for abusing its large market-share to drive competitors out of business?

 

- Jasen.

post #38 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasenj1 View Post

So when do B&N or Apple or any other book retailer get to file suit against Amazon for abusing its large market-share to drive competitors out of business?

Once this lawsuit is over and the DoJ is forced to pay reparations.

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 #39 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasenj1 View Post

So when do B&N or Apple or any other book retailer get to file suit against Amazon for abusing its large market-share to drive competitors out of business?

 

- Jasen.

 

The real issue isn't even that Amazon is abusing it's market share in books to drive competitors out of business. The real issue is that Amazon is leveraging it's dominance as an online retailer and it's ability to absorb losses in one area of business by subsidizing them with small profits from the rest of its operation to engage in predatory pricing and drive competitors out of the book business.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


Once this lawsuit is over and the DoJ is forced to pay reparations.

 

Well, that's not very likely to happen

post #40 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Eggleston View Post


Actually slander is "The action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation." and libel is "A published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation." Nothing in his statement could be considered either of those, so his first amendment rights are very much in force. And while yes, the NSA has their hands in everything, I refuse to be crippled by fear.

That is why I post with my actual name, not a pseudonym.

 

Mike, Thanks for the clarification of slander. Obviously a couple of folks are a little more sensitive than I thought.

Come on guys, a little brevity with your expresso makes it easier to swallow.

 

The closest thing to slander in my comment was "old girl"


Edited by BuzDots - 6/20/13 at 2:57pm
OMG here we go again...
Reply
OMG here we go again...
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Judge says 'issues have shifted' for DOJ e-book trial against Apple