or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › US court finds Apple guilty of conspiring to raise e-book prices
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

US court finds Apple guilty of conspiring to raise e-book prices - Page 2

post #41 of 153

All I can say is this judge knows nothing about the book industry.  The Agency model has been king forever, and the way the book industry works is that prices have *always* been set artificially by collusion among publishers.  

 

Anyone who has ever owned a bookstore can tell you this.  You are told what the prices are, what the discounts are and how high or low you can sell them.  It's almost always been this way and the so-called "free market" rules don't apply and never have.  

post #42 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by malax View Post

Unlike many posters here, I don't blame the judge, I blame the law.

 

I don't think Apple did anything wrong, but I'm not terribly surprised that they (were determined) to have violated some aspects of the law.  Most people here are applying a standard of "what the law should be" rather than what the laws say.  And since we're not lawyers, what do we know.

 

It's like when we watch the Winter Olympics every four years and deem ourselves experts on the rules of short track speed skating and rhythmic mogul ice dancing or whatnot.

 

So Apple "led" behind Barnes and Noble?

 

End of the line for this railroaded court, I expect the tart of a judge's ruling to be overturned on appeal.

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 #43 of 153

Amazon celebrates their newly government approved and protected monopoly by.....wait for it.....raising prices!

 

http://www.mhpbooks.com/monopoly-acheived-an-invincible-amazon-begins-raising-prices/

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/05/business/as-competition-wanes-amazon-cuts-back-its-discounts.html?pagewanted=2&ref=technology&_r=0

 

But of course, it's all in the interest of the consumer. Obviously.

 

Amazon stockholders can pop the champagne though. Profits are finally coming their way!
 

post #44 of 153
Lol why is it that every verdict against Apple you guys think it's a conspiracy and blame everyone but Apple.

Everyone in AI is always a lawyer.
post #45 of 153

Apple announced they will appeal and are adamant they did nothing wrong. It will be interesting to see how the appeal goes and what arguments are brought up (I'm guessing Cote's comment before trial that she thought the DOJ will prove its case would be one).

post #46 of 153
Quote:
Through their conspiracy they forced Amazon (and other resellers) to relinquish pricing authority...

So they're guilty of stopping an actual monopoly from continuing to screw writers and publishers.

Brilliant.

post #47 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wurm5150 View Post

This is far from over.. Apple will appeal this all the way to the Supreme Court..which happens to be a business friendly.

 

The Supreme court hasn't been as packed full of right-wing ideologues and criminals for a long time.  This does not mean it's "business friendly" though.  Clarence Thomas for instance should still be in jail right now, not on the Supreme court.  Scalia and Alito have no respect for the law or the government, or anything but their own radical opinions and have brought more shame to the body in the last five years than any other judge has for a century.  

post #48 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrodriguez View Post

Lol why is it that every verdict against Apple you guys think it's a conspiracy and blame everyone but Apple.

Everyone in AI is always a lawyer.

 

Gee, kinda like everyone saying the judge is bought when Apple wins.

post #49 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

Gee, kinda like everyone saying the judge is bought when Apple wins.

??1bugeye.gif
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #50 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

The Supreme court hasn't been as packed full of right-wing ideologues and criminals for a long time.  This does not mean it's "business friendly" though.  Clarence Thomas for instance should still be in jail right now, not on the Supreme court.  Scalia and Alito have no respect for the law or the government, or anything but their own radical opinions and have brought more shame to the body in the last five years than any other judge has for a century.  

Please take your radical views elsewhere.
post #51 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessi View Post

First off, you're right that the law is a bogus law.  It's a law written by communists (literally, back when communism was an up and coming thing) to punish people for "competing". 

Your presumption that only lawyers can have an opinions is silly.  The law is not complicated.  In fact, the highest law, the one under which Apple is absolutely innocent, is the constitution.  The constitution does not give the federal government the power to persecute Apple in this way.  That document was written so that everyone could read it.  All laws in violation of it (which anti-trust are) are null and void. 

However, given the weakness of the case, the judge is to blame, always.  Whenever the law is bad, it is the judge's job to set aside the law and rule in the moral way.

The judge here has committed a profound crime-- has betrayed any oath or claim of fealty to justice. 

The only possible service to the people she's done here is to show that government justice is justice denied.

That the obama administration will go after people for the crime of being successful capitalists and government judges, no matter how weak the case, will let them get away with it.

She's shown that the "justice" system has been corrupted into a partisan persecution organization. 

She's shown that the US government is nothing more than a bunch of mafia-like thugs.

Sigh. Ignorance of history. Doomed to repeat it.

iPhone 5 64GB, iPhone 4S 16GB, mid-2011 iMac, Apple TV 2nd Gen, iPod Nano

Reply

iPhone 5 64GB, iPhone 4S 16GB, mid-2011 iMac, Apple TV 2nd Gen, iPod Nano

Reply
post #52 of 153
The judge said the pricing change to agency model was NOT the result of market forces, but a price fixing conspiracy by corporations.
Yeah, like Amazon dictating $9.99 pricing caps to publishers was the result of "market forces."

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #53 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by reroll View Post

Damn communist government!

 

It's actually more about forcing right-wing market ideology which would be the opposite of communism.  

 

What Amazon does is immoral, underhanded etc. but actually conforms closely to right-wing so-called "free market" ideology.  What the publishers traditionally do is what's called the Agency model (Apple was trying to help them re-instate this model), which is technically "price setting through collusion," and somewhat in opposition to the right-wing free-market stuff.  This is because it's a mode of selling and an approach to the market that evolved long before the rise of right-wing ideological politics in America.  

 

The first is bad for the consumer, the writers, and the publishers but conformant to the ideology, the second is very good for the consumer, the writers and the publishers but does not conform to the ideology.  In other words it's a government body enforcing capitalist ideology, not communist. 

 

One may ask why a government body is enforcing *any* ideology and why they wouldn't just go with the law and the facts (even though the law is somewhat tainted by the same ideology) but there it is.  

post #54 of 153

The funny thing about all of this... Apple has the ability (money) to undercut pricing that Amazon couldn't match and take a large chunk of their market share from them... but I bet Apple would've been sued by the DOJ for anti-trust there too. LOL

 

 

There are supposed to be laws that protect competition in the market place... A company is not allowed to undercut pricing to the point that other competitors cannot sustain a business... And yet this is exactly what Amazon has been doing.

 

I understand there are also laws to protect consumers from being forced to overpay for a certain type of product, this is why we have collusion laws, but book prices DID NOT GO UP after Apple entered the market, they went back to their NORMAL prices before Amazon ransacked the market.

 

The fact that this judge is too short-sighted to see that is just ignorant.

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 #55 of 153
Absurd! The government is punishing Apple for its pricing of ebooks. This is a little too controlling of them...
post #56 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post


Please take your radical views elsewhere.

 

Not radical.  I watched the entire Clarence Thomas trial day by day, and that too was a "slam dunk" on the facts that the man was guilty as charged.  Now he's on the Supreme court and no one even remembers what he did. 

post #57 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by themouse View Post

I'm the biggest Apple fanboy there is. I had an Apple II in the 80's and the first Macintosh II. I own stock and every single iThing. When e-books started appearing on Amazon, I bought them to read on the Kindle app on the iPad. Since it was no physical item, the prices were amazing compared to the real book. Then Apple added books to it's online store. Then the Amazon prices went up! I'm just saying.

You do realize that Amazon was selling its ebooks well below its cost, in order to gain a monopoly in the ebook market?  So the prices were bound to go up eventually, when all competition was destroyed.


Edited by NormM - 7/10/13 at 7:50am
post #58 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL View Post

The judge warned Apple that it was in their best interests to settle before the trial. I have little sympathy for a company that ignores advice like this.

 

There also seems to be a lot of people in this thread who don't understand that judges often given guidance before cases. It's a sensible way to get sides to settle out of court and save both everyone money.

 

Okay - so if the Judge tells you that he or she has already decided that you are guilty before the trial has even begun that means you should just fold and not exercise your rights to plead your case? 

 

Sounds a lot like Guido telling you that it would be in your best interest to pay your protection money so that nothing "bad" were to happen to you or your business. 

post #59 of 153
Apple will file an appeal by the end of the day, citing if nothing else that pre trial comments by the judge showed that she had already come to a decision against them before seeing any evidence etc.

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #60 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessi View Post

 

Whenever the law is bad, it is the judge's job to set aside the law and rule in the moral way.

 

This is exactly what judges are NOT supposed to do! The only way a judge should set aside a law is if it is inconflict with another law (ie, if they deem it to be unconstitutional). If the law is wrong it needs to be changed by the legislative branch of goverment. Having a bunch of loose cannons in the judicial branch making up their own rules can, and has, led to instances of a single person (often someone not even elected to their position) usurping the will of the people.

Do they not teach basic civics in school anymore these days?
post #61 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

The judge said the pricing change to agency model was NOT the result of market forces, but a price fixing conspiracy by corporations.
Yeah, like Amazon dictating $9.99 pricing caps to publishers was the result of "market forces."

Someone should file a suit over that, including the MFN and the exclusive restrictions. For books and video. Amazon, Netflix etc should not be able to restrict streaming video to their service alone. It's not in the market or consumers best interest. Same with books.

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #62 of 153
@rogifan LIsa Jackson has worked in the field of environmental protection. Totally unrelated to the issue at hand and thus a somewhat bizarre comment.

It's hard for me to understand the logic of Judge Cole but the law is complicated and I dare say nobody who comments at AppleInsider knows much about the technical aspects of the law that led to this counterintuitive decision. Clearly Jeff Bezos is laughing his head off on his private jet on his way to a weekend retreat somewhere that few of us can afford to visit. And the BusinessInsider types must be checking their thesauri and brainstorming appropriate snark as I type. The Verge will of course have their smug comments to make no doubt too.
post #63 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessi View Post

 

Apple's case is a slam dunk.  The purpose of judges is to prevent a miscarriage of justice, even in the case of a jury trial. 

 

This "judge" is corrupt.  Thus a jury trial wouldn't have made a difference.  (Juries are more gullible and easier to fall for the government case than a judge is.)

 

Basically, the court was stacked against Apple from the beginning.... as every court in america is stacked against the defendant from the beginning.   The government controls the judge, the prosecutor, the evidence, and even the defendant's lawyer is restricted from defending his client in many cases and ways simply because the government controls whether he can appear in court or not. 

 

Having recent sat on a jury in a case where the the government was the plaintiff, I can state with certainty that your claim that every court is stacked against the defendant and your suggestion that some mysterious government entitiy controls all apsects of the trial is absolutely false.
post #64 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

All I can say is this judge knows nothing about the book industry.  The Agency model has been king forever, and the way the book industry works is that prices have *always* been set artificially by collusion among publishers.  

 

Anyone who has ever owned a bookstore can tell you this.  You are told what the prices are, what the discounts are and how high or low you can sell them.  It's almost always been this way and the so-called "free market" rules don't apply and never have.  

 

So two wrongs make a right?

I'm not saying Apple is guilty, but your argument ("because that's the way we've always done it") certainly isn't a legitimate defense. If it was, the mafia and drug lords would love it..."sure I killed him, but that's they way we've always done business so why are you prosecuting me now?"
post #65 of 153
Perhaps this is the outcome Apple wanted. Like Amazon, Apple can now set prices. So set them at a buck a book. Add ten bucks to the cost of an iPad to cover the dif. Result: Amazon takes it in the neck cus' it promised Wall Street it would make money on books.
post #66 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

 

It's actually more about forcing right-wing market ideology which would be the opposite of communism.  

 

What Amazon does is immoral, underhanded etc. but actually conforms closely to right-wing so-called "free market" ideology.  What the publishers traditionally do is what's called the Agency model (Apple was trying to help them re-instate this model), which is technically "price setting through collusion," and somewhat in opposition to the right-wing free-market stuff.  This is because it's a mode of selling and an approach to the market that evolved long before the rise of right-wing ideological politics in America.  

 

The first is bad for the consumer, the writers, and the publishers but conformant to the ideology, the second is very good for the consumer, the writers and the publishers but does not conform to the ideology.  In other words it's a government body enforcing capitalist ideology, not communist. 

 

One may ask why a government body is enforcing *any* ideology and why they wouldn't just go with the law and the facts (even though the law is somewhat tainted by the same ideology) but there it is.  

 

I was being ironic. I'm an ironist.

post #67 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stef View Post

Perhaps this is the outcome Apple wanted. Like Amazon, Apple can now set prices. So set them at a buck a book. Add ten bucks to the cost of an iPad to cover the dif. Result: Amazon takes it in the neck cus' it promised Wall Street it would make money on books.

Maybe if Apple undercuts Amazon, Amazon will cry to the judge to make it stop. It's unfair to sell at a greater loss.
post #68 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by agramonte View Post

 

where exactly you think they would go? Seeing how the EU also sued them (and Apple settled) they would have been in the same situation - unless they went to what ,China?

I don't mean physically move the country but shift the remaining IP that is held in CA to some place like IDK Ireland.  they are already chastised for have some of their IP there.  Why not have it all there?  we have the highest corporate tax rate in the word so anywhere else in the world would be an improvement.  plus it might be a bit of a wake up call to congress if 1/40th of their corporate tax revenue moves out of town.  

post #69 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL View Post

The judge warned Apple that it was in their best interests to settle before the trial. I have little sympathy for a company that ignores advice like this.

There also seems to be a lot of people in this thread who don't understand that judges often given guidance before cases. It's a sensible way to get sides to settle out of court and save both everyone money.

Judges are allowed to give guidance. They are not allowed to prejudge the case - as this judge did.

Apple really had nothing to lose in this trial. If they won, the problem was over. If they lost, the judge gave them clear grounds for appeal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonteponte View Post

Amazon celebrates their newly government approved and protected monopoly by.....wait for it.....raising prices!

http://www.mhpbooks.com/monopoly-acheived-an-invincible-amazon-begins-raising-prices/

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/05/business/as-competition-wanes-amazon-cuts-back-its-discounts.html?pagewanted=2&ref=technology&_r=0

But of course, it's all in the interest of the consumer. Obviously.

Amazon stockholders can pop the champagne though. Profits are finally coming their way!

It was obvious that would happen - in spite of all the shills here who insisted that Amazon would never do such a thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

The judge said the pricing change to agency model was NOT the result of market forces, but a price fixing conspiracy by corporations.
Yeah, like Amazon dictating $9.99 pricing caps to publishers was the result of "market forces."

That didn't happen, either. Amazon didn't dictate $9.99 pricing caps. Rather, they sold the books at $9.99 and paid the correct price to the publisher - eating a loss on many books in order to gain market share.

Please stick to the facts.
"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 #70 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by reroll View Post

 

I was being ironic. I'm an ironist.

 

Yeah, i realised that after I posted but what I said was such a cool summing up of the whole situation I left it alone.  

post #71 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin View Post

 

So two wrongs make a right?

I'm not saying Apple is guilty, but your argument ("because that's the way we've always done it") certainly isn't a legitimate defense. If it was, the mafia and drug lords would love it..."sure I killed him, but that's they way we've always done business so why are you prosecuting me now?"

 

I would argue that the Agency model is actually "right" though or at least much more right than the Amazon capitalist anal-raping model.  

 

What would be better than both, is a model that puts the actual creator/author in charge but that's way to radical for most folks.  The people that actually create things (writers, artist, etc.) are basically persona non grata in our society, especially in modern capitalist economies that favour the businesses (basically the distributors, and sellers of the creators works) over the creators themselves, who get "chump change" most of the time for their efforts.  

 

Apple's iBooks and App stores are close to a model where the creator is in charge, (at least theoretically) but even so, they favour the distributors and larger companies much more than individuals.  

 

Also, copyright law needs to be seriously reformed before the creators to actually be put back in the drivers seat on their own creations and that isn't likely to happen for many years.  Currently, even hipsters believe that copyright protections are something that need to be eliminated not strengthened and despite their counter-culture stance on everything else, are constantly whining on about how everything should just be "free to copy by everyone" which is ironically a right-wing argument that posits that the act of creation itself is of no value.  The fact that large corporations are in control of the political and legal process to a large degree in most Western economies also argues against any real reform of copyright laws or any protections for the people that actually create all the cool stuff you see in society.  

 

I think it's slowly changing and within a hundred years or so it will happen, but not anytime soon.  

post #72 of 153

Evil Apple and its understanding of basic economics...

 

The publishers were upset because Amazon forced prices low.  Publishers believed they should sell their books for more.  I don't get how the court can say that prices didn't follow market forces.  The absolutely did, but they just went up instead of down.

 

Amazon wasn't allowing the market to work.  It was price fixing.  Publishers had to play along with Amazon's rules until an alternative came along.  Apple's solution was actually more free-market than Amazon's fixed price, but the result was a price increase instead of a decrease. Apple allowed the publishers to set the price and the result was higher priced e-books that sold well.  This all sounds like economics 101 to me.  Amazon fixed the price artificially low (and even took a loss) and Apple allowed it to go up.  

 

The problem here is the lack of understanding of how economies work.  There is not always evil at work when the price of something goes up.  Sometimes it is basic supply and demand.  Publishers want to maximize revenue, so even if they sell fewer e-books, they have more money coming in.  That's the sweet spot.

 

I am not sure what Amazon was after with the fixed price, but it certainly wasn't in the publisher's best interests.  

 

Someone getting a master's degree in economics should do a thesis on this case because it is very fascinating.


Edited by rednival - 7/10/13 at 9:37am
post #73 of 153
The judge found that Apple violated the fair price law by allowing publishers to set their own prices. Who is John Galt?
post #74 of 153

I feel like throwing up. This is absolutely disgusting, and a disgrace. Just complete contempt of the actual evidence of the situation. Every single ridiculous argument the DOJ made was torn apart with actual facts. Judgements like this make me lose all faith in the "justice" system. Vomit-inducing. 

post #75 of 153
I don't get it.
Apple offered book publishers the option to use the agency model for selling their books, a model that is totally legal and used in other areas.
Amazon and other companies that don't use the agency model didn't HAVE to change, they were not forced. However, the prices for ebooks have gone up so why are they not investigating the price hike by Amazon?
post #76 of 153
FWIW I was wrong about Apple probably winning this. I really didn't think Apple would be found guilty. I guess there must be evidence that we never saw in published articles here, or there's some subtleties that make sense only to lawyers and judges.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #77 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post

I feel like throwing up. This is absolutely disgusting, and a disgrace. Just complete contempt of the actual evidence of the situation. Every single ridiculous argument the DOJ made was torn apart with actual facts. Judgements like this make me lose all faith in the "justice" system. Vomit-inducing. 

It is politics, plain and simple. The judge couldn't rule for Apple, as that would make the government lawyers be shown for the incompetents they really are. As she is employed by the government it would be career suicide for her to give the Justice Detpartment such an embarrassing black eye, thus the verdict. The government wanted to flex its muscles and deliver a message that going against them is futile. Any appeals Apple goes through would be just as futile. The Constitution is more like a work of fiction to politicians; a great read, but not reality. Should have contributed more to campaigns and Apple would not be in this mess.
post #78 of 153
The knee jerk reactions here remind me of a group of 15 year olds knowing all the answers. Just deal with it. Apple has teams of professionals that do so.
post #79 of 153

It's such a shame that many Conservatives side with a foreign company wrapping itself in the American flag.

Apple is American in name only. Hell, Samsung does more for the US economy than Apple.

post #80 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

The judge said the pricing change to agency model was NOT the result of market forces, but a price fixing conspiracy by corporations.
Yeah, like Amazon dictating $9.99 pricing caps to publishers was the result of "market forces."

So what was it when Apple dictating $9.99 album prices to the music industry?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › US court finds Apple guilty of conspiring to raise e-book prices