or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple dismisses DOJ's proposed e-book penalties as 'a draconian and punitive intrusion'
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple dismisses DOJ's proposed e-book penalties as 'a draconian and punitive intrusion' - Page 2

post #41 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

 

Ha! Apple is appealing the ruling on that trial, as is their legal right and their responsibility to Apple's shareholders.

 

 

Of course they are.  So what?  Still got found guilty first time round.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #42 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post

Of course they are.  So what?  Still got found guilty first time round.

I'm going to assume you're not just stupid and don't know what an appeal is.

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #43 of 121

Quote:
Originally Posted by malax View Post

"vague new compliance regime" is accurate and measured.

 

Of a first proposal.  The details get sweated later, so this is a pretty weak criticism.

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by malax View Post

"applicable only to Apple" is true.

 

I'm sorry, what court case found anyone else guilty of conspiracy to price fix?

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by malax View Post

"intrusive oversight" is accurate.

 

Subjective.  And even so, not necessarily a bad thing.  Apple made it's own bed here.

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by malax View Post

etc. etc.

 

Alright.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #44 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


I'm going to assume you're not just stupid and don't know what an appeal is.

Does it involve going back in time and erasing from history the guilty verdict, thereby removing the need for current discussions with the DoJ over recompense?

 

If it does, then fine I don't know what an appeal is.  If it's anything else, I have no idea what point you're trying to make.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #45 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtomac1997 View Post

I have read so many articles on this case and I still don't get it.  Can someone explain to me in plain English what Apple did wrong in the eyes of the DOJ?

Maybe this will help.

http://tidbits.com/article/13912
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #46 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

I won't be surprised if some of the DOJ lawyers resign when this is over to work for Amazon.

 

The POTUS is holding a big victory party Tuesday in Chattanooga.

  Google Maps: ("Directions may be inaccurate, incomplete, dangerous, or prohibited.")

 

  MA497LL/A FB463LL/A MC572LL/A FC060LL/A MD481LL/A MD388LL/A ME344LL/A

Reply

  Google Maps: ("Directions may be inaccurate, incomplete, dangerous, or prohibited.")

 

  MA497LL/A FB463LL/A MC572LL/A FC060LL/A MD481LL/A MD388LL/A ME344LL/A

Reply
post #47 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

 

Ha! Apple is appealing the ruling on that trial, as is their legal right and their responsibility to Apple's shareholders.

Yes, and all 5 of the book publishers have settled.

Apple has a long case which they are most likely to lose.


The average price of ebooks rose by 19% 
 

 

That’s one of the counterintuitive aspects of this situation. Yes, customers paid more — as noted, prices rose nearly 19 percent per book overall after the agency model went into effect.

...

Initially the U.S. Department of Justice filed this lawsuit against Apple and five of the Big Six publishers (Random House didn’t agree to the initial iBookstore contracts). Over time, though, all five publishers settled with the Department of Justice,

I would say that he appeal matters, but the evidence is pretty overwhelming:

 

A recent government filing revealed an old email (dated in 2010) from Jobs to James Murdoch of News Corporation, which said "Throw in with Apple and see if we can all make a go of this to create a real mainstream e-books market at $12.99 and $14.99.”

...


In addition to the email, there are statements from publishers saying that Apple bullied them into the e-books price-fixing situation. For instance, Jobs told Random House CEO Markus Dohle that his company would lose support from Apple if it didn't make a quick decision about joining back in 2010. Furthermore, Apple threatened to block an e-book application by Random House from Apple’s App Store if the publisher didn't agree to a deal with Apple.

The government filing also mentions that Penguin CEO David Shanks said Apple was the facilitator between publishers when making the agreement.

I don't know how you can sanely support Apple in this case.

-QAMF

Active on S}A forums.  S|A student level subscriber.  Don't claim to know what is in the articles.

Reply

Active on S}A forums.  S|A student level subscriber.  Don't claim to know what is in the articles.

Reply
post #48 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by QAMF View Post

I would say that he appeal matters, but the evidence is pretty overwhelming:

That appears to be the first true thing you've ever said in this forum.

The judge announced that she believed Apple was guilty before the case even started. Overwhelming, indeed.
"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 #49 of 121
It seems anyone that gets too powerful will abuse their power. The DOJ is definitely abusing their power here. It shows that the Obama regime is beyond corrupt as his DOJ is out of control. All the posters here like Crowley who defend this tyranny are nothing much stooges who are intellectually dishonest. This DOJ is so corrupt it's sickening and any loser who defends their actions have no intellectual honesty.
post #50 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post

I can take it.

It's fair to say that my post wasn't on Apple's side.  That doesn't mean it isn't measured though, and it's not an argument against anyone on this forum.

Not really sure what your point is, beyond a lot of quotations.

Well, I was about to advise you to quit while you're ahead, but that wouldn't be very accurate... Go get some fresh air my friend. Your opinions have been noted but nobody here seems to agree with you. I'm certain your time can be better spent.
post #51 of 121
QMAF - you side with the findings of a corrupt government. You, just like this corrupt judge, already made up your mind before this started. You cherry pick certain parts of the case just to bolster your argument but it just shows that you are a biased troll. The judge is corrupt and a statist and you are probably a fanboy for a competitor and have no intellectual honesty in your arguments.
post #52 of 121
Many say that this was the smoking gun.

"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #53 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheUnfetteredMind View Post

That was my interpretation as well, but I'm also not sure ... 1confused.gif

They can't enter into "anti-competitive" contracts, they're free to enter into contracts that aren't "anti-competitive".

 

Which is why a lot of the "BANNING" headlines are simply wrong.

post #54 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by vjbhatia77 View Post

QMAF - you side with the findings of a corrupt government. You, just like this corrupt judge, already made up your mind before this started. You cherry pick certain parts of the case just to bolster your argument but it just shows that you are a biased troll. The judge is corrupt and a statist and you are probably a fanboy for a competitor and have no intellectual honesty in your arguments.

1. Did ebook pricing rise, or fall after Apple got its way?

That is the only question I need answered to decide my point of view.

Apple got its agency model with the large companies, Amazon and Google "folded" before the forced agency model.  Prices rose after that.  Apple was the company that pushed for Agency pricing.  Therefore, Apple is directly responsible for the price in the rise of ebooks.  Having read all of the link (http://tidbits.com/article/13912) I don't see how the agency model helped anyone besides Apple.


And lol, the only company I have occasional fits of fanboyism for is Lenovo's Thinkpad line, well, and WotC, but I don't think Apple is competing with WotC, and most people who buy Thinkpad's have been doing so since IBM made them (why did you have to sell it IBM :S).

-QAMF

 

Active on S}A forums.  S|A student level subscriber.  Don't claim to know what is in the articles.

Reply

Active on S}A forums.  S|A student level subscriber.  Don't claim to know what is in the articles.

Reply
post #55 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


That appears to be the first true thing you've ever said in this forum.

The judge announced that she believed Apple was guilty before the case even started. Overwhelming, indeed.

Agency model occurred because Apple pushed for it.  ebook prices proceeded to rise 19%. (http://tidbits.com/article/13912)


And the judge had done the case for 5 of the 6 major booksellers, in which 5 of them settled.  A lot of the evidence in the Apple trial had already been presented and talked about.  I would have gone for a different judge if I could choose, it would shut a lot of people up.


-QAMF

Active on S}A forums.  S|A student level subscriber.  Don't claim to know what is in the articles.

Reply

Active on S}A forums.  S|A student level subscriber.  Don't claim to know what is in the articles.

Reply
post #56 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by vjbhatia77 View Post

It seems anyone that gets too powerful will abuse their power. The DOJ is definitely abusing their power here. It shows that the Obama regime is beyond corrupt as his DOJ is out of control. All the posters here like Crowley who defend this tyranny are nothing much stooges who are intellectually dishonest. This DOJ is so corrupt it's sickening and any loser who defends their actions have no intellectual honesty.
Excuse me? Where did I "defend" or even comment on the DOJ? I've only been talking about Apple.

I think you can look a little closer to home for intellectual dishonesty.



P.S. "tyranny" :-D you nut balls crack me up every time.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #57 of 121

I think there is a bigger agenda going on than what is being said.  We, whether an individual or company, can say what type of business arrangement we want when do business with other business.  It's common, at  least in our business, that we get specific pricing in order for us to "do business".  Not all businesses agree to our terms, and that's fine -  it needs to be mutually beneficial for all.  Apple, as does any business, has the right to dictate what it needs in order to enter an agreement. The publishers have the right to agree with this, or not.  I don't think the issue is really about these book deals.  

 

There have been a number of recent government actions against Apple, and continual pressure for Apple to pay more taxes, build more in the US, etc. This DOJ action, and the ITC suggested ban on some iDevices is just another level of coercion to get Apple to comply.  I think it's pretty simple - the interrogation of Apple Execs by congress, last spring, didn't go well, so use whatever means (ITC and DOJ) available.

 

My suggestion is to write our representatives and tell them to "knock it off".  Apple isn't perfect, but they are one of the best companies in the US and it's not in any of our interests to "stand by" while our government does the old fashioned "shakedown".  They may get a few coins to fall out from their proverbial pockets, but the potential for damage to the company is significant.

post #58 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by QAMF View Post

1. Did ebook pricing rise, or fall after Apple got its way?


That is the only question I need answered to decide my point of view.

Actually both, some went up while others went down. So how is that possible? Simple, while Amazon was taking a loss on some books it was making a more than healthy profit on others.
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #59 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by QAMF View Post

Agency model occurred because Apple pushed for it.  ebook prices proceeded to rise 19%. (http://tidbits.com/article/13912
)



And the judge had done the case for 5 of the 6 major booksellers, in which 5 of them settled.  A lot of the evidence in the Apple trial had already been presented and talked about.  I would have gone for a different judge if I could choose, it would shut a lot of people up.


-QAMF

The fact that the book publishers settled has no bearing on Apple's guilt. There was no real evidence presented that proved Apple conspired to set prices. They simply set up a mechanism that allowed the publishers to set their own prices.

Your entire post demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the law. You can't use evidence in one case to convict an entirely different party in another case. Apple has the right to defend themselves and her statement that they were guilty before hearing their defense is clearly a violation of due process.
"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 #60 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


Actually both, some went up while others went down. So how is that possible? Simple, while Amazon was taking a loss on some books it was making a more than healthy profit on others.

The average price of ebooks rose 19%.

http://tidbits.com/article/13912

-QAMF

Active on S}A forums.  S|A student level subscriber.  Don't claim to know what is in the articles.

Reply

Active on S}A forums.  S|A student level subscriber.  Don't claim to know what is in the articles.

Reply
post #61 of 121
I am the last one to trash the government. However, this case was a ridiculous waste of taxpayer resources from the beginning. That ridiculousness has now been compounded by what appears to be the DOJ's attempt to gut Apple and its profit stream, in favor of Amazon. While Amazon acts like to 1000 lb gorilla destroying brick & mortar businesses, the DOJ turns a blind eye to such activity.
post #62 of 121
Only 5 hours to veto the iphone 4 and ipad 2 ban. If this becomes effective I think Apple should drop the 4s price to the iphone 4 price. We are just a month away from this to happen anyway.
post #63 of 121
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #64 of 121
The trial was a sham and the judgement was shameful... and shows the judge was acting purely politically, not according to the law of the land.

Of course when government runs the courts you can't get justice in a case against the government.
post #65 of 121

Obama's dogs need to be called off!

 

Because of this, I will never buy anything from Amazon again.

post #66 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by QAMF View Post

1. Did ebook pricing rise, or fall after Apple got its way?


That is the only question I need answered to decide my point of view.

Great. Fundamentalism. Exactly what we need for fair and balanced judgement.

Never mind the fact that Amazon was dumping its product in order to establish a monopoly. Never mind the fact that they had already driven Borders out of business and that Barns and Noble is struggling. Lets ignore the fact that the publishers were losing money on their contract with Amazon, that they were looking for a way out, and that they refused to release the most popular books digitally because Amazon would destroy hardback sales.
post #67 of 121
This is our government. Worrying about stinken Ebooks, rather than trying to protect us. They stink. An unfair punishment. The whole United States government is corrupted like this. Apple has done nothing but good for how many years? This is how we repay them? Apple should just leave America, or not sale to any state that doesn't support them. I'm supporting Apple all the way. You stink Department Of Justice (injustice, more like it).
post #68 of 121

best seller price.  Not overall price.  iQQ because iDon't know what else to do

Quote:
Originally Posted by iaeen View Post


Great. Fundamentalism. Exactly what we need for fair and balanced judgement.

Never mind the fact that Amazon was dumping its product in order to establish a monopoly. Never mind the fact that they had already driven Borders out of business and that Barns and Noble is struggling. Lets ignore the fact that the publishers were losing money on their contract with Amazon, that they were looking for a way out, and that they refused to release the most popular books digitally because Amazon would destroy hardback sales.

Amazon is a different case.  Go QQ more.

I explained how Apple caused the rise in ebook pricing earlier.  And this happened because Apple got its way.  

As a note, the deal was a good biz deal for Apple, publishers were making less money per book, consumers were paying more per book, consumers were buying less books, Apple was making more money it would have otherwise made.

-QAMF

Active on S}A forums.  S|A student level subscriber.  Don't claim to know what is in the articles.

Reply

Active on S}A forums.  S|A student level subscriber.  Don't claim to know what is in the articles.

Reply
post #69 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtomac1997 View Post

I have read so many articles on this case and I still don't get it.  Can someone explain to me in plain English what Apple did wrong in the eyes of the DOJ?

 

They used their insane clout (and genius) to put together a scheme whereby they would enter a new market and raise prices in that market by 30% literally overnight.

They entered the book market.  Prices rose by 30%.

 

Books might be harder to grasp because people don't generally worry too much about $3- especially rich Apple people.

 

 

So.....

Picture you were eyeing a Ford you really like.   It was priced at $42,000 for the last few years.  You save, you go to your dealer, and you go to buy the car.  He tells you he's selling it for $55,000 now. 

Y:  Wait, what?  Just 3 days ago it was selling for $42,000.

D:  Yes, but Apple entered the market with iCars, and they demanded 30% of the profits, so in order to make the same money we had to raise prices by 30%.

Y:  I don't care if Apple users want to pay $55,000 for a $42,000 car.  I'm buying it from *you*, not through iCars

D:  Well, yes, but Apple made us sign a clause that if we offer it at a lower price anywhere else, we have to offer it to them at the same price

Y:  Hmmm that actually sounds fair on paper.

D:  Yes, but they would still get 30%. 

Y:  You're joking?!

D:  Nope.  If we sold it to you for $42000 we'd have to let Apple sell if for $42000 too, and since they would take 30% of that we'd be losing our shirts, not going to happen.

Y:  Wow.  That's the dumbest deal I've ever heard.  Thanks a lot for your time, but no thanks, I'm going across the street and buying the Chevy I liked almost as much for $42,000.  You guys are idiots if you think you can sell a $42000 car for $55,000

D:  Yeah. Ummm.  Good luck with that.

Y:  What do you mean?

D:  Their prices all jumped by 30% too.

Y:  What??!!!!!

D:  Check it out, Volkswagen, Mercedes, Jeep, GM, Honda, Toyota.  Yep, all signed up to the Apple deal.

Y:  You're kidding?

D:  Do you think we're stupid?  If we raised our prices from $42,000 to $55,000 overnight and no one else did LOL!  We wouldn't sell any cars!  By working with Apple they assured us that all the other major manufacturers were all on board at the same time too.  Its win/win!

Y:  Win/win????  I'm getting ripped off!

D:  Well its win/win.  We win by charging 30% more from sales *NOT* through Apple (we don't actually make more money selling on Apple itself).  And Apple wins!  Big!  That's two of us.... Win/win!

Y: And I'm........

D:  Yep.  The loser.  You pay 30% more for cars now.  Sorry.   Steve Jobs said it best, "Apple makes more money, dealers make more money, and the consumers pay a whole lot more- but that's what we all want"      Where *we* is everyone but you.

Apple Fan:  OMG Apple is saving the car industry!  By making us pay more Apple is making more money because they are just pure magic and that's good and now that the car makers can charge so much more it ensures they can stay in business and have more money to make us better cars and that is good too!

 

Apple entered the book market with iBooks and prices everywhere jumped by 30%  Overnight.

 

The baffling part to me is how many Apple users avidly defend them.   It would be curious to see if they still defended the scheme as avidly if after iBooks (had they gotten away with it) they did move on to iCars and car prices shot up 30% overnight using the same logic they used with books.

 

Apple makes great products- terrific ones even.   Their corporate behavior is among the sleeziest on the planet.  But they are friggin smooth.

 

Apple actually could have probably gotten away with it if they were smoother about it, but I guess all the money and power goes to the head... Both Eddy Cue, the book publishers, and Steve himself made some pretty big gaffes which when put together showed they all knew exactly what they were doing...

 

The Steve comment about consumers paying more.  Steve telling publishers to set their prices to $12.99 but he wasn't telling them to set it, they were setting it 'on their own' but "if you sell it for more, we're not in, and if you sell it for less you're going to lose money"  Probably the biggest gaffe was Steve when interviewed was asked the same question as the example above:  "How do you expect to sell books on iBooks for $12.99 when your competions prices are lower?"  Steves response was "They won't be"    How dumb was that!!!!!   Actually, that was exactly what one of the publishers fired off in an email in response to that saying something along the lines of 'we're going to get caught'  and on another gaffed email someone actual wrote back 'everyone make sure you double delete this email'    Things like that just painted a picture even Apple couldn't wriggle out of.


Edited by Frood - 8/2/13 at 5:00pm
post #70 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frood View Post

So.....

Picture you were eyeing a Ford you really like.

 

lol.gif  Do you often hold complete strawman conversations like this with yourself?

  Google Maps: ("Directions may be inaccurate, incomplete, dangerous, or prohibited.")

 

  MA497LL/A FB463LL/A MC572LL/A FC060LL/A MD481LL/A MD388LL/A ME344LL/A

Reply

  Google Maps: ("Directions may be inaccurate, incomplete, dangerous, or prohibited.")

 

  MA497LL/A FB463LL/A MC572LL/A FC060LL/A MD481LL/A MD388LL/A ME344LL/A

Reply
post #71 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Many say that this was the smoking gun.

 

How is it a smoking gun? Steve Jobs shmoozing with Walt Mossberg isn't sworn testimony.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #72 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post

 

Still got found guilty first time round.

So what?

 

Assuming (perhaps I am being kind here) you understand the basics of how the legal system works out here...

post #73 of 121
In other words, "waaaaaahh!! Waaaaaaahhhh!! *sniffle* Waaaaaaaaaaahh!!!!"
post #74 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post
I have no idea what point you're trying to make.

You've made that clear a few times now.

 

You can stop at "I have no idea."

post #75 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


The fact that the book publishers settled has no bearing on Apple's guilt. 

Moreover, if I am recalling right, it was brought out in trial that that DoJ's monetary damage threats to the publishers were so onerous, that some of them feared having to file for Chapter 11 in the event the judgment went against them.

 

That sounds like a fairly thuggish -- and scary -- threat for an industry that is barely hanging by a thread, financially speaking.

post #76 of 121

Please don't confuse QAMF with the facts. His head will explode and someone will have to clean up the mess.

Yes, it's true that there was an instantaneous increase in price when the new agreements were put into place. Breaking a monopoly which is dumping product at below cost to put competitors out of business does have consequences. But after Apple was established in the market, there was true competition for the first time - and the price fell.
"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 #77 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

How is it a smoking gun? Steve Jobs shmoozing with Walt Mossberg isn't sworn testimony.

Saying "the price will be the same" wasn't the smartest thing to schmooze about.
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #78 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Many say that this was the smoking gun.


That's cool, so let's ask Jobs what he thought/meant. Oh, he's gone. So was this under oath? Oh, no.
Quote:
Originally Posted by QAMF View Post

1. Did ebook pricing rise, or fall after Apple got its way?


That is the only question I need answered to decide my point of view.


Apple got its agency model with the large companies, Amazon and Google "folded" before the forced agency model.  Prices rose after that.  Apple was the company that pushed for Agency pricing.  Therefore, Apple is directly responsible for the price in the rise of ebooks.  Having read all of the link (http://tidbits.com/article/13912
) I don't see how the agency model helped anyone besides Apple.

Look at the number if competitors prior to Apple entering the market. Look at the number of competitors after Apple.
post #79 of 121
The anti-Apple losers on this thread sicken me along with our so called Government. Crowley and QAMF are the worst kind of posters. They have already made up their so called minds and they lie to themselves and spew nonsense. They look for arguments in support of their opinions of what they think the outcome should be instead of following the law.They like it when an out of control DOJ punishes successful, profitable businesses in favor of their political donors. It only makes sense that corrupted minds support the rulings of a corrupt Government.
post #80 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by QAMF View Post

The average price of ebooks rose 19%.

http://tidbits.com/article/13912


-QAMF

So? You don't understand the case.

The issue wasn't that the price rose, but that Apple was accused of colluding with all the publishers together, and the result was a price increase. It was the combo platter, not either or.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple dismisses DOJ's proposed e-book penalties as 'a draconian and punitive intrusion'