or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Apple appeals verdict, punishment in e-book antitrust case
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple appeals verdict, punishment in e-book antitrust case - Page 2

post #41 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

 

Guess you missed the part where it’s Apple’s store, hosted on Apple’s servers, and available for Apple’s devices.

 

That's a load of horse hockey.

 

I just purchased some content for about $800. (Electronic books, but not from Amazon.) The company I purchased from hosts the content on their own servers, has their own credit card processing, has their own web site for locating and informing about the content. Where is Apple doing anything there to make it worth an additional $240 over what I paid?

 

Oh, as for "Apple's devices", I already paid for those.

post #42 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by EWTHeckman View Post

That's a load of horse hockey.

I just purchased some content for about $800. (Electronic books, but not from Amazon.) The company I purchased from hosts the content on their own servers, has their own credit card processing, has their own web site for locating and informing about the content. Where is Apple doing anything there to make it worth an additional $240 over what I paid?

Oh, as for "Apple's devices", I already paid for those.

So you know what pct this e-book vendor takes? Does this e-book vendor store free books as Apple does free apps/books? Are they expected to be open 24/365? How many downloads or transactions do they process in a year? How many countries are they available in?
post #43 of 82
Hopefully Apple can hold out until we can get a non-fascist president elected.

To the people saying Apple should give up, or pretending like Apple is guilty-- you are the reason the country is going to hell in a hand basket. Your lack of morality & honesty is shameful.
post #44 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post


So you know what pct this e-book vendor takes? Does this e-book vendor store free books as Apple does free apps/books? Are they expected to be open 24/365? How many downloads or transactions do they process in a year? How many countries are they available in?

 

What does that have to do with anything? I should pay Apple an extra $240 just so Apple can stay open even though Apple did not add any value to that transaction? Get real!

 

I have no problem with Apple receiving 30% when they actually add value to a transaction. Purchase an app via the store? Apple did the credit card processing, stored and served the app, and handles updates. They deserve a portion for providing those services. Purchase something via iTunes? Again, they deserve to be paid for handling the transaction.

 

But when they have no involvement in the transaction whatsoever, demanding an additional 30% for doing nothing (not even bandwidth) is theft. And it is theft from my pocket, and yours. I don't know about you, but I do not have kind words for thieves. (Apple's current "compromise" stops just short of theft, but just barely.)

 

Imagine if Google or Amazon tried to make the same kinds of demands for extra cash because you're using an Android or Kindle device. You would be screaming bloody murder (and I would agree with you). Such a double standard demonstrates bias.

 

I love Apple's products, and have for so long that I still bleed six colors. But that does not mean Apple has carte blanche to misbehave.

post #45 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by holmstockd View Post

Exactly - everyone proven guilty should pay and Samsung is just pathetic there - perhaps the worst!

 

That's your problem, you confuse a ruling by a government employee for "proof".

 

You have the facts wrong.

post #46 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by EWTHeckman View Post
But when they have no involvement in the transaction whatsoever, demanding an additional 30% for doing nothing (not even bandwidth) is theft.

 

Never happened.

post #47 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by EWTHeckman View Post

What does that have to do with anything? I should pay Apple an extra $240 just so Apple can stay open even though Apple did not add any value to that transaction? Get real!

I have no problem with Apple receiving 30% when they actually add value to a transaction. Purchase an app via the store? Apple did the credit card processing, stored and served the app, and handles updates. They deserve a portion for providing those services. Purchase something via iTunes? Again, they deserve to be paid for handling the transaction.

But when they have no involvement in the transaction whatsoever, demanding an additional 30% for doing nothing (not even bandwidth) is theft. And it is theft from my pocket, and yours. I don't know about you, but I do not have kind words for thieves. (Apple's current "compromise" stops just short of theft, but just barely.)

Imagine if Google or Amazon tried to make the same kinds of demands for extra cash because you're using an Android or Kindle device. You would be screaming bloody murder (and I would agree with you). Such a double standard demonstrates bias.

I love Apple's products, and have for so long that I still bleed six colors. But that does not mean Apple has carte blanche to misbehave.

I forget, where in the EULA states I'm forced to buy ebooks in my idevice?
post #48 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessi View Post

Never happened.

They tried.

Apple backs down on in-app purchasing rules, allows lower prices for out-of-app purchases
post #49 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by EWTHeckman View Post

What does that have to do with anything? I should pay Apple an extra $240 just so Apple can stay open even though Apple did not add any value to that transaction? Get real!

I have no problem with Apple receiving 30% when they actually add value to a transaction. Purchase an app via the store? Apple did the credit card processing, stored and served the app, and handles updates. They deserve a portion for providing those services. Purchase something via iTunes? Again, they deserve to be paid for handling the transaction.

But when they have no involvement in the transaction whatsoever, demanding an additional 30% for doing nothing (not even bandwidth) is theft. And it is theft from my pocket, and yours. I don't know about you, but I do not have kind words for thieves. (Apple's current "compromise" stops just short of theft, but just barely.)

Imagine if Google or Amazon tried to make the same kinds of demands for extra cash because you're using an Android or Kindle device. You would be screaming bloody murder (and I would agree with you). Such a double standard demonstrates bias.

I love Apple's products, and have for so long that I still bleed six colors. But that does not mean Apple has carte blanche to misbehave.

All property is theft, man and come the revolution the mans gonna pay, that's if we can stop smoking pot long enough to get off this couch, man.
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #50 of 82
Apple can be so unethical sometimes.
post #51 of 82
For once I agree with you, the truth should come out and the innocent book buyers that had book prices jump up overnight due to Apple's shenanigans shouldn't be punished and should get their money back!
[/quote]

Maybe you should add the below links to your reading literature

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/amazons-hit-man-01252012.html

http://booksprung.com/it-begins-publishers-starting-to-hike-prices-on-amazon-ebooks

http://www.techhive.com/article/228688/ebook.html
post #52 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by EWTHeckman View Post

What does that have to do with anything? I should pay Apple an extra $240 just so Apple can stay open even though Apple did not add any value to that transaction? Get real!

Perhaps you should get real.

You didn't pay Apple $240 (30% of $800 in purchases). You didn't pay Apple ANYTHING. You went to a site and decided that the price was good enough that you'd buy something - and you did so.

The VENDOR chose to pay Apple 30%. They felt that what Apple offered (access to the ecosystem, servers in some cases, management of the iTunes store, money collection, whatever) was worth 30% to them. That's their choice and they made it.

You don't get to dictate how your supplier spends their money. If you think the price is too high, don't buy it. Analogy: In my town, Krunchers potato chips are only available in one retail chain (call it Groceries Deluxe). My daughter likes Krunchers chips. Now, I could argue that I don't want to pay Groceries Deluxe for the chips and that their prices are too high because Discount Groceries sells most items for less (but doesn't have access to Krunchers). So I could scream and yell and say it's not fair that I have to pay Groceries Deluxe's extortionate fees. Or, I could be rational and say "there are 100 different potato chips I could buy. If I want Krunchers, I have to follow the procedures set up by the manufacturer. I don't like them, but they have rules. Or I could buy a different chip".

The developer you're dealing with reached a deal with Apple and they're happy paying 30% to Apple. The rest is none of your business. Either buy or don't buy, but stop the whining.
"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 #53 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Perhaps you should get real.

 

Perhaps you should pay attention.

 

Quote:
You didn't pay Apple $240 (30% of $800 in purchases). You didn't pay Apple ANYTHING. You went to a site and decided that the price was good enough that you'd buy something - and you did so.

 

That's right. I didn't pay Apple anything. Yes, I did pay the vendor.

 

Quote:
The VENDOR chose to pay Apple 30%. They felt that what Apple offered (access to the ecosystem, servers in some cases, management of the iTunes store, money collection, whatever) was worth 30% to them. That's their choice and they made it.

 

Wrong. Pay attention. They didn't pay Apple anything, either. They didn't use Apple's ecosystem in any way to sell that content. They didn't pay Apple anything, either. Nor should they, since they didn't use Apple's ecosystem. That is the POINT! Apple superfanboys think Apple should be able to take a cut even when they have nothing to do with the transaction other than the content being used on a device Apple has already been paid for. That is the bias.

 

Quote:
You don't get to dictate how your supplier spends their money.

 

Sure I do. Here's how:

 

Quote:
If you think the price is too high, don't buy it.

 

Oh wait, you said that. And you're right to say it. If a Vendor chooses to pay the 30% premium and another does not, the second vendor is able to sell that exact same content for less because their costs are lower. (Unlike your analogy, which has product available from only one source.) What Apple tried to do with app content was to force prices to be higher by 30% even when that content was sold without Apple involvement. In your analogy, that would be like Groceries Deluxe forcing Discount Groceries to raise prices so GD can compete. The ruling of the court is that Apple succeeded in doing exactly that with e-books.

 

Quote:
Either buy or don't buy, but stop the whining.

 

Why shouldn't I complain when someone artificially inflates prices everywhere (or tries to)?

post #54 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hydrogen View Post
 

 

 

Thank you, Marvin, but with this formulation the US reader will provably be confirmed in his view that France is a communist country !

 

The price is not fixed by law (or the government) ! It is fixed by the publisher, but is unique, this is what the law says.

 

The 1981 law has been recently reinforced in the sense that Amazon can no longer offer for free the delivery of "physical" books, which was Amazon tactic to circumvent the law.

 

The US reader also has to know that one of the reasons why Amazon could do this is that it supported in France a lower tax scheme than the other "normal" (what you call "brick and mortar", I believe) distributors ... (it still does, by the way, because changing this would require a decision at European level)

 

France is a democratic country that tends to elect a socialist  party. There is a big difference between communism and socialism. 

post #55 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by GadgetCanadaV2 View Post
 

 

Giving Amazon a monopoly on book pricing where they sell the books below cost just to sell their Kindles is not a fair judgement. The authors are getting screwed and so is Amazon's competition. The Justice Department seems to feel an Amazon ebook store monopoly is the only solution. I applaud Apple to not just "let it go already"

 

 

Most people do not get that. Before Amazon came around, book publishers distributed books much like movie publishers distribute movies. First, hard covers were leased at a premium price. This covered the development, author advance, and distribution cost of the book. Six months to a year later when hardcover sales dropped, a softcover was released as a lower price point.

 

Amazon has always had an unfair advantage over traditional book sellers. Namely, it has not had to collect taxes whereby traditional book sellers have had to do this. Amazon also has other advantages by virtue of its business model. For instance, it has a lower overhead. These advantages helped Amazon claim a near monopoly position on online traditional books sales. 

 

With the introduction of e-books, Amazon engaged in classic anti-trust and generally illegal behaviour. It used its dominant position in traditional online book sales to apply pressure to publishers to lower prices on e-books. Publishers wanted to continue using their tiered release schedule for books. Hardcover books still get released first, and e-books get released later.

 

Amazon, however essentially told publishers we will not carry your hardcover books if they do agree to release  e-books at the same time as hardcover books. Since Amazon has a near monopoly position in online tradition book sales, publishers hardly had a realistic choice but to agree. Current agreements allowed Amazon to lower the price of books to whatever it wanted. So, Amazon released hardcover and e-books at the same time, but lowered the price of e-books significantly below the price of hardcover books. This undercut the market for the hardcover books, which is where publishers generally recuperated their costs. Stores like Borders closed, and Amazon quickly gained a 90 percent monopoly share in e-books.

 

Publishers hated Amazon because it was forcing them to  distribute both hardcover books and e-books at the same time, while undercutting the e-book prices below retail prices. The pricing model was not sustainable for publishers. 

 

Barnes and Noble told publishers the solution was switching to an agency model where publishers choose the pricing, and retailers take a standard cut. Apple, a company that did not sell e-books, came along and proposed the same model. It did not have any power to force publishers to change pricing models, and publishers already were looking for ways to switch pricing models. The trail made clear Apple negotiated the contracts individually, and there was no collusion. 

 

The government, however, got caught up on the idea that changing pricing models might cause consumers that were  paying an artificially and not sustainable low price to possibly pay more in the case of new releases. Since, Apple's deal was not with a competitor (publishers are not an Apple competitor), and Apple was a new player in the market with no real power to tell publishers what to do, it is unprecedented for the government to take action. Considering, Amazon is a huge supporter of the current administration, the whole thing stinks. Especially since Apple's deal caused Amazon's 90 percent share to drop to about 69 percent, with companies like Barnes and Noble and Apple benefiting the most. 

 

Apple should definitely appeal, especially since the judge showed bias even before the trial started. The judge in the famous Microsoft trial merely said outside court after the verdict was handed down that Microsoft engaged in fragrant illegal behaviour, and the case was taken from him and his order to break up the company was withdrawn and a new judge decided the punishment. 

post #56 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by EWTHeckman View Post

Wrong. Pay attention. They didn't pay Apple anything, either. They didn't use Apple's ecosystem in any way to sell that content. They didn't pay Apple anything, either. Nor should they, since they didn't use Apple's ecosystem. That is the POINT! Apple superfanboys think Apple should be able to take a cut even when they have nothing to do with the transaction other than the content being used on a device Apple has already been paid for. That is the bias.

So your problem is that the vendor can't create its own products and ecosystem? That's not Apple's fault, either.

Apple has a reason for having a closed ecosystem - security. You don't like it? Buy an Android device.
"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 #57 of 82

What Apple tried to do with app content was to force prices to be higher by 30% even when that content was sold without Apple involvement. Why shouldn't I complain when someone artificially inflates prices everywhere (or tries to)?

 

 

But it is interesting that you have no problem with Amazon trying to artificially lower the price of e-books by forcing publishers to do away with their traditional tiered release schedules by using its monopoly position to make the publishers release both hardcover and e-books at the same time while significantly undercutting the price of hardcover books. In the short term, that might benefit consumers, but in the long term it hurts consumers, as well as the competition. Surely, you have to agree that Amazon, not Apple, is the big gorilla on the block when it comes to book sales. Apple had no power to dictate terms to publishers that they did not thmeselves want. That, however, is what anti-trust is all about. 

 

Your grievance seems to be with the Most Favored Nation Clause where publishers agreed to not price new releases cheaper at any other retailers then at Apple. If Apple was Amazon, a monoply making that request, I might see your objection, but Apple was a newer player and had little power to force publishers to agree to that condition. Apple merely didn't want publishers to go offer their new release books for less to other parties. More importantly, most favored nation clauses are common in business especially in music and movies. They are not illegal. For all we know, the publishers, not Apple insisted on the most favored nations clauses as a way to pressure Amazon. 

 

It is important to know, the most favored nation clause  did not force publishers to give Apple the books that it gave other retailors. For example, other retailors could negoiate the exclusive rights to carry the works upon initial release thereby denying Apple the right to carry the work while it was a new release. This is common. After the book was no longer considered a new release, publishers could offer different prices to different retailers. 

 

You often can't find releases when they were new like Harry Potter and the Hunger Games on iBooks. Amazon also has exclusive rights to carry James Bond books. There are countless examples. So, while it was true new releases that were carried both on Apple and Amazon were the same price, it was often the case that Amazon still managed to get the exclusive rights to carry the works thereby shutting out Apple entirely. 

post #58 of 82
Originally Posted by EWTHeckman View Post
That's a load of horse hockey.

 

I just purchased some content for about $800. (Electronic books, but not from Amazon.) The company I purchased from hosts the content on their own servers, has their own credit card processing, has their own web site for locating and informing about the content. Where is Apple doing anything there to make it worth an additional $240 over what I paid?

 

Oh, as for "Apple's devices", I already paid for those.

 

Does any of that refute what I’ve said? Why do you think you should magically get to host your software on Apple’s servers for free? Why do you think Apple’s advertising of your software should be free?

 

Do you similarly take offense at the government “deserving a [percentage you pay in taxes] cut of my money”?

 

Originally Posted by Connie View Post
Apple can be so unethical sometimes.

 

Like that time when they… 

 

Or when it… 

 

Maybe back when… 

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 #59 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

Does any of that refute what I’ve said? Why do you think you should magically get to host your software on Apple’s servers for free? Why do you think Apple’s advertising of your software should be free?

 

Your reading comprehension aren't not so goot, are it? </sarc> Reread what I wrote (and you quoted):

 

Quote:
The company I purchased from hosts the content on their own servers, has their own credit card processing, has their own web site for locating and informing about the content.
post #60 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by EWTHeckman View Post
 

 

Your reading comprehension aren't not so goot, are it? </sarc> Reread what I wrote (and you quoted):

 

 

Send me a list of your $800 worth of books so I can torrent them for free,

 

F*ck paying anyone for books when you can steal them from a library.

 

There, that is theft.

A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #61 of 82
Quote:

Originally Posted by TBell View Post

 

But it is interesting that you have no problem with Amazon trying to artificially lower the price of e-books by forcing publishers to do away with their traditional tiered release schedules by using its monopoly position to make the publishers release both hardcover and e-books at the same time while significantly undercutting the price of hardcover books. In the short term, that might benefit consumers, but in the long term it hurts consumers, as well as the competition. Surely, you have to agree that Amazon, not Apple, is the big gorilla on the block when it comes to book sales. Apple had no power to dictate terms to publishers that they did not thmeselves want. That, however, is what anti-trust is all about. 

 

Lowering prices is how the Free Market works. Company A offers a product at a price. If Company B wants to compete, they either find a way to lower the price or offer more value at the same price. If they offer the same value at a higher price, then that's not competitive, and Company B should not be expected to gain market share.

 

Selling a loss leader for below or at cost is a legitimate strategy. Grocery stores do this all the time. So do many other retailers. That's just normal good business.

 

There is also the illegal practice known as dumping where a large company sells most of its products below cost to drive a competitor out of business. They are similar in that both are below cost, but is a monopolistic practice, the other is not; it's primarily a matter of what percentage of sales are below cost.

 

Has Amazon sold e-books below cost? Absolutely. Do they sell even 1% of e-books below cost? Apparently not the books I want to buy.

 

But let's say that they are engaging in dumping. That's an illegal activity. In that case, Amazon should be punished by the government for their crime. That does not justify someone else committing a crime, even if Amazon is getting away with it.

 

Apple has rarely been the first into a market segment. There were a lot of hobby computer companies around before Apple was founded. When Apple released the Apple II, they essentially created the personal computer market because no one else had found the right combination of tech plus mainstream appeal. Even though Microsoft eventually monopolized the market, Apple successfully competed and pushed the market forward, always ready to eat Microsoft's lunch if (when) they floundered.

 

They did the same thing with tablets. There were a bunch of companies floundering around with tablets until Apple figured out how to do it right. As a result, they quickly dominated (monopolized) the market. They still make the most money, and still powerful in unit sales because (IMHO) they make the best tablets. They earned their market position. But the Nexus is carving out a chunk of the market because they're willing to play the game and compete.

 

The same goes with cell phones. Apple didn't create the cell phone market. Heck, they didn't even create the smart phone market. But they were the first ones to really do it right. And now they're dominating. But they can't rest on their laurels because there are other companies who are competing.

 

In all these cases, we are better off because companies are competing for our business. Prices are lower, features are more advanced yet easier to use, and choices are practically overwhelming.

 

The same is true of the e-book market. There were abortive attempts to create a viable e-book market for years before Amazon got involved. The mobi format was developed for the MobiPocket device, which didn't take off. Sony had several e-readers out. There was software for devices like the Palm. None of these attempts really succeeded because they were clumsy and difficult to use. I certainly didn't want to use them. But Amazon finally put all the pieces together in a fashion that worked. Just like Apple in those other markets (including iTunes Music), they took a nascent market and made it viable, and reaped the rewards as a result.

 

If Amazon is acting illegally to maintain their position, then they should be punished by the government. But to punish consumers like you and me in an attempt to enter the market without being competitive is just plain wrong.

 

Short version: If Amazon is doing something illegal, punish them. Don't excuse other illegal actions.

post #62 of 82

Well, here in France we consider dumping as illegal.

Only under strict circumstance should one sell at losses (mostly to clean outdated product out of inventory)

 

And for the book, as it's a cultural product, selling at losses is even more forbidden.

 

This is why from our point of view the MFN dilema is quite bizarre since it the common rule here. And even Amazon have to comply with it.

 

Thats said, try to listen more to each others.

When you think all the others missed the whole point, maybe you are actually the one missing some part of the point.

post #63 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by EWTHeckman View Post

But to punish consumers like you and me in an attempt to enter the market without being competitive is just plain wrong.

If Apple did not force consumers to buy books then how were consumers punished? Didn't you just say that Amazon was an alternative, competing option?

Entering a market without being competitive is plain wrong? It could be understood as not being competitive but why could you define it as illegal?
If you're going to be original, then you can count on being copied.
Reply
If you're going to be original, then you can count on being copied.
Reply
post #64 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR View Post

If Apple did not force consumers to buy books then how were consumers punished?

 

By causing prices to go up everywhere. (Or more accurately, participating in raised prices.)

 

Quote:
Entering a market without being competitive is plain wrong?

 

No, that's not what I said. Distorting the market so you don't have to compete is wrong. It's the distortion that's wrong. If someone wants to enter a market without distorting it and being competitive, it's not illegal, just stupid.

post #65 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by EWTHeckman View Post

By causing prices to go up everywhere. (Or more accurately, participating in raised prices.)

No, that's not what I said. Distorting the market so you don't have to compete is wrong. It's the distortion that's wrong. If someone wants to enter a market without distorting it and being competitive, it's not illegal, just stupid.

Don't consumers have the right to stop purchasing books if they think the prices are unfair?

Don't you think that consumers lose out when Amazon sells the creations of hundreds of thousands of authors, at an amount that will not sustain the industry, just to drive sales of their Kindle eReader?

Don't you find it a little unusual that the judge announced her decision BEFORE the investigation and trial had been completed?
If you're going to be original, then you can count on being copied.
Reply
If you're going to be original, then you can count on being copied.
Reply
post #66 of 82
Ah boy I never said apple should not be allowed to appeal I said they should let it go!

And apple chose the judge trial too they could have opted for a jury.

Amazing how people can worship a company and never see them as wrong dispute them making god products.
post #67 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR View Post

Don't consumers have the right to stop purchasing books if they think the prices are unfair?

 

Don't consumers have a right to shop around for a better deal if they think prices are unfair? Price fixing destroys that ability. That's why it's illegal.

 

Quote:
Don't you think that consumers lose out when Amazon sells the creations of hundreds of thousands of authors, at an amount that will not sustain the industry, just to drive sales of their Kindle eReader?

 

A) Dumping (selling below cost to drive competitors out of the market) is illegal. If Amazon is actually guilty of dumping, they should be prosecuted for it. (You know, I could have sworn I've said this already.)

 

B) Consistently selling below cost is not a sustainable business model.

 

C) Publishers are being paid at the price they negotiated. If that payment is insufficient, they need to negotiate better prices.

 

D) Electronic books change the marketplace by their very nature. A business model based solely on the pre-e-book market isn't sustainable, nor should it be.

 

Quote:
Don't you find it a little unusual that the judge announced her decision BEFORE the investigation and trial had been completed?

 

Here is the original AppleInsider article on that.

 

Quote:
She was quick to note, however, that the opinion was not final as all of the evidence had yet to be accounted for.

 

Though unusual, the jurist's statements did not come unsolicited, as DOJ lawyer Mark Ryan requested she share any thoughts on the case given the evidence at hand. The "tentative view," which came down negatively for Apple, was based largely on correspondence from a six-week period between December 2009 and January 2010.

 

A) It was not a decision.

 

B) Though "unusual", it was not unprecedented. Furthermore, requests for preliminary judgements are routine.

 

C) Having a view based on the "evidence presented so far" is not bias, it is an opinion based on incomplete information, which she pointed out.

 

D) In the comments to that article Gatorguy pointed out the legal standard for judges commenting on evidence. There was nothing unethical or illegal about it.

 

Quote:
 "federal trial judges have long had the authority to comment on the evidence. The judge “may not assume the role of a witness. He may analyze and dissect the evidence, but he may not either distort it or add to it. ... This court has accordingly emphasized the duty of the trial judge to use great care that an expression of opinion upon the evidence ‘should be so given as not to mislead, and especially that it should not be one-sided’; that ‘deductions and theories not warranted by the evidence should be studiously avoided.’” Quercia v. United States, 289 U.S. 466, 470 (1933)"

www.lexisnexis.com/lawschool/study/outlines/word/evid.doc

post #68 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by holmstockd View Post

Ah boy I never said apple should not be allowed to appeal I said they should let it go!

I hate to break this to you, sunshine, but letting it go means not appealing.

You know that, right?

Nobody here considers Apple in the the light that you claim but they do an awful lot of good and change, not only industries, but the world for the better so, when they cop unwarranted criticism, they'll usually be defended.

You do realise all the benefits they've given us over the years? The mouse, the GUI, the personal computer, the music player, the mobile phone, the tablet, saving the legal music industry, implementing industry wide formats, and demonstrations in how retail and customer service should be done. And suddenly a few individuals are claiming they've gone rogue and are trying to unfairly make a few bucks in the book publishing industry?

Believing THAT, would be amazing.
If you're going to be original, then you can count on being copied.
Reply
If you're going to be original, then you can count on being copied.
Reply
post #69 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR View Post

I hate to break this to you, sunshine, but letting it go means not appealing.

 

I hate to break this to you, sunshine, but voluntarily choosing not to appeal is not the same thing as not being allowed to appeal.

post #70 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by EWTHeckman View Post

I hate to break this to you, sunshine, but voluntarily choosing not to appeal is not the same thing as not being allowed to appeal.

Did I mention anything about voluntarily appealing or choosing not to appeal?
If you're going to be original, then you can count on being copied.
Reply
If you're going to be original, then you can count on being copied.
Reply
post #71 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by EWTHeckman View Post

C) Having a view based on the "evidence presented so far" is not bias, it is an opinion based on incomplete information, which she pointed out.

D) In the comments to that article Gatorguy pointed out the legal standard for judges commenting on evidence. There was nothing unethical or illegal about it.

Incorrect.

Her comments (which are considered to be her opinion) demonstrated bias before ALL of the evidence had been presented to her, therefore making them 'an opinion based on incomplete information'.

Apple has the option to appeal, and they will do so.
If you're going to be original, then you can count on being copied.
Reply
If you're going to be original, then you can count on being copied.
Reply
post #72 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR View Post

Her comments (which are considered to be her opinion) demonstrated bias before ALL of the evidence had been presented to her, therefore making them 'an opinion based on incomplete information'.

 

You have demonstrated intense pro-Apple bias in this thread. Your evaluation of the Judges' statement is therefore unreliable because that pro-Apple bias appears to be distorting your judgement.

post #73 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR View Post

Did I mention anything about voluntarily appealing or choosing not to appeal?

 

Did you read his statement before you jumped all over it? He made that distinction. You ignored it.

post #74 of 82
You have demonstrated incredibly poor perception issues and, arguing on a technicality, are attempting to convince us that a situation involving a company, who has a long and distinguished history of revolutionising and improving industries for consumers and the general public, should let things go and not appeal, as is their legal right.

I proudly announce my pro-Apple stance, and request your remarks be stricken from the record.

Thank you, your honor.

Case closed.

Let's go for drinks!

1wink.gif
If you're going to be original, then you can count on being copied.
Reply
If you're going to be original, then you can count on being copied.
Reply
post #75 of 82

Please demonstrate how "a long and distinguished history of revolutionising and improving industries for consumers and the general public" equals "can do no wrong."

post #76 of 82
I'd love to but you claimed I was an unreliable witness with distorted perception, and the case was closed in post 74.

(See what I meant about perception issues?)

However, you are more than welcome to appeal...

Or are you?

1wink.gif
If you're going to be original, then you can count on being copied.
Reply
If you're going to be original, then you can count on being copied.
Reply
post #77 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by EWTHeckman View Post

C) Having a view based on the "evidence presented so far" is not bias, it is an opinion based on incomplete information, which she pointed out.

Except that's not what happened.

She didn't simply present a view. She said that it appeared likely that the DOJ would prove that Apple illegally conspired to fix prices.

That is a clear case of prejudging the matter. Not to mention clear evidence that the judge is a moron for saying it publicly.
"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 #78 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Except that's not what happened.

She didn't simply present a view. She said that it appeared likely that the DOJ would prove that Apple illegally conspired to fix prices.

That is a clear case of prejudging the matter. Not to mention clear evidence that the judge is a moron for saying it publicly.

...and quoting her exactly " 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."

Philip Elmer Dewitt, who no one would rationally accuse of being anti-Apple, was pragmatic about the judicial comments writing:
"In her defense -- a strange phrase to use about a judge -- she's had a chance to read some of the evidence. Much of it is contained in e-mails and correspondence exchanged over a six-week period before the launch of the iPad, when Apple and five book publishers worked on alternatives to Amazon's (AMZN) below-cost pricing model of $9.99 for bestsellers.
The book publishers have long since settled with the DOJ, leaving Apple as the sole defendant. It could be that Judge Cote is trying to put pressure on Apple to settle as well, something federal judges with heavy schedules have been known to do."
Edited by Gatorguy - 10/6/13 at 6:52am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #79 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

...and quoting her exactly " 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.""

Exactly. She said that the DOJ would be able to win the case before it even started.

The only remaining question is whether the Appeals court will overturn it or send it back to the court.

Ordinarily, I would expect it to be remanded to the original court, but given the blatant bias and disregard for legal procedures, I wouldn't be surprised to see it either overturned or sent to a different judge for a new hearing.
"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 #80 of 82

There goes jrgosta again, reading meaning into what the judge said.

 

It must be fun going around pretending that people say what you want them to say. So many people do it.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Apple appeals verdict, punishment in e-book antitrust case