or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple wins temporary reprieve from monitor in e-books antitrust case
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple wins temporary reprieve from monitor in e-books antitrust case

post #1 of 190
Thread Starter 
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on Tuesday issued an order that temporarily halts compliance monitor Michael Bromwich's oversight while the appeal awaits a ruling.

e-books order


"It is hereby ordered that the motion for a stay pending appeal is referred to a three-judge motions panel and shall be heard as soon as possible," the order reads. "It is further ordered that an administrative stay of the district court's order is granted until the motion for stay pending appeal is determined by the motions panel."

The order, handed down by Circuit Judge Raymond J. Lohier, Jr., comes five days after Apple notified the court that it planned to appeal Judge Denise Cote's imposition of an external compliance monitor. Apple elevated the case to the appellate court after Judge Cote refused to remove Bromwich herself, saying that the company failed to show "that the Monitor should be disqualified or that Apple will suffer irreparable harm."

Apple has repeatedly expressed dissatisfaction with the appointment of a monitor in general and Bromwich in particular. The company has called Bromwich's oversight "inquisitorial" and says the "investigation significantly interferes with the ability of Apple's managers to lead the company."

The Department of Justice has until Jan. 24 to respond to the stay.
post #2 of 190

At last !

There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life.

Frank Zappa

Reply

There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life.

Frank Zappa

Reply
post #3 of 190

Now to eliminate this clown completely from Apple's life.

post #4 of 190

Buh-bye, Mr. B.

post #5 of 190
Suck it, Cote. No kickback for you.
post #6 of 190
That was fast is all I can say. No arguing the point just BAM, granted.
post #7 of 190

Once this 3-judge motions panel reads how Cote was prejudicial to Apple, they should throw out the decision and at least give Apple another trial. A second trial better include an impartial judge who will listen to all the facts instead of picking the ones they want to use against Apple. This is supposed to be the US where we're supposed to have fair and impartial courts. 

post #8 of 190
A litany of "Haha Apple deserves it" posts to follow.

"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 #9 of 190

The Crow's Going Down: Ms Cote Sent To Bedroom With Pencil & Plenty of Paper- 1100 Times Contemplation.

"I am a bad judge and will do no more wrong.

My friends can go to food banks from now on.

Spankings aren’t enough and lynching way rough;

licking Apple shoes should be enough.

My bad, Apple’s tough.

Bending over now.

Bring on the brush."

When I find time to rewrite the laws of Physics, there'll Finally be some changes made round here!

I am not crazy! Three out of five court appointed psychiatrists said so.

Reply

When I find time to rewrite the laws of Physics, there'll Finally be some changes made round here!

I am not crazy! Three out of five court appointed psychiatrists said so.

Reply
post #10 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by rob53 View Post
 

Once this 3-judge motions panel reads how Cote was prejudicial to Apple, they should throw out the decision and at least give Apple another trial. A second trial better include an impartial judge who will listen to all the facts instead of picking the ones they want to use against Apple. This is supposed to be the US where we're supposed to have fair and impartial courts. 

 

I doubt this will happen. Cote's opinion reads very well and the basis of her judgements also seems sound. I doubt anyone so far in this thread actually read her 64 page opinion filing.

 

 

I did, Apple comes across very badly in it, so I would not be cheerleading this at all. There's no evidence whatsoever of Cote being prejudicial, if there is I invite you to cite it.

post #11 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

A litany of "Haha Apple deserves it" posts to follow.

 

Apple certainly should have the right to appeal any ruling, but in this case I find it extremely hard to believe they will prevail. The attitude seems to be that they have done no wrong therefore they should escape any repercussions.

 

 

The problem with that is that until the ruling is overturned, Apple did indeed do wrong and cannot expect to prevail with an attitude that they should not be held accountable.

post #12 of 190

Only one thought came to mind when security approached Mr. Bromwich to escort him out...


I hope Apple stiffed him with the bill.

post #13 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post
 

 

Joined: Jan 2014

 

nice try troll. Try your clown show under another bridge

 

Just because I'm new doesn't change the fact that I'm right. Did you read her opinion filing? If so can you name a single thing wrong with it?

post #14 of 190
Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post

Just because I'm new doesn't change the fact that I'm right.

 

Wow, that’s the meanest way to write that sentence. :lol:

 

You mean to say, “I can be new and correct,” which is true. But you’re not here. By a long shot.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #15 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post
 

 

Just because I'm new doesn't change the fact that I'm right. Did you read her opinion filing? If so can you name a single thing wrong with it?

 

I know the judge and the appointed monitor are friends.

I know the facts of the case support Apple.

 

I don't care the flowery words this lawyer (all judges are former lawyers) says in here BS document.  I know the facts of this case and they don't point to Apple doing anything wrong.

 

Now go move your clown show to another bridge

post #16 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post
 

 

I know the judge and the appointed monitor are friends.

I couldn't find any evidence for that other than the monitor being recommended by the Judge 19 years ago. A Judge appointing someone she has previously recommended for good work is not evidence of corruption

 

Quote:
 I know the facts of the case support Apple.

I disagree. The facts of the case might support Apple but as there has been a court ruling then stating it outright is at odds with the law. If the case gets overturned then perhaps you'll have a point.

 

Quote:
 I don't care the flowery words this lawyer (all judges are former lawyers) says in here BS document.  I know the facts of this case and they don't point to Apple doing anything wrong.

I see so you didn't even bother to read the opinion. I don't think we can really discuss it any further when you're admitting to being intentionally ignorant and being very rude towards me. Good day.

post #17 of 190

As some pointed out before, ever if Cote felt she might have been wrong she would never admit it publicly. And she can now  let another court decide and even they over turn her decision she will still claim the higher court was wrong or that apple manipulate the outcome. The only issue for Ms Cote is the fact if too many of her decision are pushed up the higher courts will not look kindly on her and will limit her forward progress.

post #18 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post
 

I couldn't find any evidence for that other than the monitor being recommended by the Judge 19 years ago. A Judge appointing someone she has previously recommended for good work is not evidence of corruption

 

I disagree. The facts of the case might support Apple but as there has been a court ruling then stating it outright is at odds with the law. If the case gets overturned then perhaps you'll have a point.

 

I see so you didn't even bother to read the opinion. I don't think we can really discuss it any further when you're admitting to being intentionally ignorant and being very rude towards me. Good day.

 

You tell me what Apple did WRONG.  You have the burden of proof.

 

From what i read they did nothing wrong.

 

Why did the judge appoint Mr Brownwich if he has no experience with this type of work?  So much so he had to hire an ADDITIONAL lawyer and staff to help him?

 

I noticed in your other threads you also defended Google for stealing personal information, defended Samsung for blantantly coping Apple IP.  I'm sorry your clown show won't work here.  You obviously have something against Apple and I find it totally sad and pathetic that you make it your personal quest to continue to bash Apple.  Does Samdung pay you enough for this?  Did Apple fire your mother in the 1980's?  Did Steve Jobs yell at you at Stanford?  I just don't get clowns like you who live to see others fail.

post #19 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post
 

 

You tell me what Apple did WRONG.  You have the burden of proof.

The burden of proof was on the Prosecution. They managed it. What Apple did wrong was to organise a horizontal price fixing conspiracy.

 

Quote:
 Why did the judge appoint Mr Brownwich if he has no experience with this type of work?  So much so he had to hire an ADDITIONAL lawyer and staff to help him?

Because Apple objected to the other candidate much more strongly, and Bromwich has carried out extremely high level monitorships before.

 

Quote:
 I noticed in your other threads you also defended Google for stealing personal information, defended Samsung for blantantly coping Apple IP.  I'm sorry your clown show won't work here.

I didn't do either of these things. Please don't make up lies about me.

 

Quote:
 You obviously have something against Apple and I find it totally sad and pathetic that you make it your personal quest to continue to bash Apple.  Does Samdung pay you enough for this?  Did Apple fire your mother in the 1980's?  Did Steve Jobs yell at you at Stanford?  I just don't get clowns like you who live to see others fail.

I'm uh, British, so no to the last few. I don't have anything against Apple. On the contrary I find them to be one of the most advanced companies technologically. They pushed 64 bit ARM before anyone else. They push manufacturing technology right to the limit.

 

I'm here because I'm interested in the future of Apple. I didn't defend 'Google stealing'. I can't even stand most of Samsung's products. Maybe before you accuse me you should bother to actually read what I am posting.

post #20 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post

I doubt this will happen. Cote's opinion reads very well and the basis of her judgements also seems sound. I doubt anyone so far in this thread actually read her 64 page opinion filing.


I did, Apple comes across very badly in it, so I would not be cheerleading this at all. There's no evidence whatsoever of Cote being prejudicial, if there is I invite you to cite it.
And yet Apple got a stay. Sounds like 61 pages of nothing if they so quickly decided to give Apple that stay. They could have granted Apple an appeal hearing AND kept Bromwich working while waiting for the appeal, but they didn't. Speaks volumes to me.

Tell me, in that 61 pages did they talk about Bromwich trying to interview Apple employees not involved in e-books? In fact, did any of those pages present Apple's case? Or did you read one side of the story and base your decision only on that version?

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #21 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post
 

The burden of proof was on the Prosecution. They managed it. What Apple did wrong was to organise a horizontal price fixing conspiracy.

 

Because Apple objected to the other candidate much more strongly, and Bromwich has carried out extremely high level monitorships before.

 

I didn't do either of these things. Please don't make up lies about me.

 

I'm uh, British, so no to the last few. I don't have anything against Apple. On the contrary I find them to be one of the most advanced companies technologically. They pushed 64 bit ARM before anyone else. They push manufacturing technology right to the limit.

 

I'm here because I'm interested in the future of Apple. I didn't defend 'Google stealing'. I can't even stand most of Samsung's products. Maybe before you accuse me you should bother to actually read what I am posting.

 

right here you defend Samsung saying they didn't really copy Apple IP:

http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/161647/apple-offers-samsung-patent-settlement-deal-tied-to-anti-cloning-provision/40

 

"Right but there's plenty of examples of similar looking phones and phones with similar functionality etc before the iPhone. Not that I'm arguing they were a success or anything. Just saying that you can easily show things in a less distinct light than Apple's view of things."

 

 

Really?  Only an idiot or a Samsung paid troll can say Samsung did not blatantly and slavishy copy the iPhone.

post #22 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post


And yet Apple got a stay. Sounds like 61 pages of nothing if they so quickly decided to give Apple that stay. They could have granted Apple an appeal hearing AND kept Bromwich working while waiting for the appeal, but they didn't. Speaks volumes to me.

Why does it speak volumes? Granting temporary stays is very common. If you go look at my previous argument with TS you'll find Apple was granted a stay in that case and then utterly slammed by the Court.

 

Quote:
Tell me, in that 61 pages did they talk about Bromwich trying to interview Apple employees not involved in e-books? In fact, did any of those pages present Apple's case? Or did you read one side of the story and base your decision only on that version?

I read both sides very thoroughly. If you don't believe me that Apple comes off badly then just read some of my previous posts. They put in excessive and hyperbolic complaints about court orders that were never imposed, using terms they didn't understand, all the time while bypassing the dispute resolution process already in place.

 

I speculate that it's because their lawyers have been put in an impossible position. According to emails from Apple there's still significant anger about the decision so I expect the lawyers are between a rock and a hard place.

post #23 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post
 

 

right here you defend Samsung saying they didn't really copy Apple IP:

http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/161647/apple-offers-samsung-patent-settlement-deal-tied-to-anti-cloning-provision/40

 

"Right but there's plenty of examples of similar looking phones and phones with similar functionality etc before the iPhone. Not that I'm arguing they were a success or anything. Just saying that you can easily show things in a less distinct light than Apple's view of things."

How exactly is that defending Samsung? Samsung certainly copied some of Apple's IP and were found guilty of doing so. That doesn't mean that the iPhone came out of nowhere. I was using a full touch screen smartphone in 2006.

 

I don't think you can really criticise me for not being enough of a fan.

post #24 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post
 

The burden of proof was on the Prosecution. They managed it. What Apple did wrong was to organise a horizontal price fixing conspiracy.

 

Because Apple objected to the other candidate much more strongly, and Bromwich has carried out extremely high level monitorships before.

 

I didn't do either of these things. Please don't make up lies about me.

 

I'm uh, British, so no to the last few. I don't have anything against Apple. On the contrary I find them to be one of the most advanced companies technologically. They pushed 64 bit ARM before anyone else. They push manufacturing technology right to the limit.

 

I'm here because I'm interested in the future of Apple. I didn't defend 'Google stealing'. I can't even stand most of Samsung's products. Maybe before you accuse me you should bother to actually read what I am posting.

 

Here you defend Google for stealing personal information such as wifi passcodes, internet purchases, ect. 

 

http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/161653/nests-fadell-backtracks-on-data-privacy-will-be-transparent-about-future-changes/80#post_2460449

 

"don't think someone who knows my address is a stalker, especially not when they provide me with material benefits for no charge."

 

 

 

 

Dont think you can get away with your clown behavior here.  I will hunt down each one of you and expose you for what you are.

post #25 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post
 

 

I doubt this will happen. Cote's opinion reads very well and the basis of her judgements also seems sound. I doubt anyone so far in this thread actually read her 64 page opinion filing.

 

 

I did, Apple comes across very badly in it, so I would not be cheerleading this at all. There's no evidence whatsoever of Cote being prejudicial, if there is I invite you to cite it.

Of course Cote's opinion reads very well -- to you. She wrote it and choose what she wanted to include and what she didn't want to. I wasn't at the trial and I doubt you were either, therefore, neither one of us can speak on exactly what was and wasn't said. We have to rely on what was reported, which as everyone knows is always bias one way or the other. No, I haven't read her filing and am not going to since I know it's full of legalese that the vast majority of people don't understand. This is what keeps lawyers and judges in business. 

 

The first time these proceedings came to light, Cote was supposed to have said "In an unusual pre-trial "tentative view," the judge in charge of the Apple versus the Department of Justice trial over alleged e-book price-fixing said that the DOJ would likely be able to prove that Apple colluded with publishers to raise e-book prices, despite not having seen all available evidence. This is not the first time Judge Denise Cote has ruled against Apple ahead of a full examination of the facts." Did she actually say this? Everything on the Internet is true isn't it? /s

 

If Judge Cote did say this, what was she allowed to preside over the trial? She already stated she felt Apple was guilty. How does Apple receive a presumption of innocence, a legal right, when the judge already believes they're guilty? Apple was tried in the court of internet bloggers long before they stepped foot in court. Everything these bloggers stated as fact was pure conjecture since I highly doubt any of them had access to any of the discussions made between Apple and the publishers.

 

Speaking of these discussions, how can anyone do business without talking to the suppliers of the product involved in that business? Should Apple have simply opened an e-book store and waited for someone to come through the door? I can absolutely guarantee Amazon had many discussions with publishers before they started selling e-books. As usual, there are always laws for and against doing something but it's the interpretation and implementation of these laws that gets companies in trouble. The DOJ went after Apple, a newcomer to e-books, while allowing Amazon to do anything they wanted to. I'm sure someone in the DOJ could easily find several laws Amazon has broken but they chose not to. Why is that?

post #26 of 190
Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post
That doesn't mean that the iPhone came out of nowhere.

 

Ah, the ‘natural progression’ argument.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #27 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post
 

How exactly is that defending Samsung? Samsung certainly copied some of Apple's IP and were found guilty of doing so. That doesn't mean that the iPhone came out of nowhere. I was using a full touch screen smartphone in 2006.

 

I don't think you can really criticise me for not being enough of a fan.

 

You were minimizing what Samsung did.  I've finished my job with you.  Everyone knows you are a troll clown

post #28 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post
 

 

Here you defend Google for stealing personal information such as wifi passcodes, internet purchases, ect. 

 

http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/161653/nests-fadell-backtracks-on-data-privacy-will-be-transparent-about-future-changes/80#post_2460449

 

"don't think someone who knows my address is a stalker, especially not when they provide me with material benefits for no charge."

 

 

 

 

Dont think you can get away with your clown behavior here.  I will hunt down each one of you and expose you for what you are.

What are you talking about? At no point do I defend Google for 'stealing personal information'. I have bought something from Google therefore they know my address. How is that hard to understand.

 

I also don't like the fact you're threatening me because I disagree with you. Grow up.

post #29 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post
 

 

You were minimizing what Samsung did.  I've finished my job with you.  Everyone knows you are a troll clown

I don't think I ever even mentioned Samsung. For what it's worth the phone I was using was manufactured by HTC. You're the one being a troll here, you've twice lied about what I've said and now you're distorting the truth in this post.

post #30 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by rob53 View Post
 

Of course Cote's opinion reads very well -- to you. She wrote it and choose what she wanted to include and what she didn't want to. I wasn't at the trial and I doubt you were either, therefore, neither one of us can speak on exactly what was and wasn't said. We have to rely on what was reported, which as everyone knows is always bias one way or the other. No, I haven't read her filing and am not going to since I know it's full of legalese that the vast majority of people don't understand. This is what keeps lawyers and judges in business.

It's not really that full of legalese, but for what it's worth I also read Bromwich and Apple's filings too.

 

 

Quote:
The first time these proceedings came to light, Cote was supposed to have said "In an unusual pre-trial "tentative view," the judge in charge of the Apple versus the Department of Justice trial over alleged e-book price-fixing said that the DOJ would likely be able to prove that Apple colluded with publishers to raise e-book prices, despite not having seen all available evidence. This is not the first time Judge Denise Cote has ruled against Apple ahead of a full examination of the facts." Did she actually say this? Everything on the Internet is true isn't it? /s

She did indeed say this, because Apple asked her for a pre-trial opinion. This isn't really 'unusual'.


 

Quote:

If Judge Cote did say this, what was she allowed to preside over the trial? She already stated she felt Apple was guilty. How does Apple receive a presumption of innocence, a legal right, when the judge already believes they're guilty? Apple was tried in the court of internet bloggers long before they stepped foot in court. Everything these bloggers stated as fact was pure conjecture since I highly doubt any of them had access to any of the discussions made between Apple and the publishers.

 

She was allowed to preside over the trial because asking for a preliminary view is very common, it allows Lawyers to decide where to focus their efforts. Remember, Apple solicited this opinion from her.


 

Quote:

Speaking of these discussions, how can anyone do business without talking to the suppliers of the product involved in that business? Should Apple have simply opened an e-book store and waited for someone to come through the door? I can absolutely guarantee Amazon had many discussions with publishers before they started selling e-books. As usual, there are always laws for and against doing something but it's the interpretation and implementation of these laws that gets companies in trouble. The DOJ went after Apple, a newcomer to e-books, while allowing Amazon to do anything they wanted to. I'm sure someone in the DOJ could easily find several laws Amazon has broken but they chose not to. Why is that?

 

The DOJ actually investigated Amazon on Apple's behalf. It wasn't that Apple was making agreements with publishers that was the problem. It's that they made simultaneous agreements with a majority of the market in a way which forced price rises and a complete elimination of price competition. This is basically the most straightforwardly illegal thing you can do in anti-trust.

post #31 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post
The attitude seems to be that they have done no wrong therefore they should escape any repercussions.

 

Apple did no wrong, and thus there are no repercussions they are due.  However, Cote, has acted unprofessionally, exhibited obvious bias publicly, and has far overstepped propriety by doing a sweetheart deal for her friend. 

 

Cote deserves repercussions, including a jail term.  After all, if corrupt judges don't got to jail, how can anyone trust any judge? 

post #32 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

 

Ah, the ‘natural progression’ argument.


Sure. Apple has always developed their products in such a manner. They take an existing concept that is poorly implemented, refine it methodically until it is as simple and usable as possible, and add their quality industrial design.

 

iPod

iPhone

iPad

 

Hell you could argue OSX belongs to this family too. I hardly think it's a slander against Apple to say they took an existing concept and turned it into a product success everyone else can only dream of.

post #33 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessi View Post
 

 

Apple did no wrong, and thus there are no repercussions they are due.

I disagree. What Apple did was wrong even if done with the best of intentions.

 

Quote:
 However, Cote, has acted unprofessionally, exhibited obvious bias publicly, and has far overstepped propriety by doing a sweetheart deal for her friend. 

No evidence has been presented for this.

 

Quote:
Cote deserves repercussions, including a jail term.  After all, if corrupt judges don't got to jail, how can anyone trust any judge? 

It seems you don't trust the judge before they are proven corrupt, based only on rumours. You don't think that's a dangerous attitude to take?

post #34 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post
What Apple did wrong was to organise a horizontal price fixing conspiracy.

 

In which there was neither a conspiracy, nor any prices being fixed.   It's obvious you are either ignorant of the facts, or simply ignoring them, because the reality is not in question.  

 

You have not provided a single substantiating statement to support your claims, you merely repeat them.   You can make accusations against Apple all day long, a lot longer than I will waste time responding to them.

 

But until you provide evidence to back them up, they are just accusations.

 

Further, not only do you need to provide evidence, you need to rebut the exculpatory evidence that was presented by Apple at trial. 

 

Judge Cote gets to ignore the trial and rule based on her political ideology.... you can ignore this evidence only by being called on it here by those who were paying attention.

 

You have taken a snotty, holier then thou attitude here which is ironic given that you have provided no indication that you even understand the nature of the trial or what was presented. 

 

In short, you're just mindlessly repeating "apple is guilty" assertions, like any google troll.   Until you change your tune, that's how you'll be perceived. 

post #35 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post
 

What are you talking about? At no point do I defend Google for 'stealing personal information'. I have bought something from Google therefore they know my address. How is that hard to understand.

 

I also don't like the fact you're threatening me because I disagree with you. Grow up.

 

you said you don't consider Google a stalker.

 

They were found guilty of stealing network passwords and logins from people's homes and business while using their GoogleMap cars as cover.  I wonder what they did with those passwords?  Of course they are stalkers.

post #36 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post
 

 

you said you don't consider Google a stalker.

 

They were found guilty of stealing network passwords and logins from people's homes and business while using their GoogleMap cars as cover.  I wonder what they did with those passwords?  Of course they are stalkers.


That's a totally different issue. That happened a number of years ago and was indeed very troubling to hear. That doesn't mean I condemn every single thing they ever do because they screwed up once. I have never defended them capturing this data and I won't, because it was a stupid and illegal thing to do.

post #37 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post
 

I don't think I ever even mentioned Samsung. For what it's worth the phone I was using was manufactured by HTC. You're the one being a troll here, you've twice lied about what I've said and now you're distorting the truth in this post.

 

So did Samsung not copy valuable Apple IP?

Yes or No.

post #38 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post
 

I read both sides very thoroughly. If you don't believe me that Apple comes off badly then just read some of my previous posts. They put in excessive and hyperbolic complaints about court orders that were never imposed, using terms they didn't understand, all the time while bypassing the dispute resolution process already in place.

 

 

Ah, so then what's your opinion of Bromwich trying to interview Apple employees outside of e-books? You think that's acceptable? It's very similar to the DOJ trying to bring in-app purchases and Apple's model of taking 30% into the case as well (which, thankfully, was completely shot down).

 

Ever since the beginning of this case the parties involved (opposite Apple) have been trying to expand this case into other areas that aren't relevant to e-books.

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #39 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessi View Post
 

 

In which there was neither a conspiracy, nor any prices being fixed.   It's obvious you are either ignorant of the facts, or simply ignoring them, because the reality is not in question.  

 

You have not provided a single substantiating statement to support your claims, you merely repeat them.   You can make accusations against Apple all day long, a lot longer than I will waste time responding to them.

 

But until you provide evidence to back them up, they are just accusations.

Ok, US vs Apple inc: http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/applebooks.html

 

But I'm sure you will say that showing the evidence from the trial which resulted in a verdict against Apple is now insufficient. You would have me replay the Prosecution case into the forum, which seems wasteful.

 

Apple has been found guilty by the courts. Until this is overturned that ruling stands no matter how much you dislike it. That's not a personal bias of mine either, it's just what the courts have ruled.

post #40 of 190
Don't worry. He's just as annoying in real life.

"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
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple wins temporary reprieve from monitor in e-books antitrust case