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 - Page 3

post #81 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post
 

Your 'facts, logic and reason' are that you think you are a better Lawyer than Judge Cote and Apple's defence team. A frankly hilarious position.

 

If you keep accusing me of lying and distorting without any actual evidence, I'll just keep reporting your posts and ignore you. This is not a productive discussion and I don't see the point in continuing it. Many other posters here are completely reasonable but apparently expressing any opinion contrary to you is grounds for endless mindless insults.

I've had fun reading the banter between you, Sog35 and Jessi. To be quite honest, your comments are actually well written while the other's I can picture being written from yelling and frothing mouths. No you are not a troll because you disagree with these two. It's quite obvious that you admire Apple as a company as do I but these extreme fanboi's can't take anything that could tarnish Apple. The baited questions from Sog35 are actually quite humorous. I'm a huge Apple fanboi but this extremism is just stupid. I'm sure I'll be labelled a troll in 3...2...1...

“What would I do? I’d shut Apple down and give the money back to the shareholders”

Michael Dell - 1997

Reply

“What would I do? I’d shut Apple down and give the money back to the shareholders”

Michael Dell - 1997

Reply
post #82 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessi View Post
 

 

Really?  So it was the DoJ that made the request?  But the Trollinator ASSURED us, repeatedly that it was Apple requesting it. 

 

How could that be?  You must be a liar!  (it's ok, I know you're not a liar.)


Nah I checked it out and PMd both the posters. It looks like I was incorrect there. I was under the impression that it was Apple that solicited the opinion but instead it was the other side of the aisle to so speak.

 

Still, it hardly reflects as negatively on the Judge as if she stated it unsolicited.

post #83 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post
 

Your 'facts, logic and reason' are that you think you are a better Lawyer than Judge Cote and Apple's defence team. A frankly hilarious position.

 

Ah here we go- here's the "Jessi's a better lawyer than Cote and Apple's legal team" claim.  It was made by YOU.  And then you turned around and claimed I made it. 

 

I'm merely trying to get you to defend your position, and instead you're constantly smearing me.

 

 

Quote:

 If you keep accusing me of lying and distorting without any actual evidence, I'll just keep reporting your posts and ignore you. This is not a productive discussion and I don't see the point in continuing it. Many other posters here are completely reasonable but apparently expressing any opinion contrary to you is grounds for endless mindless insults.

 

Says the guy who just lied about what I've said, and then called it "hilarious" in an attempt to humiliate me. 

 

So sure, please report this post.  IT has actual quotes with a link to you saying the things I'm quoting.

 

Quite different from your lies about what I have said.

 

You think other people notice you are constantly putting words n my mouth, but never quoting me saying them?  

 

Gee, I wonder why.

 

Do you think the moderation team will be fooled?

 

But thanks for admitting you're attempting to get me in trouble on the board because you don't like me asking you to provide evidence for your assertions, or calling you out when you lie about me. 

post #84 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by GadgetCanadaV2 View Post
 

I've had fun reading the banter between you, Sog35 and Jessi. To be quite honest, your comments are actually well written while the other's I can picture being written from yelling and frothing mouths. No you are not a troll because you disagree with these two. It's quite obvious that you admire Apple as a company as do I but these extreme fanboi's can't take anything that could tarnish Apple. The baited questions from Sog35 are actually quite humorous. I'm a huge Apple fanboi but this extremism is just stupid. I'm sure I'll be labelled a troll in 3...2...1...


Thanks for your kind words. It seems many people are not only angry but are angry based on a very limited set of readings. For example Sog35 would have me condemn Samsung because they lost a court case and condemn Google based primarily on media reports, but they equally condemn me for considering Apple to be guilty at trial.

 

I'm just going to try and avoid responding to people who clearly are only happy with one kind of statement. I may have a lot of respect for Apple but that doesn't mean they can do anything without receiving condemnation in my eyes.

post #85 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post


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.

That is the definition of almost every product design even the 5000+ years of iteration of the wheel. The last innovation (by that measure) in electronics was the transistor by AT&T.
post #86 of 190
Quote:

Originally Posted by GregInPrague View Post

"Toward the end of the hearing, Mark Ryan, a lawyer with the Justice Department, asked if she would be able to share any of her thoughts on the case so far.  Cote then gave what she called her "tentative view," which she said was based largely on material submitted as evidence - emails and correspondence that took place over a six-week period between December 2009 and January 2010."

But her pre-trial opinion was based on pre-trial evidence submitted by involved parties. If you're not allowed to form a preliminary opinion based on pre-trial evidence, then what is it even there for?

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jessi View Post

Again, strawman.  I know the judge is corrupt, after they were proven so, by their prejudicial statements before hearing any evidence. 

See above quote by GregInPrague; that claim is completely untrue, as her statements were based off a substantial body of evidence submitted pre-trial. Whether or not you think the pre-trial evidence justified her claims is a different matter entirely, but to say that she's "corrupt" because she formed opinions "before hearing any evidence" is as silly as the people who claim Samsung have never copied Apple in the slightest.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jessi View Post

Under US Law Apple is completely innocent, because the entire body of "anti-trust" law is invalid, and itself illegal under the US constitution.  You want me to link to the constitution to "prove" it? 

I can see the headlines already: "Internet Forum Lawyer Overturns Century Of Supreme Court Decisions". 

 

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.
I'm not particularly familiar with cases like this, but aren't court orders usually suspended pending an appeal? I was under the impression that that happens with injunctions and the like - the court bans phone X, company Y appeals, and the ban is suspended pending the result of the appeal. Is that not the case?
post #87 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post
 


Thanks for your kind words. It seems many people are not only angry but are angry based on a very limited set of readings.

 

Notice how, you will not defend your assertions, we make several arguments and bring points to bear, but rather than rebut them, you characterize us, and try to imply we're ignorant of the facts.  It's funny, we aren't afraid of the fact,s why are you? 

 

But then, your need to do this shows the weakness of your position.

 

I'd love for you to stop making up lies about me (like the idea that I claimed anything about Apple's legal team) and address the facts... but you can't, you can only smear, and the above quote is yet another smear.

 

Quote:
 I'm just going to try and avoid responding to people who clearly are only happy with one kind of statement. I may have a lot of respect for Apple but that doesn't mean they can do anything without receiving condemnation in my eyes.

 

It's true I am only happy with one kind of statement:  Arguments based on facts, logic, or reason.  Hell that's at least three.  But the fact that we hate your smear campaign and your snotty dishonest statements does not make use narrow minded.

 

It merely means we wish you'd join us in debate on the merits, instead of ad hominem. 

 

BTW - love you kissing the ass of your sock puppet. It's so cute!

post #88 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven N. View Post


That is the definition of almost every product design even the 5000+ years of iteration of the wheel. The last innovation (by that measure) in electronics was the transistor by AT&T.

 

I don't think I was really trying to define what 'innovation' was. You're not wrong in that this is how product design typically works. My point was that Apple did not invent the iPhone out of a total vacuum. It was a marked improvement on previous attempts such as the HTC Wizard. I was saying that the first gen iPhone probably still fits into the 'proto-smartphone' crowd as it was in some respects behind WM phones and in many respects in front.

 

By the time you get to the 3GS then you're in definite 'modern smartphone' territory. I just don't understand why people seem to want to insist that the iPhone has no outside influences from previous smartphones, when in my eyes it seems clear that it does.

post #89 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkLite View Post

I can see the headlines already: "Internet Forum Lawyer Overturns Century Of Supreme Court Decisions". 

 

Try making an argument, rather than ad hominem.  I gave an argument.  Can you rebut it?  Nope?  So you characterize me in a snotty way. Oh, that was SO BRAVE!  Let me change my panties!

 

PS- you got a century of Supreme Court cites?  I only need one: Marbury v. Madison.  Oh, there I go making arguments again, which I guess just counts as fodder for more insults from you, eh?

 

PPS- Hi sock puppet #2!  Or is it 3?  I get so confused!

post #90 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post
 It was a marked improvement on previous attempts such as the HTC Wizard.

 

Yes, the HTC Wizard was the "original" smartphone, and the iPhone was just a "market improvement" on it, the iPhone didn't actually invent anything, did it?  LOL. 

post #91 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessi View Post
 

 

Yes, the HTC Wizard was the "original" smartphone, and the iPhone was just a "market improvement" on it, the iPhone didn't actually invent anything, did it?  LOL. 


'marked', not 'market'. Nor was it the 'original' smartphone. It was one of a whole range of terrible Windows Mobile smartphones (I argue 'proto-smartphones') which were around at the time.

 

The iPhone was far superior in many respects, much nicer hardware, smoother more intuitive interface, better browser. Arguably a better base platform too although I'm sure Windows fans would disagree (I am a Linux user so both of the sides hate me :))

 

Why are you so obsessed with this idea that things can only be absolutely binary one way or the other? Every product probably in the history of mankind has been a refinement of previous attempts, that's just how development works.

post #92 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 that stupid bitch will write a lot of bullshit to justify her shitty behaviour, 64 pages of protecting one's arse.

 

She used to work with Bromwich and has known him for years.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #93 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post
 


Thanks for your kind words. It seems many people are not only angry but are angry based on a very limited set of readings. For example Sog35 would have me condemn Samsung because they lost a court case and condemn Google based primarily on media reports, but they equally condemn me for considering Apple to be guilty at trial.

 

I'm just going to try and avoid responding to people who clearly are only happy with one kind of statement. I may have a lot of respect for Apple but that doesn't mean they can do anything without receiving condemnation in my eyes.

 

Samsung lost one court case?  Really?  You dont think Samsung is constantly ripping off Apple IP?

 

Look at the iPhone, iPad, packaging, commericals.  Their chairman even used Steve Jobs 'one more thing' during their last event.  Even Dyson is suing Samsung.  Its becoming so ridiculous that Samsung is copying Apple rumors now with their pathetic Galaxy Gear watch and large 12 inch tablet.  They have been fined the largest amount in IP history ($1B) and were part of the largest fine in EU history. They also have been fined for price fixing and paying college students to write bad reviews of competitors.  Their CEO is a two time convicted felon and the only reason why he isn't in jail is because the president pardoned him TWICE.  They have been guilty of bribes, theft, IP theft, fraud and who knows what else.

 

Codemn Google based on a few media articles?  WRONG.  Google has settled out of court or admitted wrong over a DOZEN TIMES for misuse of personal information.  In fact they have paid the largest ever fine in FTC HISTORY!  Yet you still don't want to admit Google is a stalker?


Edited by sog35 - 1/21/14 at 12:05pm
Apple Purchases last 12 months - iPhone 5S (two), iPhone 6, iPhone 6+ (two), iPadAir, iPadAir2, iPadMini2, AppleTV (two), MacMini, Airport Extreme, iPod Classic.
Reply
Apple Purchases last 12 months - iPhone 5S (two), iPhone 6, iPhone 6+ (two), iPadAir, iPadAir2, iPadMini2, AppleTV (two), MacMini, Airport Extreme, iPod Classic.
Reply
post #94 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post
 Yet you still don't want to admit Google is a stalker?

'A stalker' is a person. Google is a company. Over here we don't consider companies people.

 

I refuse to reply to your ridiculously loaded questions. I am sure I could equally construct misleading arguments about Apple but it serves no purpose. I've already told you that I agree Samsung certainly did infringe on some of Apple's IP and that some of the news reports about Google are quite concerning.

 

You won't push me into picking a binary position based on a small amount of evidence. Lets face it this is in a thread where people are saying that a court opinion doesn't matter because they know that all the laws surrounding it are unconstitutional. That's a level of hyperbole I'm not willing to match.

post #95 of 190

There is plenty of evidence that supports Apple's "price-fixing" scheme actually de-monopolized the Amazon "sell-at-a-loss" strategy, allowed new entries like the Nook to be somewhat profitable, etc, turning a 1 horse e-book race into a healthy competitive eco-system.

 

Now the nook is dead, authors are paid less for their content and anyone looking to enter this arena can't compete with Amazon.

post #96 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post

Hiya. This is one of the facts people don't understand. That order was never put in place. Apple even used it as one of their arguments to the court even though it was never enacted. I urge you to read Cote's opinion she submitted, it explains a lot of these facts quite nicely in a way some people here seem desperate to ignore.

Why was the order not put in place?
post #97 of 190

People stop feeding the trolls, they are baiting you and your continue to argue in circles with them. 

 

Face it no company is perfect, and to be honest if companies are not bouncing up against government rules and such they are not pushing the limits as they should. With that said, this is no longer about what Apple or anyone one company did right or wrong, It about what the judge did and now a higher court get to review those activities. 

 

Most times you do not have judge who is so transparent in there biases as this one, and she is obviously going to keep doing what she did so she never has to admit she might have been wrong.

post #98 of 190

I believe a company is a legal entity... and as such can be convicted of crime.

Is it not the job of the CIA/NSA to stalk people

post #99 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by leavingthebigG View Post


Why was the order not put in place?

 

Apple filed objections to it.

post #100 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkLite View Post
But her pre-trial opinion was based on pre-trial evidence submitted by involved parties. If you're not allowed to form a preliminary opinion based on pre-trial evidence, then what is it even there for?

 

If you read the quote (included in my post) that I was replying to you would have seen that I was merely contesting who asked for the preliminary opinion.  It was the DoJ not Apple.  That's all my post was meant to show.  

 

I think her preliminary opinion was incredibly flawed which made it unsurprising when she finally ruled against Apple after the trial, but that's not what I was posting about.

post #101 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by d54664 View Post
 

Who is surprised at this?

 

In the end, US government will always come to Apple's aid and overturn any court case which go against the patent-trolling fruit company.

 

Are you unaware that the DoJ is part of the government and brought the antitrust suit against Apple?

post #102 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post
 

'A stalker' is a person. Google is a company. Over here we don't consider companies people.

 

I refuse to reply to your ridiculously loaded questions. I am sure I could equally construct misleading arguments about Apple but it serves no purpose. I've already told you that I agree Samsung certainly did infringe on some of Apple's IP and that some of the news reports about Google are quite concerning.

 

You won't push me into picking a binary position based on a small amount of evidence. Lets face it this is in a thread where people are saying that a court opinion doesn't matter because they know that all the laws surrounding it are unconstitutional. That's a level of hyperbole I'm not willing to match.

 

a corporation is considered a seperate entity.  Legally a person.  At least in the USA.  I'm not sure about Scotland where you live.

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/07/the-supreme-court-still-thinks-corporations-are-people/259995/

Apple Purchases last 12 months - iPhone 5S (two), iPhone 6, iPhone 6+ (two), iPadAir, iPadAir2, iPadMini2, AppleTV (two), MacMini, Airport Extreme, iPod Classic.
Reply
Apple Purchases last 12 months - iPhone 5S (two), iPhone 6, iPhone 6+ (two), iPadAir, iPadAir2, iPadMini2, AppleTV (two), MacMini, Airport Extreme, iPod Classic.
Reply
post #103 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessi View Post
 

 

Try making an argument, rather than ad hominem.  I gave an argument.  Can you rebut it?  Nope?  So you characterize me in a snotty way. Oh, that was SO BRAVE!  Let me change my panties!

"SO BRAVE"? Is this Reddit? 

Quote:
 PS- you got a century of Supreme Court cites?  I only need one: Marbury v. Madison.  Oh, there I go making arguments again, which I guess just counts as fodder for more insults from you, eh?

The Supreme Court has repeatedly applied antitrust laws in cases from the passing of the Sherman Antitrust Act in 1890 right up until today, and Marbury v. Madison established the Supreme Court as the final arbiter of a law's constitutionality. In other words, the laws are perfectly in accordance with the Constitution based on over a century of cases.

 

Being argumentative and having a valid argument are not the same thing.

 
I also note that you ignored the part where I corrected you on the claim that Judge Cote's pre-trial statements were made without "seeing any evidence", whereas in fact they were made based on a large body of pre-trial evidence submitted by the relevant parties.

 

Quote:

 PPS- Hi sock puppet #2!  Or is it 3?  I get so confused!

Yeah, you got me. I'm just one face of a vast network of sockpuppets that have been biding our time on AI until now, when we were deployed to disagree with you. I'll just go collect my wages and my complimentary Galaxy S5 directly from the CEO of Samsung now as a reward for my forum posting.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by GregInPrague View Post
 

 

If you read the quote (included in my post) that I was replying to you would have seen that I was merely contesting who asked for the preliminary opinion.  It was the DoJ not Apple.  That's all my post was meant to show.  

 

I think her preliminary opinion was incredibly flawed which made it unsurprising when she finally ruled against Apple after the trial, but that's not what I was posting about.

My apologies; it's pretty hard to keep track of who's said what in a thread like this. It's fair enough to think her preliminary opinion was wrong - I just disagree with the people who claim it was based on ~no evidence~.

post #104 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post
 

 

a corporation is considered a seperate entity.  Legally a person.  At least in the USA.  I'm not sure about Scotland where you live.

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/07/the-supreme-court-still-thinks-corporations-are-people/259995/


I'm actually from England, North West England to be more precise. Here a Corporation is a distinct legal entity, but it does not have rights akin to a person. The whole situation in the US with people (corporations) having free speech (spending money) on any topic they like is utterly weird to us :)

post #105 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

 

 

OOH OOH! LG PRADA!

What do I win?

 

No, it said it was a HTC, probably the Diamond, trouble is Apple introduced the first MULTItouch screen phone.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #106 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkLite View Post
 

I'll just go collect my wages and my complimentary Galaxy S5 directly from the CEO of Samsung now as a reward for my forum posting.

The ultimate comedy of this is, I wouldn't accept one if they gave it me, because then I'd probably have to use it and all their added software is awful. My father has an S4 and it's absolutely stuffed with crap.

post #107 of 190
Bravo, Apple! Maybe, truth will prevail after all.
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
post #108 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post
 


I'm actually from England, North West England to be more precise. Here a Corporation is a distinct legal entity, but it does not have rights akin to a person. The whole situation in the US with people (corporations) having free speech (spending money) on any topic they like is utterly weird to us :)

 

Well it's very weird to Americans that you don't have nearly the same freedom of the press as in the US.  Neither the government nor the monarchy (which we obviously don't have) could tell a paper they're not allowed to print something just because it's unfavorable to them.  If they could no US paper would be reporting on Snowden leaks...

post #109 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post

Apple filed objections to it.

In your reading of Judge Cote's 60+ pages, did she explain why she had decided to put in motion the ex parte meetings? I admit I did not read the document?
post #110 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by d54664 View Post
 

 

Not I that I really care how the government of this banana-republic is set up, but yes I am aware of this.

 

Maybe some people associated with US government are not yet brainwashed iSheep, or maybe the whole affair was set up to maintain the appearance of "fairness"? Who knows.

 

After all, some patent office also ordered the import ban on some iPhones (or some other Apple crap) only to have the order overturned after Apple managers whined to Obama about it...

So now the ITC is a patent office?  I imagine people on here with similar feelings to you would appreciate it if you would stop making their "side" look so uneducated.  

post #111 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregInPrague View Post
 

 

Well it's very weird to Americans that you don't have nearly the same freedom of the press as in the US.  Neither the government nor the monarchy (which we obviously don't have) could tell a paper they're not allowed to print something just because it's unfavorable to them.  If they could no US paper would be reporting on Snowden leaks...


Oh crikey I am not getting into this discussion here! There are ways to prevent media publication of things in the UK but they are rarely used and at least accountable to some oversight. It's a really complex and difficult topic with people who feel incredibly strongly. I've already taken enough abuse for one afternoon.

 

If you do want to discuss this though, PM me and I'll compare and contrast, although what's the whole 'In Prague' part about eh? Finally your secret identity exposed! :-p

post #112 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post
 

The ultimate comedy of this is, I wouldn't accept one if they gave it me, because then I'd probably have to use it and all their added software is awful. My father has an S4 and it's absolutely stuffed with crap.

Bloatware-filled phones are even more horrible than bloatware-filled laptops and desktops - it's even harder to clean all the crap off with a mobile device. Quite why anyone would want to use worse versions of the stock apps with [company name] prepended to the app title is a mystery to me.

post #113 of 190

Even though the Judge didn't act on the ex-parte conversations yet doesn't mean it wasn't part of the original agreement. I actually also read that she REMOVED that provision. Thus, it was part of the original scope. 

 

The other part you are overlooking here is that Bromwich wasn't supposed to be on the clock. apple had until like mid January before the monitoring was to take effect. The time was for them to put their plans into place. Bromwich had no business interviewing anyone yet. period. If he chose to do it then it probably should have been on his own dime. 

 

The judge solely based her entire ruling on he interpretation of Eddie Cue. She went with that there was a conversation that took place between all book publishers and Apple No evidence was presented to prove it. She just thought Eddie Cue was lying. I read all the info that was presented day by day. Fortune 2.0 posted great recaps each and every day. The evidence was overwhelmingly sided in Apples favor. All of the DOJ witnesses fell apart. Including the liars from Google and Amazon whose stories all turned from what they gave in that "pre-trial" evidence. In addition, Apple is a vertical not horizontal player. While there could be collusion between all the publishers and they can do it via a mechanism that Apple supplies, does not make it anti-trust. It is unheard of for a vertical player, to be accused on an anti-trust violation. This is why this will also be overturned.

 

Lets also not forget the fact that Amazon held a 90+% marketshare over the e-book market by selling below cost. Remember Amazzon started solely as a bookstore. It cut the price of best sellers by 30% and forced other retailers to do the same. This put all the mom and pop and major bookstores out of business. It then developed its own e-reader and with the clout, forced publishers to go along and make e-books. Amazon then sold those e-books at a loss.  Customers would then flock to e-books and that was cannibalizing hardcover book sales of NYT bestsellers. This was where the publishers made their money. This was Amazons end game. Kill the hardcover books and have the only viable e-reader in town and thus corner the market. They were pretty much there. I'm sure taking over the entire publish industry would have been the next phase. The publishers had no clout and could not make any demands from Amazon.   Even if they wanted to raise their price, Amazon would sell for a loss and kill of their profit making source of hardcovers. If a publisher tried to window (i.e. hold distribution of e-books for a period of time to sell hardcovers) Amazon put the pressure on that they would remove all their books. Why were they never prosecuted. 

 

Now the sole fact that Apple had an alternative, ibookstore, meant that the publishers knew they might have some clout at Amazon. But, that doesn't mean that there was collusion between all parties. The publishers could have colluded on their own or just accepted Apples terms independently knowing what the benefits would be for them. Going back to the case. Many of the publishers argued the Favored Nations Clause. This was all proven in court. If they all colluded then why would this be the case? In addition, it was also proven that Apple had to negotiate over months each and every publishers agreement. If they all colluded wouldn't this have been a slam dunk?

 

Sorry but opinions were made up in this case by the judge and then she went with her opinions vs. the facts that were presented. To top it off, the whole curx of the argument was that Apple increased pricing. However, it has come to light that the avg price of e-books have been falling ever since the iBookstore went live. This  also goes to show it was a bogus claim and you can bet this will come up in the re-trial. 

 

Just to leave one last tid bit. Apple has only been found guilty in one part of the process. by a sole judge. They have the right to appeal, which they did. If they are found not guilty is your view of the judge then going to change? 

post #114 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.

"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."

 

Sorry, that oversteps a pre-trial opinion.  That's judgement.  Indeed, pre-judgement.  She drew hard conclusions that should have been subject to evidence presented during proceedings.  This is most certainly going to come back to bite her.

post #115 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by leavingthebigG View Post


In your reading of Judge Cote's 60+ pages, did she explain why she had decided to put in motion the ex parte meetings? I admit I did not read the document?

 

It seems like it was just a way of ensuring that the court was kept up to date but without adding a bunch of hassle to the schedule and lawyers. Apple seems to think that this is dangerous and insidious but I really don't understand what exactly they're afraid of. From my reading it sounds like he was going to appear, say "Yeah all going fine, they're working on the new policies now" and bugger off.

 

IANAL though, and I am not based in the US, so it's certainly possible I have misunderstood, don't take my word as gospel.

post #116 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by imt1 View Post
 

Even though the Judge didn't act on the ex-parte conversations yet doesn't mean it wasn't part of the original agreement. I actually also read that she REMOVED that provision. Thus, it was part of the original scope. 

 

The other part you are overlooking here is that Bromwich wasn't supposed to be on the clock. apple had until like mid January before the monitoring was to take effect. The time was for them to put their plans into place. Bromwich had no business interviewing anyone yet. period. If he chose to do it then it probably should have been on his own dime. 

 

Before I even continue to address the rest of your post. This is wholly incorrect. Apple disagrees with you here too. Please read her latest opinion and then reformulate your post because it's clear you're working off third party sources or information.

post #117 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by robogobo View Post
 

"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."

 

Sorry, that oversteps a pre-trial opinion.  That's judgement.  Indeed, pre-judgement.  She drew hard conclusions that should have been subject to evidence presented during proceedings.  This is most certainly going to come back to bite her.

 

I am not convinced. Could you reword her statement so it confirms more to an opinion in your eyes? I can't imagine how else she could say "I have seen some evidence which appears to be damning and the circumstantial evidence points in the DOJs favour either" without you claiming it was a pre-judgement.

post #118 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkLite View Post
 

Bloatware-filled phones are even more horrible than bloatware-filled laptops and desktops - it's even harder to clean all the crap off with a mobile device. Quite why anyone would want to use worse versions of the stock apps with [company name] prepended to the app title is a mystery to me.

 

Agreed. I picked up a Nexus 5 because my old phone was unbearably slow and it was available for a ridiculously low price. The simpler, non bloaty interface is lovely. It's a great phone and they've been smart and competed where Apple has a hard time doing in the UK, price.

post #119 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregInPrague View Post
 

So now the ITC is a patent office?  I imagine people on here with similar feelings to you would appreciate it if you would stop making their "side" look so uneducated.  

Indeed. People posting nonsense doesn't help either side, regardless of what side they're posting it for.

post #120 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post

It seems like it was just a way of ensuring that the court was kept up to date but without adding a bunch of hassle to the schedule and lawyers. Apple seems to think that this is dangerous and insidious but I really don't understand what exactly they're afraid of. From my reading it sounds like he was going to appear, say "Yeah all going fine, they're working on the new policies now" and bugger off.

IANAL though, and I am not based in the US, so it's certainly possible I have misunderstood, don't take my word as gospel.

Did Judge Cote explain why she ultimately decided to remove the ex parte meetings motion?
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