or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple officially appeals e-books antitrust ruling, asks for dismissal or retrial
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple officially appeals e-books antitrust ruling, asks for dismissal or retrial

post #1 of 99
Thread Starter 
Apple on Tuesday filed an appeal over a U.S. district court ruling that found the company responsible for e-book price-fixing, requesting a reversal of the decision or, barring that, a new trial in front of a new judge.

Summation
Apple's closing slide in its e-book antitrust case. | Source: U.S. District Court


As seen in the appellate opening brief filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Apple is looking to overturn District Court Judge Denise Cote's July 2013 ruling, which found the company culpable for colluding with five major book publishers to falsely inflate the cost of e-books sold through the iBookstore. The antitrust case was leveled by the Department of Justice in an amended complaint over two years ago.

A brief introductory statement inserts a few fresh arguments into Apple's case against, while rehashing older claims that the iBookstore and iPad created, not stifled, competition in the e-book space.

The district court's ruling that Apple, in the very act of launching the iPad, inventing the iBooks Store, and entering the e-books market, violated the Sherman Act is a radical departure from modern antitrust law and policy. If allowed to stand, the ruling will stifle innovation, chill competition, and harm consumers.


Apple goes on to point out Amazon's dominant position in the market, which at the time of the iBookstore's launch accounted for nine out of every ten e-book sales. Counsel previously argued these statistics in front of Judge Cote last year.

The brief clarified that the district court's decision "did not find that 'Apple itself desired higher e-book prices than those offered at Amazon.'" (emphasis in original) Instead, the court found the iPad to have "encouraged innovation and competition."

Apple argues that Judge Cote "repeatedly" applied incorrect legal standards when considering her decision, which consequently led to a "false conclusion of a price-fixing conspiracy."

The document gives a rundown of the U.S. v. Apple antitrust proceedings, including a section on the hotly contested pricing models used by Apple and, as a comparison provided by the DOJ, Amazon.

Amazon employed a so-called "wholesale model" in its e-book sales. Under the scheme, retailers buy content from publishers in bulk and set resale prices at or below cost to move units. According to in-court testimony, the strategy sometimes brought massive discounts to new e-book titles that would otherwise have sold for much more.

Amazon allegedly used the wholesale model to sell its Kindle e-reader, which controlled as much as 90 percent of the market by 2009.

When Apple entered the market, it used an "agency model." The agency model is based on a "most favored nations" clause that disallows content owners to sell their wares to another retailer for a lower price.

Apple's agency model contracts were central to the DOJ's case. The government argued that Amazon's wholesale model was negatively impacted as a result of Apple's deals, which ultimately trickled down to consumers as the Internet retail giant was no longer able to compete on price.

As part of Judge Cote's ruling, Apple was saddled with an injunction barring the company from entering into any unsavory deals with publishers. Antitrust watchdog Michael Bromwich was also assigned to keep an eye on Apple. Bromwich and Apple have butted heads since he was installed last October.

post #2 of 99
One message for you Mr. Bromwich:

{goto fail}
“A PC is no bargain when it doesn’t do what you want.” - Apple 2009
Reply
“A PC is no bargain when it doesn’t do what you want.” - Apple 2009
Reply
post #3 of 99
good, they should appeal this.
post #4 of 99
"The brief clarified that the district court's decision "did not find that 'Apple itself desired higher e-book prices than those offered at Amazon." (emphasis in original) Instead, the court found the iPad to have "encouraged innovation and competition."

Oh really? Trying to rewrite history are we?


"...records of Apple saying it "cannot tolerate a market where the product is sold significantly more cheaply elsewhere." And some of the most damning statements, Cote said, came all the way from the top of Apple.

"Compelling evidence of Apple's participation in the conspiracy came from the words uttered by Steve Jobs, Apple's founder, CEO, and visionary. Apple has struggled mightily to reinterpret Jobs's statements in a way that will eliminate their bite. Its efforts have proven fruitless." In one statement, Jobs told James Murdoch that Amazon's $9.99 sales were "eroding the value perception" of its products, and that Apple would be trying higher price points. This was confirmed at launch. "Jobs's purchase of an e-book for $14.99 at the Launch, and his explanation to a reporter that day that Amazon's $9.99 price for the same book would be irrelevant because soon all prices will "be the same" is further evidence that Apple understood and intended that Amazon's ability to set retail prices would soon be eliminated."

Jobs' statements, Cote said, "remain powerful evidence of conspiratorial knowledge and intent."

http://www.theverge.com/2013/7/10/4510338/apple-found-guilty-of-ebook-price-fixing

No matter what type of media...movies, music, books, photos and web pages

look better and sound better on the Kindle Fire HD than any iPad

Reply

No matter what type of media...movies, music, books, photos and web pages

look better and sound better on the Kindle Fire HD than any iPad

Reply
post #5 of 99
With a handle like yours, I would expect no less, but you are still wrong. With selective quotes of evidence you can make up any point of view...and you did. Predictable.
I could have predicted a different response if my morning Kenyan AA had already brewed.
post #6 of 99
Oh. My god. Enough. You lost. Get over it. You can't control everything, Tim.
post #7 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cash907 View Post

Oh. My god. Enough. You lost. Get over it. You can't control everything, Tim.

I can sense your expertise in all matters legal.

It happened around about the time when you declared a case that still contained the legal option of appealing 'lost'.
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 #8 of 99
I don't think it's too much to ask for:

1). A judge that doesn't declare their intention to find an entity guilty before anything has even been heard.
2). A judge that doesn't just happen to place well known friends into well-paying positions created by such rulings.
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 #9 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR View Post

I don't think it's too much to ask for:

1). A judge that doesn't declare their intention to find an entity guilty before anything has even been heard.
2). A judge that doesn't just happen to place well known friends into well-paying positions created by such rulings.

Adding to your list...
3) Not allowing a competitor witness to sit on the witness stand for the prosecution to state his company lawyers wrote the response for him then using the response as credible evidence.
4) Reading multiple emails containing a man's working thought processes concerning possible paths to take then choosing to condemn him for having the thoughts even he chose not to take those paths.
post #10 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR View Post

I don't think it's too much to ask for:

1). A judge that doesn't declare their intention to find an entity guilty before anything has even been heard.
2). A judge that doesn't just happen to place well known friends into well-paying positions created by such rulings.

 

1. The pre-trial opinion was solicited, not spontaneous. If a Judge is not allowed to have an opinion before a case then you will find no judge suitable

2. Please provide evidence that Bromwich was a 'well known friend' and why this would be a bad thing for the Judge to appoint someone she knows is talented.

post #11 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by leavingthebigG View Post


Adding to your list...
3) Not allowing a competitor witness to sit on the witness stand for the prosecution to state his company lawyers wrote the response for him then using the response as credible evidence.
4) Reading multiple emails containing a man's working thought processes concerning possible paths to take then choosing to condemn him for having the thoughts even he chose not to take those paths.

 

Why should either of these happen? Emails that were written are evidence. Witnesses are allowed to take legal advice too you know.

post #12 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post

1. The pre-trial opinion was solicited, not spontaneous. If a Judge is not allowed to have an opinion before a case then you will find no judge suitable
2. Please provide evidence BLAH BLAH BLAH

Sorry, but I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
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 #13 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post

Why should either of these happen? Emails that were written are evidence. Witnesses are allowed to take legal advice too you know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post

Why should either of these happen? Emails that were written are evidence. Witnesses are allowed to take legal advice too you know.

Aren't you the guy from the UK who defended Cote so vociferously last year?

First, having a lawyer is fine. No problem there. When a written testimony is provided to the prosecution with your signature, I would expect the written testimony to have at least been read just for a bit of self-ass covering. The DOJ placed the written testimony as evidence against Apple. When Apple's lawyers questioned the witness about the written testimony, the witness said written testimony had been written by company lawyers. The witness could not testify to the content of the written document containing the witness' signature! So, why was the Google employee there for the DOJ against Apple? To represent Google's interests through lawyers.
post #14 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russell View Post

"The brief clarified that the district court's decision "did not find that 'Apple itself desired higher e-book prices than those offered at Amazon." (emphasis in original) Instead, the court found the iPad to have "encouraged innovation and competition."

Oh really? Trying to rewrite history are we?


"...records of Apple saying it "cannot tolerate a market where the product is sold significantly more cheaply elsewhere." And some of the most damning statements, Cote said, came all the way from the top of Apple.

"Compelling evidence of Apple's participation in the conspiracy came from the words uttered by Steve Jobs, Apple's founder, CEO, and visionary. Apple has struggled mightily to reinterpret Jobs's statements in a way that will eliminate their bite. Its efforts have proven fruitless." In one statement, Jobs told James Murdoch that Amazon's $9.99 sales were "eroding the value perception" of its products, and that Apple would be trying higher price points. This was confirmed at launch. "Jobs's purchase of an e-book for $14.99 at the Launch, and his explanation to a reporter that day that Amazon's $9.99 price for the same book would be irrelevant because soon all prices will "be the same" is further evidence that Apple understood and intended that Amazon's ability to set retail prices would soon be eliminated."

Jobs' statements, Cote said, "remain powerful evidence of conspiratorial knowledge and intent."

http://www.theverge.com/2013/7/10/4510338/apple-found-guilty-of-ebook-price-fixing

I love Steve Jobs but I don't have to be thrilled that he told content holders to use an agency model, which means don't sell your stuff for less anywhere. I remember searching online, why are ebook prices so high, and seeing many other people asked the same thing in forums and question answer sites. Unfortunately, this probably has a lot to do with it.
post #15 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by leavingthebigG View Post



Aren't you the guy from the UK who defended Cote so vociferously last year?

No, I joined the site this year.

 

Quote:
First, having a lawyer is fine. No problem there. When a written testimony is provided to the prosecution with your signature, I would expect the written testimony to have at least been read just for a bit of self-ass covering. The DOJ placed the written testimony as evidence against Apple. When Apple's lawyers questioned the witness about the written testimony, the witness said written testimony had been written by company lawyers. The witness could not testify to the content of the written document containing the witness' signature! So, why was the Google employee there for the DOJ against Apple? To represent Google's interests through lawyers

Thank you for clarifying. Having said that, I'm sure we could dismiss Apple witnesses in the same manner, as they acted in a similar fashion to this.

post #16 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post

1. The pre-trial opinion was solicited, not spontaneous. If a Judge is not allowed to have an opinion before a case then you will find no judge suitable
2. Please provide evidence that Bromwich was a 'well known friend' and why this would be a bad thing for the Judge to appoint someone she knows is talented.

You are already aware of the friendship. Playing this game is a favorite tactic of yours.

Are you serious here... "someone she knows is talented"? The man admitted he does not have the necessary skills and requires help from others with experience to do his job. Still, he was chosen!
post #17 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by leavingthebigG View Post


You are already aware of the friendship. Playing this game is a favorite tactic of yours.

Yes it's called 'asking for evidence'. The only evidence anyone has presented to me is that she endorsed him 19 years ago.

 

Now, I'm sorry if I am a distant friend, but I can't think of anyone I would consider a good friend that I endorsed nearly 2 decades ago and did nothing else since.

 

Quote:
Are you serious here... "someone she knows is talented"? The man admitted he does not have the necessary skills and requires help from others with experience to do his job. Still, he was chosen!

He has the skills and experience as a monitor, that doesn't mean he's an antitrust lawyer. Should Apple only have a single legal representative as they should be able to deal with the whole trial themselves? I fail to see how a team is somehow this incredibly objectionable thing.

post #18 of 99

Apple could have settled with the DOJ before the trial like the editors.

They probably wouldn't have Bromwich on their neck right now.

 

Apple could have accepted the first ruling, thus not risking further annoyances.

 

But no, Apple filed an appeal.

 

Do you really think that one of the world biggest company is ruled by a horde of headless childish monkeys?

It's pretty funny to watch self-appointed experts claiming that everything in this case is crystal clear while people at the head of Apple are precisely betting otherwise.

post #19 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post
 

 

1. The pre-trial opinion was solicited, not spontaneous. If a Judge is not allowed to have an opinion before a case then you will find no judge suitable

2. Please provide evidence that Bromwich was a 'well known friend' and why this would be a bad thing for the Judge to appoint someone she knows is talented.

The problem with your view is a Judge is supposed to have the appearance of impartiality. She should not give a view on a case until she makes a ruling. Doing so improperly influenced the parties. It let the Department of Justice know which way she would likely rule. Moreover, Thomas Penfield, the Judge in the Microsoft anti-trust case was removed for giving his opinion to a reporter concerning Microsoft's guilt AFTER the case was over and he made a ruling that Microsoft was guilty of violating the Sherman Trust Act. So, the Judge should not have given an opinion. 

 

As to your second question. Why would the Judge appoint somebody who charges over a thousand dollars an hour, and has no anti-trust experience? You'd think perhaps the judge would hire somebody who actually knows a little bit about anti-trust law. Instead, the so called anti-trust monitor has to go hire another lawyer who actually knows something about anti-trust law to do his job, and both bill out at over a thousand dollars an hour. Why have somebody else do your work for you? Do an internet search. Judge Cotes and Bromwhich worked together back in the 70s at the Justice Department. Bromwhich also was appointed as the US Inspector General despite him having a conflict of interest. Judge Cotes advocated for him to get the job. They are friends without question. The Wallstreet Journal throughly covers the problems with appointing Bromwhich, the Judges friend. 

post #20 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Twisell View Post
 

Apple could have settled with the DOJ before the trial like the editors.

They probably wouldn't have Bromwich on their neck right now.

 

Apple could have accepted the first ruling, thus not risking further annoyances.

 

But no, Apple filed an appeal.

 

Do you really think that one of the world biggest company is ruled by a horde of headless childish monkeys?

It's pretty funny to watch self-appointed experts claiming that everything in this case is crystal clear while people at the head of Apple are precisely betting otherwise.

 

 

Hey, here is an idea. Perhaps, Apple, like myself, actually thinks it didn't do anything wrong? Perhaps, it wants to exercise its rights under the Constitution to have an Appeal Court hear its case. 

post #21 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Amazon employed a so-called "wholesale model" in its e-book sales. Under the scheme, retailers buy content from publishers in bulk and set resale prices at or below cost to move units. According to in-court testimony, the strategy sometimes brought massive discounts to new e-book titles that would otherwise have sold for much more.

Amazon allegedly used the wholesale model to sell its Kindle e-reader, which controlled as much as 90 percent of the market by 2009.

When Apple entered the market, it used an "agency model." The agency model is based on a "most favored nations" clause that disallows content owners to sell their wares to another retailer for a lower price.

Apple's agency model contracts were central to the DOJ's case. The government argued that Amazon's wholesale model was negatively impacted as a result of Apple's deals, which ultimately trickled down to consumers as the Internet retail giant was no longer able to compete on price.
 

 

It's always surprising that justice stands with a monopoly. 

 

I do understand that, from a strict (and narrow) point of view, a model that lower the price for consumers may be seen positive. However, is it the role of justice to decide what is better: a model that "protects" consumers or a model that "protects" the companies (editors) that produce the goods (books)?

post #22 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post
 

Yes it's called 'asking for evidence'. The only evidence anyone has presented to me is that she endorsed him 19 years ago.

 

Now, I'm sorry if I am a distant friend, but I can't think of anyone I would consider a good friend that I endorsed nearly 2 decades ago and did nothing else since.

 

He has the skills and experience as a monitor, that doesn't mean he's an antitrust lawyer. Should Apple only have a single legal representative as they should be able to deal with the whole trial themselves? I fail to see how a team is somehow this incredibly objectionable thing.

 

They worked together for years at the US Attornies Office (do your own Internet search). They are friends. You don't see Bromwhich or the Judge refuting that when major US papers like the WallStreet Journal report it. They could claim defamation if not true. 

 

Sure, he has experience as a monitor, but no experience with anti-trust. If you had a problem concerning anti-trust, wouldn't you go see an anti-trust lawyer? Being a monitor is easy. One reads Apple's anti-trust policies and contracts and determines if they violate anti-trust law. The Judge appointing her long term friend, somebody who has no anti-trust experience, when there are plenty of lawyer who do have such experience available to take the job, is questionable. 

post #23 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by leavingthebigG View Post



Aren't you the guy from the UK who defended Cote so vociferously last year?

First, having a lawyer is fine. No problem there. When a written testimony is provided to the prosecution with your signature, I would expect the written testimony to have at least been read just for a bit of self-ass covering. The DOJ placed the written testimony as evidence against Apple. When Apple's lawyers questioned the witness about the written testimony, the witness said written testimony had been written by company lawyers. The witness could not testify to the content of the written document containing the witness' signature! So, why was the Google employee there for the DOJ against Apple? To represent Google's interests through lawyers.

 

 

That was really shady. 

post #24 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by daveinpublic View Post

I love Steve Jobs but I don't have to be thrilled that he told content holders to use an agency model, which means don't sell your stuff for less anywhere. I remember searching online, why are ebook prices so high, and seeing many other people asked the same thing in forums and question answer sites. Unfortunately, this probably has a lot to do with it.

You're confusing the agency model with the 'most favored nation' clause.
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #25 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by daveinpublic View Post


I love Steve Jobs but I don't have to be thrilled that he told content holders to use an agency model, which means don't sell your stuff for less anywhere. I remember searching online, why are ebook prices so high, and seeing many other people asked the same thing in forums and question answer sites. Unfortunately, this probably has a lot to do with it.

Jobs didn't force publishers to go to an agency model. Apple had no power and could not force the publishers to do anything. The publishers hate Amazon, and they were already talking to Barnes and Noble about going to an agency model. Apple was willing to go along with the agency model. Apple, however, didn't want to be undercut in price on new releases, so it insisted on a most favored nations clause for new releases. That simply meant that publishers could not set the retail price lower at stores others then Apple. So, if a book was offered to Amazon's customers at $9.99, it had to be offered to Apple's customers at $9.99. Companies like Amazon could get around the most favored nations clause by buy purchasing the exclusive rights for a works, which was often the case. 

 

The publishers hate Amazon because Amazon uses its monopoly powers to force them to release e-books at the same time as traditional books, undercutting their tiered publishing model. Amazon then under cuts the price on the traditional books often selling the books at or below cost, which in turn undercuts sells of traditional books. That is anti-competitive because Amazon is forcing competitors to allow it to dominate one market (ebooks) by threatening publishers to use its power in another market (traditional online book sales). 

 

The reality is consumers had more choices with the agency model and on a whole it brought e-book prices down.  


Edited by TBell - 2/26/14 at 6:13am
post #26 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post

No, I joined the site this year.

Thank you for clarifying. Having said that, I'm sure we could dismiss Apple witnesses in the same manner, as they acted in a similar fashion to this.

Can you point to such an Apple witness who behaved in this manner?
post #27 of 99
Apple may want to put a little money toward a campaign to have Cote removed from the bench. I'd buy that for a dollar!

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #28 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cash907 View Post

Oh. My god. Enough. You lost. Get over it. You can't control everything, Tim.

That's for the higher courts to decide.

"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 #29 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by ealvarez View Post
 
do understand that, from a strict (and narrow) point of view, a model that lower the price for consumers may be seen positive. However, is it the role of justice to decide what is better: a model that "protects" consumers or a model that "protects" the companies (editors) that produce the goods (books)?

The law does not seek to protect producers or consumers directly.  Instead, it seeks to protect free markets.  It is thought that such a strategy will protect both businesses and customers.

 

And pricing levels have no direct bearing on decisions.  It is assumed that in a competative  market, market prices will prevail.  

post #30 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cash907 View Post

Oh. My god. Enough. You lost. Get over it. You can't control everything, Tim.

I almost have to agree, but the brief points out an interesting piece of information. We all know that Amazon and its Kindle did in fact control the large share of ebook market. That was fact at the time. what Apple is saying is the judges decision set a precedent which tells other company if a player has a dominate low price position in the market do not attempt to enter the market since you will be hit with an antitrust case for attempting to upset the status quote. I said this before books are not a commodity, thus books from different authors and plublisher are not inter changeable, like gas, milk, grain, memory parts and the list goes on. 

 

Also, we know Amazon sold books below cost, that is also illegal, it is call predatory pricing practices, but the government chose to turn a blind eye to this. Since Amazon in fact does pricing this way, there was nothing in the apple agreement to bar Amazon from doing this going forward. The issue was the bookseller were attempting to get Amazon off the wholesale model which would bar them for their loss leader pricing model. But if Amaizon refuse to change and it was their right, they could continue to buy under the wholesale model and keep selling books at a loss. 

 

If you think this through, and the DOJ did not go after apple and the bookseller, and Amazon continue to sell books at a loss, then Apple and other company could have gone after Amazon for predatory pricing practice, If you were Amazon what would you do, file a complain with the DOJ now so not to have to fight your own case later. It is just a theory but it kind of fits.

post #31 of 99
The bullies at the DOJ made a giant blunder when they took on Apple. They hoped for a quick settlement, with happy little book purchasers, all properly bought off, pulling the lever for Obama in 2012. The big publishers folded quickly. Even they can't afford to take on the feds. But Apple, with pockets $160 billion deep, can fight them until doomsday and shows every indication of doing just that.

Now what's the DOJ to do? Their lawyers, in proper Chicago-machine style, would love join the IRS and use any pretext, however shallow, to go after anyone or any business showing even the slightest inclination to resist the will of Obama.

That's particularly true of the imposition of Obamacare mandates. They're already proposed rule changes that let them go after small business, forcing those businesses to spend huge sums in legal fees if, while displaying good business sense, they take Obamacare in account when they make hiring and expansion decisions.

So, whatever we feel about the merits of this particular case, it's good to see Apple fighting on, making demands on a DOJ that might otherwise playing havoc with our democracy.

The good news is that liberals are waking up and concluding that 2016 isn't that far off. If the Democrats can get away this when they're on power, then so can the Republicans. Turn about, as any kid will tell you, is fair play.

So fight on Apple. There's more involved here than just a fuss over the price of ebooks.
post #32 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by leavingthebigG View Post


Can you point to such an Apple witness who behaved in this manner?

Don't hold your breath. 

post #33 of 99

The bottom line on this case is this:

 

For the first time ever in this nation's history, the United States Department of Justice sued to restore a monopoly position that was torn down by a new entrant.  This is a dangerous precedent which I lay squarely on the feet of Eric Holder who seemed to be too stupid to realize that he was turning the DoJ into the private law firm of a predatory monopolist.  A more enlightened DoJ would have used prosecutorial discretion and looked beyond the narrow view of prices, focusing more on long term competition in the eBooks industry.

post #34 of 99
I would have appealed with extreme prejudice.
post #35 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post

1. The pre-trial opinion was solicited, not spontaneous. If a Judge is not allowed to have an opinion before a case then you will find no judge suitable
2. Please provide evidence that Bromwich was a 'well known friend' and why this would be a bad thing for the Judge to appoint someone she knows is talented.

1. You serious? A judge cannot have bias prior to hearing the evidence. A judge can have an opinion after hearing all the evidence. that is called a verdict.
2. Answered by others.
post #36 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post
 
.... why this would be a bad thing for the Judge to appoint someone she knows is talented.

:lol:

 

Is it April 1 today? 

post #37 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post
 

Don't hold your breath. 

I was not planning on doing that but thanks!

post #38 of 99

Good for Apple. Independent on my feelings about Apple, I believe that this was a gross misuse of government and that justice was not served, and even perverted. I think others here have made the case that just because e-book prices became higher, does not mean that there was some monopolistic action occurring or that customers were harmed in any way.

 

I believe that to say Apple colluded to raise prices is false. Apple merely brought their agency model to the publishing industry and the publishers had the chance to get out from under the thumb of the Amazon monopoly, a monopoly which has been and continues to diminish the value of content in order to sell hardware and further extend their monopoly.

 

What the DOJ has failed to realize is that monopolies can (and do) exist who lower prices to the detriment of the consumer.  Take a look at Walmart. While they promise and deliver "low prices everyday", they do so at the detriment of whole small town economies and the national economy as well.  People in these communities have become slaves to a mega-corporation that acts with impugnity. They are a total monopoly but are not charged with this just because they promise low prices and hometown values.

 

This judge walked into this case with prejudice that Apple was already guilty which should alone make it a mistrial.  Let's call a spade a spade... Apple doesn't want to pay more tax than they require, the government is out of money and THEY are colluding with the establishment of justice to wring cash out of a corporation for their own benefit. That my friends, is corruption at the highest level.

post #39 of 99
Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post

Emails that were written are evidence.

 

Uh…

 

Originally Posted by leavingthebigG View Post
…even he chose not to take those paths.

 

Sure they are…

 

Originally Posted by walletinspector View Post
I would have appealed with extreme prejudice.

 

What does that imply; that the appeal is ununappealableble? :lol:

 

“Appeal with prejudice” should either allow you to take it STRAIGHT to the Supreme Court or change who the defendant is. In this case, Amazon.

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 #40 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkichline View Post

Good for Apple. Independent on my feelings about Apple, I believe that this was a gross misuse of government and that justice was not served, and even perverted. I think others here have made the case that just because e-book prices became higher, does not mean that there was some monopolistic action occurring or that customers were harmed in any way.

I believe that to say Apple colluded to raise prices is false. Apple merely brought their agency model to the publishing industry and the publishers had the chance to get out from under the thumb of the Amazon monopoly, a monopoly which has been and continues to diminish the value of content in order to sell hardware and further extend their monopoly.

What the DOJ has failed to realize is that monopolies can (and do) exist who lower prices to the detriment of the consumer.  Take a look at Walmart. While they promise and deliver "low prices everyday", they do so at the detriment of whole small town economies and the national economy as well.  People in these communities have become slaves to a mega-corporation that acts with impugnity. They are a total monopoly but are not charged with this just because they promise low prices and hometown values.

This judge walked into this case with prejudice that Apple was already guilty which should alone make it a mistrial.  Let's call a spade a spade... Apple doesn't want to pay more tax than they require, the government is out of money and THEY are colluding with the establishment of justice to wring cash out of a corporation for their own benefit. That my friends, is corruption at the highest level.

Regulations and narrowly applied laws are what create monopolies, not a free market.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple officially appeals e-books antitrust ruling, asks for dismissal or retrial