They better start installing suicide safety nets for their legal team, they got the tech anyway from Foxconn, it's bend over time for apple, and rightly so. If I were them I would settle and do so quickly, this will bring unprecedented tarnishing to their reputation a la Microsoft anti trust lawsuits. It's still beyond me how They ve not settled already. Of course they are not the first and they won't be the last to think they are invincible.
Competition must finally be restored b&n, amazon, google play iBooks they should all be competing in prices for the benefit of the consumer. Consumer have been almost irreparably hurt because apple wanted a guaranteed 30% cut as well as no competition between retailers, because their idea of managing a bookstore was to sit on their ass upon already available infrastructure and get 30% per click...good business model undoubtedly, too bad they had to break the law to make it happen.
The agencies still have to sell a book at a price that people are willing to pay or nobody makes money. If all resellers sell at the same price, then [B]every reseller has to compete by offering a better experience[/B] (digital storefront, financial interactions, software, customer service, ebook format and quality, etc). [B]If you think that Apple has magically eliminated competition just by normalizing prices across distributors, you're an idiot.[/B]
It is a lot more complicated than that. It goes more like this....
blah blah blah
Actually it isn't at all like that, it is as simple as I stated.
No collusion, no price fixing, no laws broken.
Just the DoJ catering to the lobbyists who give them money to help them get re-elected.
Too bad none of the other pigs at the trough will follow up the money trail or investigate the simple question "Who stands to gain the most out of this investigation?"
That's just politics, America has the best justice money can buy.
My understanding of the whole thing may be a little off, but, basically, Apple's conversation with the major publishers went something like this:
"We're interested in entering the eBook market, but we don't want to have to compete with Amazon's and other retailers' prices. We hear you don't like how Amazon is charging low prices for your eBooks and that you want to make more money off of your books by making Amazon charge higher prices. We know that, traditionally, you sell your books to a retailer at your designated wholesale price and the retailer is free to set prices however they wish. We think we can help you change that.
We'll help you get all publishers to agree to impose fixed, higher prices on all of your books and force those new terms on Amazon and other retailers so that they can't lower prices on them to give consumers 'fair' prices for cheap-to-make digital goods! In addition, no retailer can undercut another retailer's price on one of your eBooks so we eliminate competition entirely!
As long as we still get our fat percentage on every sale, you get more money and we don't have to compete with Amazon's prices! Of course, higher prices means we get more money too! Its win-win for us sellers!"
In other words, the switch to the Agency model where publishers fix the the price on all eBooks was all Apple's doing just so that they wouldn't have to compete with other online retailers.
Actually, there's no evidence of the bolded. Apple offered the booksellers a different scheme for selling their books. Period.
Actually it isn't at all like that, it is as simple as I stated.
No collusion, no price fixing, no laws broken.
Just the DoJ catering to the lobbyists who give them money to help them get re-elected.
Too bad none of the other pigs at the trough will follow up the money trail or investigate the simple question "Who stands to gain the most out of this investigation?"
That's just politics, America has the best justice money can buy.
Which lobbyists are behind this? Which industry do they represent?
Who stands to profit off this investigation? Who is getting paid by lobbyists? And given that nobody in the DOJ is elected, how does your statement as to the reasons for the DOJ taking lobbyist money make any sense? Are you thinking that the DOJ is being bribed?
Since we're talking about eBooks, that's irrelevant.
Actually, there's no evidence of the bolded. Apple offered the booksellers a different scheme for selling their books. Period.
You didn't read the complaint, eh? The DOJ has specific dates and statements that show that Apple's message totthe publishers was "We'll help you get all publishers to agree to impose fixed, higher prices on all of your books and force those new terms on Amazon and other retailers "
Look at the complaint. If you're lazy, start at paragraph 55 or so. Paragraph 65 has direct evidence.
It is a lot more complicated than that. It goes more like this....
blah blah blah
Actually it isn't at all like that, it is as simple as I stated.
No collusion, no price fixing, no laws broken.
Just the DoJ catering to the lobbyists who give them money to help them get re-elected.
Too bad none of the other pigs at the trough will follow up the money trail or investigate the simple question "Who stands to gain the most out of this investigation?"
That's just politics, America has the best justice money can buy.
Well I'm so glad that to support your view you've got the nice circular logic of you are right because you say you are right whereas I've got all the evidence the DOJ is presenting. There are a lot of areas where Apple is right. In this area, they are absolutely wrong and I'm worried about that because a good chunk of what makes Apple the company it is involves how the public perceives it. A very large and well publicized case where Apple is shown to be about raising prices and getting their 30% come hell or high water could be part of a tipping point where they enter as Apple the innovator and leave as Apple the company no different than Microsoft circa 1998-2010. You sticking your head in the sand and repeating yourself won't change that point.
Apple will settle this one. The last thing they need is for the consumer to realize that Apple colluded to raise prices.
This thing is just getting started. It will snowball in the media if Apple doesn't settle soon.
Maybe Apple will get together with the co-conspirators and devise an alternate scheme that accomplishes the same thing - Apple gets 30% of high prices and faces no price competition from anybody else.
But this time, they won't leave such an obvious trail of evidence.
You didn't read the complaint, eh? The DOJ has specific dates and statements that show that Apple's message totthe publishers was "<b id="user_yui_3_4_1_1_1340541454524_1124" style="color:rgb(24,24,24);font-family:'lucida grande', verdana, helvetica, sans-serif;line-height:normal;">We'll help you get all publishers to agree to impose fixed, higher prices on all of your books and force those new terms on Amazon and other retailers</b>
<span style="color:rgb(24,24,24);font-family:'lucida grande', verdana, helvetica, sans-serif;line-height:normal;background-color:rgb(198,204,208);"> "</span>
Look at the complaint. If you're lazy, start at paragraph 55 or so. Paragraph 65 has direct evidence.
Sorry, but those are allegations until proven in court.
Furthermore, as has been pointed out repeatedly, the DOJ is grossly mis-interpreting what Jobs said.
Sorry, but those are allegations until proven in court.
Furthermore, as has been pointed out repeatedly, the DOJ is grossly mis-interpreting what Jobs said.
But then you will claim that the court is wrong and it will be overturned on appeal. And then you will claim that the appeals court is wrong and that the Supreme Court will overturn it. And then you will claim that the Supreme court is wrong.
First you claimed that there was no evidence. As of now, you claim that the DOJ made fraudulant and false allegations, ones that could not be proven, about the existence of the evidence in a high-profile case.
Grasping at straws much? Are you saying that each of the facts outlined below is a lie by the DOJ?
62. Apple's Mr. Cue e-mailed each Publisher Defendant between January 4,2010,
and January 6, 2010 an outline ofwhat he tabbed "the best approach for e-books." He reassured
Penguin USACEO David Shanks and other Publisher Defendant CEOs that Apple adopted the
approach "[a]fter talking to all the other publishers." Mr. Cue sent substantively identical e-mail
messages and proposals to each Publisher Defendant.
63. The outlined proposal that Apple circulated after consulting with each Publisher
Defendant contained several key features. First, as Hachette and HarperCollins had initially
suggested to Apple, the publisher would be the principal and Apple would be the agent for ebook sales. Consumer pricing authority would be transferred from retailers to publishers.
Second, Apple's proposal mandated that every other retailer of each publisher's e-books -
Apple's direct competitors - be forced to accept the agency model as well. As Mr. Cue wrote,
"all resellers ofnew titles need to be in agency model." Third, Apple would receive a 30 percent
commission for each e-book sale. And fourth, each Publisher Defendant would have identical
pricing tiers for e-books sold through Apple's iBookstore.
But then you will claim that the court is wrong and it will be overturned on appeal. And then you will claim that the appeals court is wrong and that the Supreme Court will overturn it. And then you will claim that the Supreme court is wrong.
First you claimed that there was no evidence. As of now, you claim that the DOJ made fraudulant and false allegations, ones that could not be proven, about the existence of the evidence in a high-profile case.
You're hallucinating, again. I never even mentioned the Supreme Court, nor did I say that they were wrong.
I did, however, suggest that you were misapplying a Supreme Court decision - which amounts to an entirely different matter. After all, you are the one saying that since you don't have a law degree, your statements are worthless.
Grasping at straws much? Are you saying that each of the facts outlined below is a lie by the DOJ?
62. Apple's Mr. Cue e-mailed each Publisher Defendant between January 4,2010,
and January 6, 2010 an outline ofwhat he tabbed "the best approach for e-books." He reassured
Penguin USACEO David Shanks and other Publisher Defendant CEOs that Apple adopted the
approach "[a]fter talking to all the other publishers." Mr. Cue sent substantively identical e-mail
messages and proposals to each Publisher Defendant.
63. The outlined proposal that Apple circulated after consulting with each Publisher
Defendant contained several key features. First, as Hachette and HarperCollins had initially
suggested to Apple, the publisher would be the principal and Apple would be the agent for ebook sales. Consumer pricing authority would be transferred from retailers to publishers.
Second, Apple's proposal mandated that every other retailer of each publisher's e-books -
Apple's direct competitors - be forced to accept the agency model as well. As Mr. Cue wrote,
"all resellers ofnew titles need to be in agency model." Third, Apple would receive a 30 percent
commission for each e-book sale. And fourth, each Publisher Defendant would have identical
pricing tiers for e-books sold through Apple's iBookstore.
What part of "innocent until proven guilty" do you not understand?
I did, however, suggest that you were misapplying a Supreme Court decision - which amounts to an entirely different matter. After all, you are the one saying that since you don't have a law degree, your statements are worthless.
What part of "innocent until proven guilty" do you not understand?
What I said was that YOUR statements, in which you claim that Posner is wrong and you are right, are not convincing.
Seemingly, you have warped that statement into something unrelated - yet another reason why I believe Posner when you claim he is incorrect.
And which SC opinion am I misinterpreting? I'm not aware that I was interpreting any SC case. Instead, I am relying on one of the most respected jurists in the history of the world, rather than a guy who has zero training or experience whatsoever.
You said that there was no evidence. When the evidence was pointed out, you claim that it is what? Nonexistent? Lies? That the case has not yet been concluded?
You said there was no evidence, and yet, the evidence has been published.
First there is substantial proof Apple colluded. Innocent until proven guilty has everything to do with a judge sentencing, fining or imposition a solution.
The real point is that if Apple let's it get to that, they've already lost in a half dozen ways. This isn't some highly technical matter that most people will be unable to understand. This isn't about Apple being an innovator and other companies copying what they are doing. This is Apple being late to the game, and colluding with publishers to raise prices to protect their 30% cut when being near last to enter the e-book market. This isn't some foreign competitor that is stealing American intellectual property. This is about Amazon which is another American company that loads of people do business with as well.
This issue has an easy to understand narrative and in the court of public opinion that will make Apple look very, very bad.
Another reason that this can hurt Apple so much is basically iBooks isn't a very good solution PERIOD. It isn't something lust worthy or industry leading. There is no sizzle to it nor any trade-offs that people can use to justify the Apple decisions there be they controversial or not. If people want to argue that the rMBP shouldn't have ram and storage that are not upgradeable you at least get to touch a blazing fast, super thin and amazingly powerful computer to shut up 95% of the detractors.
You open iBooks and it looks just like every other eBook app on the planet. You look at the injured party here, both the consumer and Amazon and you have a sympathetic figure. Amazon is clearly an innovator in eBook readers and have products across all manner of price points. The Kindle app runs on all platforms and even runs through your web browser. They are only guilty of trying to bring you cheap books and fighting the publishers for a lower price point.
There isn't a single scenario involving this where Apple comes out looking good. There aren't even trade-offs that people would want to argue for or recommend. There's no thin vs serviceable or quality vs cheap or anything like that. It is a straight up scenario of Apple collaborating with others to raise prices, to punish consumers and to shut down innovators. That will harm their image irreparably regardless of an actual case.
But then you will claim that the court is wrong and it will be overturned on appeal. And then you will claim that the appeals court is wrong and that the Supreme Court will overturn it. And then you will claim that the Supreme court is wrong.
First you claimed that there was no evidence. As of now, you claim that the DOJ made fraudulant and false allegations, ones that could not be proven, about the existence of the evidence in a high-profile case.
Grasping at straws much? Are you saying that each of the facts outlined below is a lie by the DOJ?
62. Apple's Mr. Cue e-mailed each Publisher Defendant between January 4,2010,
and January 6, 2010 an outline ofwhat he tabbed "the best approach for e-books." He reassured
Penguin USACEO David Shanks and other Publisher Defendant CEOs that Apple adopted the
approach "[a]fter talking to all the other publishers." Mr. Cue sent substantively identical e-mail
messages and proposals to each Publisher Defendant.
63. The outlined proposal that Apple circulated after consulting with each Publisher
Defendant contained several key features. First, as Hachette and HarperCollins had initially
suggested to Apple, the publisher would be the principal and Apple would be the agent for ebook sales. Consumer pricing authority would be transferred from retailers to publishers.
Second, Apple's proposal mandated that every other retailer of each publisher's e-books -
Apple's direct competitors - be forced to accept the agency model as well. As Mr. Cue wrote,
"all resellers ofnew titles need to be in agency model." Third, Apple would receive a 30 percent
commission for each e-book sale. And fourth, each Publisher Defendant would have identical
pricing tiers for e-books sold through Apple's iBookstore.
So what.
A promotion of the existing iTunes model that had been around for ten years.
"This is our store, this is how it works, wanna join?"
NOTHING illegal, immoral or wrong with promoting legitimate business methods.
And NOT ONE SCRAP of evidence of what the effect on general eBook prices has been apart from a very few, specific examples, cherry picked because their prices increased.
Seemingly, you have warped that statement into something unrelated - yet another reason why I believe Posner when you claim he is incorrect.
This is an example of what makes your arguments unconvincing, the irrational thought processes like the above.
As far as who is behind this, it's very clear that Amazon is the party who will benefit by having the government establish them in a monopoly. The DoJ may just be stupid* (after all, a lot of people working there these days were put in place by the previous administration not because of their legals skill but because of their political views), but it's naive to think there's no possibility of undue influence, especially in a case as absurd as this, where the effective goal is to eliminate competition and hand Amazon control of the entire publishing industry.
But, the bottom line is that, even accepting, for example, the things you've "quoted" (from the DoJ's allegations) as fact, they don't prove anything illegal, and they certainly don't establish an intent to raise prices, nor anything resembling harm to consumers. You're essentially overselling the Doj"s allegations, just as they have oversold the facts in making those allegations.
* Having a law degree is no guarantee that you aren't a fool when it comes to common sense or seeing the bigger picture. It also doesn't stop you from doing foolish things based on not understanding what's really going on, but only on a narrow view that may come from unreliable sources. And, like most lawyers, once you embark on a course of action, you aren't about to admit that you screwed up big time. No, you'll play it out to the bitter end rather than admit you were wrong. We see this sort of behavior from prosecutors all the time, even when it involves much more important issues like a person's life.
Apple will take this all the way first because they are innocent and secondly to protect the rights of all the other smaller, independent bookstores which have since adopted the agency model and are using it to break Amazon's attempt at a monopoly.
Make a case. I've seen absolutely no "evidence" that shows Apple secretly met with publishers with an agenda to raise prices. Everything I've seen merely gave publishers the option to simply set prices as they saw fit. The only questionable action which is in itself legal is that Apple required the favored nation clause.
And what about Amzon's dumping and limit pricing, and then there refusal to deal threats when Apple entered the market? What is the defense that those aren't anti-competitive practices pushed by Amazon?
Another reason that this can hurt Apple so much is basically iBooks isn't a very good solution PERIOD. [...] You open iBooks and it looks just like every other eBook app on the planet.
Even if you ignore the features and usability iBook has over other apps the Kindle employees that created the digital layouts seems to not care about readability. iBooks does this quite well. So much so that I've removed DRM and converted all the Kindle books I could so that they would work in iBooks.
Another reason that this can hurt Apple so much is basically iBooks isn't a very good solution PERIOD.
Apple is not the one who will be hurt by the agency model being outlawed. The big loser will be Barnes & Noble, who doesn't have the deep pockets of either Amazon or Apple. The big winner, Amazon, as this allows them to consolidate their e-book monopoly and gain more control over the publishing industry. This doesn't have a big impact on Apple's bottom line, either way, but Apple does have a problem with stupidity, which is what this case is from beginning to end, unless the DoJ comes to their senses, swallows their pride, and drops it, which is unlikely, even if they do realize they fucked up.
The agency model is THE ONLY WAY TO SELL THROUGH iTunes, it has always been that way for everything it sells.
You want to sell something through iTunes those are the terms, no "forcing", "collusion", "price fixing" involved, at all, just legitimate business methods.
Comments
Competition must finally be restored b&n, amazon, google play iBooks they should all be competing in prices for the benefit of the consumer. Consumer have been almost irreparably hurt because apple wanted a guaranteed 30% cut as well as no competition between retailers, because their idea of managing a bookstore was to sit on their ass upon already available infrastructure and get 30% per click...good business model undoubtedly, too bad they had to break the law to make it happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman
It is a lot more complicated than that. It goes more like this....
blah blah blah
Actually it isn't at all like that, it is as simple as I stated.
No collusion, no price fixing, no laws broken.
Just the DoJ catering to the lobbyists who give them money to help them get re-elected.
Too bad none of the other pigs at the trough will follow up the money trail or investigate the simple question "Who stands to gain the most out of this investigation?"
That's just politics, America has the best justice money can buy.
Since we're talking about eBooks, that's irrelevant.
Actually, there's no evidence of the bolded. Apple offered the booksellers a different scheme for selling their books. Period.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
Actually it isn't at all like that, it is as simple as I stated.
No collusion, no price fixing, no laws broken.
Just the DoJ catering to the lobbyists who give them money to help them get re-elected.
Too bad none of the other pigs at the trough will follow up the money trail or investigate the simple question "Who stands to gain the most out of this investigation?"
That's just politics, America has the best justice money can buy.
Which lobbyists are behind this? Which industry do they represent?
Who stands to profit off this investigation? Who is getting paid by lobbyists? And given that nobody in the DOJ is elected, how does your statement as to the reasons for the DOJ taking lobbyist money make any sense? Are you thinking that the DOJ is being bribed?
It makes no sense to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Since we're talking about eBooks, that's irrelevant.
Actually, there's no evidence of the bolded. Apple offered the booksellers a different scheme for selling their books. Period.
You didn't read the complaint, eh? The DOJ has specific dates and statements that show that Apple's message totthe publishers was "We'll help you get all publishers to agree to impose fixed, higher prices on all of your books and force those new terms on Amazon and other retailers "
Look at the complaint. If you're lazy, start at paragraph 55 or so. Paragraph 65 has direct evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman
It is a lot more complicated than that. It goes more like this....
blah blah blah
Actually it isn't at all like that, it is as simple as I stated.
No collusion, no price fixing, no laws broken.
Just the DoJ catering to the lobbyists who give them money to help them get re-elected.
Too bad none of the other pigs at the trough will follow up the money trail or investigate the simple question "Who stands to gain the most out of this investigation?"
That's just politics, America has the best justice money can buy.
Well I'm so glad that to support your view you've got the nice circular logic of you are right because you say you are right whereas I've got all the evidence the DOJ is presenting. There are a lot of areas where Apple is right. In this area, they are absolutely wrong and I'm worried about that because a good chunk of what makes Apple the company it is involves how the public perceives it. A very large and well publicized case where Apple is shown to be about raising prices and getting their 30% come hell or high water could be part of a tipping point where they enter as Apple the innovator and leave as Apple the company no different than Microsoft circa 1998-2010. You sticking your head in the sand and repeating yourself won't change that point.
Apple will settle this one. The last thing they need is for the consumer to realize that Apple colluded to raise prices.
This thing is just getting started. It will snowball in the media if Apple doesn't settle soon.
Maybe Apple will get together with the co-conspirators and devise an alternate scheme that accomplishes the same thing - Apple gets 30% of high prices and faces no price competition from anybody else.
But this time, they won't leave such an obvious trail of evidence.
Sorry, but those are allegations until proven in court.
Furthermore, as has been pointed out repeatedly, the DOJ is grossly mis-interpreting what Jobs said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Sorry, but those are allegations until proven in court.
Furthermore, as has been pointed out repeatedly, the DOJ is grossly mis-interpreting what Jobs said.
But then you will claim that the court is wrong and it will be overturned on appeal. And then you will claim that the appeals court is wrong and that the Supreme Court will overturn it. And then you will claim that the Supreme court is wrong.
First you claimed that there was no evidence. As of now, you claim that the DOJ made fraudulant and false allegations, ones that could not be proven, about the existence of the evidence in a high-profile case.
Grasping at straws much? Are you saying that each of the facts outlined below is a lie by the DOJ?
62. Apple's Mr. Cue e-mailed each Publisher Defendant between January 4,2010,
and January 6, 2010 an outline ofwhat he tabbed "the best approach for e-books." He reassured
Penguin USACEO David Shanks and other Publisher Defendant CEOs that Apple adopted the
approach "[a]fter talking to all the other publishers." Mr. Cue sent substantively identical e-mail
messages and proposals to each Publisher Defendant.
63. The outlined proposal that Apple circulated after consulting with each Publisher
Defendant contained several key features. First, as Hachette and HarperCollins had initially
suggested to Apple, the publisher would be the principal and Apple would be the agent for ebook sales. Consumer pricing authority would be transferred from retailers to publishers.
Second, Apple's proposal mandated that every other retailer of each publisher's e-books -
Apple's direct competitors - be forced to accept the agency model as well. As Mr. Cue wrote,
"all resellers ofnew titles need to be in agency model." Third, Apple would receive a 30 percent
commission for each e-book sale. And fourth, each Publisher Defendant would have identical
pricing tiers for e-books sold through Apple's iBookstore.
You're hallucinating, again. I never even mentioned the Supreme Court, nor did I say that they were wrong.
I did, however, suggest that you were misapplying a Supreme Court decision - which amounts to an entirely different matter. After all, you are the one saying that since you don't have a law degree, your statements are worthless.
What part of "innocent until proven guilty" do you not understand?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
I did, however, suggest that you were misapplying a Supreme Court decision - which amounts to an entirely different matter. After all, you are the one saying that since you don't have a law degree, your statements are worthless.
What part of "innocent until proven guilty" do you not understand?
What I said was that YOUR statements, in which you claim that Posner is wrong and you are right, are not convincing.
Seemingly, you have warped that statement into something unrelated - yet another reason why I believe Posner when you claim he is incorrect.
And which SC opinion am I misinterpreting? I'm not aware that I was interpreting any SC case. Instead, I am relying on one of the most respected jurists in the history of the world, rather than a guy who has zero training or experience whatsoever.
You said that there was no evidence. When the evidence was pointed out, you claim that it is what? Nonexistent? Lies? That the case has not yet been concluded?
You said there was no evidence, and yet, the evidence has been published.
First there is substantial proof Apple colluded. Innocent until proven guilty has everything to do with a judge sentencing, fining or imposition a solution.
The real point is that if Apple let's it get to that, they've already lost in a half dozen ways. This isn't some highly technical matter that most people will be unable to understand. This isn't about Apple being an innovator and other companies copying what they are doing. This is Apple being late to the game, and colluding with publishers to raise prices to protect their 30% cut when being near last to enter the e-book market. This isn't some foreign competitor that is stealing American intellectual property. This is about Amazon which is another American company that loads of people do business with as well.
This issue has an easy to understand narrative and in the court of public opinion that will make Apple look very, very bad.
Another reason that this can hurt Apple so much is basically iBooks isn't a very good solution PERIOD. It isn't something lust worthy or industry leading. There is no sizzle to it nor any trade-offs that people can use to justify the Apple decisions there be they controversial or not. If people want to argue that the rMBP shouldn't have ram and storage that are not upgradeable you at least get to touch a blazing fast, super thin and amazingly powerful computer to shut up 95% of the detractors.
You open iBooks and it looks just like every other eBook app on the planet. You look at the injured party here, both the consumer and Amazon and you have a sympathetic figure. Amazon is clearly an innovator in eBook readers and have products across all manner of price points. The Kindle app runs on all platforms and even runs through your web browser. They are only guilty of trying to bring you cheap books and fighting the publishers for a lower price point.
There isn't a single scenario involving this where Apple comes out looking good. There aren't even trade-offs that people would want to argue for or recommend. There's no thin vs serviceable or quality vs cheap or anything like that. It is a straight up scenario of Apple collaborating with others to raise prices, to punish consumers and to shut down innovators. That will harm their image irreparably regardless of an actual case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerrySwitched26
But then you will claim that the court is wrong and it will be overturned on appeal. And then you will claim that the appeals court is wrong and that the Supreme Court will overturn it. And then you will claim that the Supreme court is wrong.
First you claimed that there was no evidence. As of now, you claim that the DOJ made fraudulant and false allegations, ones that could not be proven, about the existence of the evidence in a high-profile case.
Grasping at straws much? Are you saying that each of the facts outlined below is a lie by the DOJ?
62. Apple's Mr. Cue e-mailed each Publisher Defendant between January 4,2010,
and January 6, 2010 an outline ofwhat he tabbed "the best approach for e-books." He reassured
Penguin USACEO David Shanks and other Publisher Defendant CEOs that Apple adopted the
approach "[a]fter talking to all the other publishers." Mr. Cue sent substantively identical e-mail
messages and proposals to each Publisher Defendant.
63. The outlined proposal that Apple circulated after consulting with each Publisher
Defendant contained several key features. First, as Hachette and HarperCollins had initially
suggested to Apple, the publisher would be the principal and Apple would be the agent for ebook sales. Consumer pricing authority would be transferred from retailers to publishers.
Second, Apple's proposal mandated that every other retailer of each publisher's e-books -
Apple's direct competitors - be forced to accept the agency model as well. As Mr. Cue wrote,
"all resellers ofnew titles need to be in agency model." Third, Apple would receive a 30 percent
commission for each e-book sale. And fourth, each Publisher Defendant would have identical
pricing tiers for e-books sold through Apple's iBookstore.
So what.
A promotion of the existing iTunes model that had been around for ten years.
"This is our store, this is how it works, wanna join?"
NOTHING illegal, immoral or wrong with promoting legitimate business methods.
And NOT ONE SCRAP of evidence of what the effect on general eBook prices has been apart from a very few, specific examples, cherry picked because their prices increased.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerrySwitched26
Seemingly, you have warped that statement into something unrelated - yet another reason why I believe Posner when you claim he is incorrect.
This is an example of what makes your arguments unconvincing, the irrational thought processes like the above.
As far as who is behind this, it's very clear that Amazon is the party who will benefit by having the government establish them in a monopoly. The DoJ may just be stupid* (after all, a lot of people working there these days were put in place by the previous administration not because of their legals skill but because of their political views), but it's naive to think there's no possibility of undue influence, especially in a case as absurd as this, where the effective goal is to eliminate competition and hand Amazon control of the entire publishing industry.
But, the bottom line is that, even accepting, for example, the things you've "quoted" (from the DoJ's allegations) as fact, they don't prove anything illegal, and they certainly don't establish an intent to raise prices, nor anything resembling harm to consumers. You're essentially overselling the Doj"s allegations, just as they have oversold the facts in making those allegations.
* Having a law degree is no guarantee that you aren't a fool when it comes to common sense or seeing the bigger picture. It also doesn't stop you from doing foolish things based on not understanding what's really going on, but only on a narrow view that may come from unreliable sources. And, like most lawyers, once you embark on a course of action, you aren't about to admit that you screwed up big time. No, you'll play it out to the bitter end rather than admit you were wrong. We see this sort of behavior from prosecutors all the time, even when it involves much more important issues like a person's life.
Apple will take this all the way first because they are innocent and secondly to protect the rights of all the other smaller, independent bookstores which have since adopted the agency model and are using it to break Amazon's attempt at a monopoly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
So what.
A promotion of the existing iTunes model that had been around for ten years.
"This is our store, this is how it works, wanna join?"
NOTHING illegal, immoral or wrong with promoting legitimate business methods.
Did you miss this part?
Quote:
Second, Apple's proposal mandated that every other retailer of each publisher's e-books -
Apple's direct competitors - be forced to accept the agency model as well. As Mr. Cue wrote,
"all resellers ofnew titles need to be in agency model."
And what about Amzon's dumping and limit pricing, and then there refusal to deal threats when Apple entered the market? What is the defense that those aren't anti-competitive practices pushed by Amazon?
Even if you ignore the features and usability iBook has over other apps the Kindle employees that created the digital layouts seems to not care about readability. iBooks does this quite well. So much so that I've removed DRM and converted all the Kindle books I could so that they would work in iBooks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman
Another reason that this can hurt Apple so much is basically iBooks isn't a very good solution PERIOD.
Apple is not the one who will be hurt by the agency model being outlawed. The big loser will be Barnes & Noble, who doesn't have the deep pockets of either Amazon or Apple. The big winner, Amazon, as this allows them to consolidate their e-book monopoly and gain more control over the publishing industry. This doesn't have a big impact on Apple's bottom line, either way, but Apple does have a problem with stupidity, which is what this case is from beginning to end, unless the DoJ comes to their senses, swallows their pride, and drops it, which is unlikely, even if they do realize they fucked up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerrySwitched26
Did you miss this part?
The agency model is THE ONLY WAY TO SELL THROUGH iTunes, it has always been that way for everything it sells.
You want to sell something through iTunes those are the terms, no "forcing", "collusion", "price fixing" involved, at all, just legitimate business methods.