I'd say that this weakened the case, but there's enough circumstantial evidence that the publishers decided to settle. Publishers that are old, with deep pockets, friends in high places, and with white shoe law firms on retainer. Their legal team thought it best to settle.
Or maybe they were offered a better deal.
More likely, there may be evidence that the publishers colluded. That doesn't make Apple guilty.
How many times did I argue with you that I believed that the publishers were guilty and Apple was not? Now you're changing your tune.
No, I'm not.
The fact is that I don't know what happened and neither do you. I refuse to label any guilty without facts.
The point I was making is that there are lots of reasons why the publishers might settle and Apple wouldn't. I only gave a couple, but you could add:
- Publishers might have greater potential downside than Apple.
- Publishers might be more concerned about market share information coming out in court.
- Publishers might have more conservative lawyers.
Or any number of other reasons. The entire point is that your suggestion that Apple is guilty just because the publishers settled is nonsense.
The fact is that I don't know what happened and neither do you. I refuse to label any guilty without facts.
The point I was making is that there are lots of reasons why the publishers might settle and Apple wouldn't. I only gave a couple, but you could add:
- Publishers might have greater potential downside than Apple.
- Publishers might be more concerned about market share information coming out in court.
- Publishers might have more conservative lawyers.
Or any number of other reasons. The entire point is that your suggestion that Apple is guilty just because the publishers settled is nonsense.
Show one post where I said Apple was guilty? No we don't know what happened but I believe where there's smoke there's fire, so if you want facts then let's look at some. These are the heavyweights of the publishing industry of which all the CEOs know each other well, and rub elbows with many a politician. They are well connected, so when I see a company like these that is very capable of defending themselves against the DoJ it raises my ears. I will say that you made valid points and I'd usually be inclined to agree but this is one time I believe something did happen but I repeat I don't believe Apple had any part of it.
Comments
Or maybe they were offered a better deal.
More likely, there may be evidence that the publishers colluded. That doesn't make Apple guilty.
How many times did I argue with you that I believed that the publishers were guilty and Apple was not? Now you're changing your tune.
No, I'm not.
The fact is that I don't know what happened and neither do you. I refuse to label any guilty without facts.
The point I was making is that there are lots of reasons why the publishers might settle and Apple wouldn't. I only gave a couple, but you could add:
- Publishers might have greater potential downside than Apple.
- Publishers might be more concerned about market share information coming out in court.
- Publishers might have more conservative lawyers.
Or any number of other reasons. The entire point is that your suggestion that Apple is guilty just because the publishers settled is nonsense.
Show one post where I said Apple was guilty? No we don't know what happened but I believe where there's smoke there's fire, so if you want facts then let's look at some. These are the heavyweights of the publishing industry of which all the CEOs know each other well, and rub elbows with many a politician. They are well connected, so when I see a company like these that is very capable of defending themselves against the DoJ it raises my ears. I will say that you made valid points and I'd usually be inclined to agree but this is one time I believe something did happen but I repeat I don't believe Apple had any part of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
- Publishers might have more conservative lawyers.
Or more risk-averse executives.