Apple calls antitrust suit 'bizarre,' says DOJ 'reverse-engineered a conspiracy'

12346»

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 110
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    And I guess that you didn't read what I wrote in post #82.

    Prices went down, consumers have more choice.

    WTF is the f*cking issue then?

    A microscope should be applied to the DoJ to find out exactly why they are wasting taxpayer money on this farce.

    Who are the instigators, pulling the strings?

    Quote:
    Not all ebooks were sold for a loss. The vast majority were sold for a profit, some were even overpriced which would explain the studies that show that prices went down.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 102 of 110
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    hill60 wrote: »
    Prices went down, consumers have more choice.

    WTF is the f*cking issue then?

    A microscope should be applied to the DoJ to find out exactly why they are wasting taxpayer money on this farce.

    Who are the instigators, pulling the strings?

    The issue is that the prices of the most desirable of eBooks (bestsellers) went up across the board in one fell swoop, and someone with political power took offense to that. You pose a great question. Was it Amazon who instigated it or some well connected people?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 103 of 110
    studentxstudentx Posts: 112member


    I missed the part where they jailed the bankers for nuking the economy before worrying about e-book pricing.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 104 of 110
    SpamSandwichspamsandwich Posts: 33,407member
    studentx wrote: »
    I missed the part where they jailed the bankers for nuking the economy before worrying about e-book pricing.

    Jail "the bankers" for what? For being forced by our wonderful political leaders to make home loans to people with lousy credit?

    And it wasn't "the bankers" who bailed out themselves out, it was Washington again. Politics is corrosive to basic fairness.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 105 of 110
    stelligentstelligent Posts: 2,680member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by krabbelen View Post


    The qualification is in the word "trying". The govt. is "trying" to do so. That their attempt won't be successful is not for lack of "trying", but because there isn't a conspiracy to reverse-engineer. Saying that the govt is evidently trying to do this and fit Apple up (the govt having used terms like "collude" that necessarily imply a "conspiracy")  does not admit that there is a conspiracy.



    The qualification doesn't change the fact that "reverse engineering" is being misused in this context.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 106 of 110
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,464member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by hill60 View Post




    Quote:

    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


     


    Certainly you can do better than that.


     


    Here is the reasoning often presented here. You've presented it as well.


     


    Apple colluded with publishers to force Amazon and the rest of the industry to adopt the agency model.


     


    Retorts include......


     


    Amazon was going to control everything.


    Amazon is selling all their books at a loss and acting in a monopoly fashion.


    Amazon wasn't playing fair because they are forgoing present profits for future monopoly status.


     


    Provide some proof for those points. They are more than your opinions. They are allegations to excuse the wrong that Apple has done. Aside from the fact that two wrongs don't make a right, you refuse to even prove the wrong that you use to excuse the second wrong by Apple.



     


    The price of eBooks went from $7.97 on average to $7.34 since the introduction of iBooks.



     


    This statement in no form or fashion supports the contention that Amazon was selling their e-books at a loss. If the prices were higher before the agreements with Apple then that would mean they were selling them for more profit, not at a loss.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 107 of 110
    SpamSandwichspamsandwich Posts: 33,407member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by stelligent View Post


    The qualification doesn't change the fact that "reverse engineering" is being misused in this context.



     


    How about... the government is attempting to change the facts to fit their case?

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 108 of 110
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    How about... the government is attempting to change the facts to fit their case?

    Doesn't everybody?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 109 of 110
    SpamSandwichspamsandwich Posts: 33,407member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post





    Doesn't everybody?


     


    And how do you feel about that response against the backdrop of today's multiple bombshell reports from the Guardian and the Washington Post?

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 110 of 110
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    And how do you feel about that response against the backdrop of today's multiple bombshell reports from the Guardian and the Washington Post?

    That's pretty disgusting but I'm not surprised. Everyone bowed down to fear tactics and agreed to the Patriot Act.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
Sign In or Register to comment.