US DOJ points to Steve Jobs email as 'smoking gun' in e-book trial [Update: email was draft]

124

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 85
    christophbchristophb Posts: 1,482member
    You're all kidding on this "the evil gov'mt got these emails"? DOJ got this information the old fashioned way -- Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, more specifically Part V - Discovery. The FRCP was first implemented in 1938, the purpose of which was to allow all sides to a legal dispute to have access to each side's information prior to trial. Every state now has similar rules, and similar rules apply in criminal proceedings both in federal and state proceedings.

    I thought my "crimes against the English language" comment was enough to indicate I was completely sarcastic.
  • Reply 62 of 85
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,855member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by EWTHeckman View Post


    The problem is, it isn't "obvious" that he abandoned that line of thought, merely that he thought better about putting that thought in writing. If he acted consistent with that thought, even if he was never again dumb enough to write it down or be recorded saying it, then the DOJ can show that A) He had that thought, and B) He acted on that thought, which would prove their case.


     


    Remember, the publishers did impose agency pricing on Amazon. The DOJ has now shown the other end of the chain, that Steve Jobs was thinking about trying to get that to happen. Now the question is, did he/Apple act to make that happen? I don't know. If they can prove intent (they have), action (unknown), and results (obvious), then they will have proven illegal collusion. If they can't prove that Steve/Apple acted to make his thought into reality, then they should not win.



     


    No, they haven't shown that he was, "thinking about trying to get that to happen." What they've actually shown is that certain thoughts occurred to him which he did not follow through on. Not sending that email, and sending an entirely different email, shows the intent not to follow that line of action. Now the question is, does the DoJ have any real evidence, is the judge interested in hearing any evidence, or is this a kangaroo court?


     


    And, what the publishers did isn't necessarily relevant. In fact, even if we assume Apple was interested in what the DoJ asserts and assume the publishers "imposed" agency pricing on Amazon as part of a coordinated effort among themselves, the 2 ends of the "chain" aren't connected. Even if Apple manipulated them into "imposing" agency pricing on Amazon, the 2 ends of the "chain" aren't connected. Because none of that shows a conspiracy amongst them including Apple.


     


    The fact is that this entire case is a just so tale. The DoJ has nothing but smoke and mirrors here, and the court has rendered judgement before hearing the evidence, and even refuses to hear it, or to apply logic. The fact is that the DoJ has nothing that resembles evidence of what they allege. All they have evidence of is that SJ briefly entertained certain thoughts but abandoned them. The idea that he didn't send the email because, "he thought better about putting that thought in writing," is just that, an idea, and unless they have some evidence to support that notion, then they are just speculating on what he might have been thinking when he wrote an email he never sent.


     


    The entire case is based on nothing but speculation, on fanciful thinking by the government's lawyers, not on evidence. Showing 2 ends of a chain doesn't prove they are or ever were part of the same chain, and in this case, one of the "ends" appears to be nothing more than a reflection of the other.

  • Reply 63 of 85
    jessijessi Posts: 302member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


    That the DoJ pretends this is a smoking gun, and the Judge doesn't want to hear the evidence, now, that shows intent.



     


    The judge allowing an unsent email into evidence, and not allowing an objection to be raised by the defense is pretty damning on the judge. 


     


    If she(?) rules in favor of Apple in the end, then all will be forgiven.


     


    But if not, this should be grounds for appeal, and it would be grounds for me to decide the judge is not objective. 

  • Reply 64 of 85
    christophbchristophb Posts: 1,482member
    jessi wrote: »
    The judge allowing an unsent email into evidence, and not allowing an objection to be raised by the defense is pretty damning on the judge. 

    If she(?) rules in favor of Apple in the end, then all will be forgiven.

    But if not, this should be grounds for appeal, and it would be grounds for me to decide the judge is not objective. 

    I don't yet get all the "appeal" talk. I didn't read the reason given for the sustained objection. Was it something like relevance? Apple would certainly want to object so the word gets out (of the courtroom). Trials are theater.

    The judge saying DoJ will be able to show direct evidence of that Apple did something does not mean it won't be debunked. The judge does not get to see all of what Apple has for evidence to the contrary until trial. It may be unpopular but it is my opinion that if the judge believed DoJ could not produce direct evidence or sufficient circumstantial evidence, the case would have been thrown out. By going to trial, it could ultimately help Apple and the market by proving that the model and the MFN are just fine. Given the options, Apple may have preferred a trial.

    Anyone here answer a question I have? If things go south for the DoJ, can they bow out so that a judgement is not reached? An actual court ruling in Apple's favor would be much worse for DoJ than them just slinking off to lick their wounds.
  • Reply 65 of 85
    sacto joesacto joe Posts: 895member
    ewtheckman wrote: »

    What it shows is Steve Jobs' intent. If he wasn't thinking about getting the publishers to change their deals with Amazon, he would not have written it in the first place. That he never sent it shows that it occurred to him that putting that into writing was not such a good idea.
    Nope. The intent isn't clear, even if the email was sent. "I guess I can live with this" suggests reluctance. And it's not clear where the idea of getting Amazon to go along with the agency model originated. Did the publishers float the idea to Steve Jobs as a quid pro quo for raising the price caps? And if they did, then Steve Jobs and Apple aren't the "ringleaders".
  • Reply 66 of 85
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,153member
    sacto joe wrote: »
    Nope. The intent isn't clear, even if the email was sent. "I guess I can live with this" suggests reluctance. And it's not clear where the idea of getting Amazon to go along with the agency model originated. Did the publishers float the idea to Steve Jobs as a quid pro quo for raising the price caps? And if they did, then Steve Jobs and Apple aren't the "ringleaders".

    Might know more details today since it's Eddy's turn on the stand.
  • Reply 67 of 85
    pendergastpendergast Posts: 1,358member


    Even if this was sent, I don't buy that it proves anything illegal.


     


    There's nothing wrong about Apple (who lacked a presence in eBooks) to not be keen about signing a deal with the publishers only to have the publishers turn around and sell it to Amazon (the dominant player) for cheaper than Apple could get it. 


     


    Hence the MFN (which is again not illegal). A clause that says nothing about raising the price, but lowering the price in the event that Apple's price is higher. 


     


    Since the publishers were quick to settle, it appears that they may have colluded amongst themselves, deciding that they could take the agency model and raise the price to Apple's suggestion (interestingly, the suggestion was the maximum; a price ceiling, not a floor). But I don't see Apple involved in their possible back room dealings.

  • Reply 68 of 85
    jessi wrote: »
    The judge allowing an unsent email into evidence, and not allowing an objection to be raised by the defense is pretty damning on the judge. 

    If she(?) rules in favor of Apple in the end, then all will be forgiven.

    But if not, this should be grounds for appeal, and it would be grounds for me to decide the judge is not objective. 

    The unsent email seems relevant to the case, but why DOJ objected to Apple pointing out it was unsent and why the judge agreed was not mentioned. No reason pops to mind.
  • Reply 69 of 85
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,855member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Pendergast View Post


    ... Since the publishers were quick to settle, it appears that they may have colluded amongst themselves, ...



     


    It's just as probable that the publishers settled out of fear of the consequences of not settling and losing, not because of actual guilt. If the current kangaroo court proceedings are an indication, you can hardly blame them. But, given the strong arm tactics of the DoJ and the bias of the court, you cannot conclude that even the publishers were in reality guilty of collusion. Their settlement may merely be a symptom of fear.

  • Reply 70 of 85
    oneaburnsoneaburns Posts: 354member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

     

    Apparently the DoJ are using this to infer "intent".

     

    "Thought crimes" are here, it looks like Orwell was out by three decades.

     

    It irriates me to no end how much time and money the government has forced Apple to spend in defending itself from frivalous alligations that the public doesn't even care about. Top that off with the fact that the government is spending millions of our tax dollars to do it (or printing some more) and that they keep trying to chase away a succesful American company and it's no wonder that our government's approval rating is lower than it ever has been. Not sure what happend to "of the people, by the people, for the people."
  • Reply 71 of 85
    pendergastpendergast Posts: 1,358member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


     


    It's just as probable that the publishers settled out of fear of the consequences of not settling and losing, not because of actual guilt. If the current kangaroo court proceedings are an indication, you can hardly blame them. But, given the strong arm tactics of the DoJ and the bias of the court, you cannot conclude that even the publishers were in reality guilty of collusion. Their settlement may merely be a symptom of fear.



     


    True, hence why I said "appear". I think you'd agree that it does give the appearance of guilt.


     


    I have no knowledge of what did or didn't transpire, but it doesn't seem unlikely that they could have illegally colluded.


     


    It does seem unlikely that Apple was involved in said alleged collusion. 

  • Reply 72 of 85
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 20,402member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post



    Update: According to AllThingsD, the email from Jobs submitted into evidence today was a draft of a message which was never sent. In the actual correspondence, a copy of which Apple filed following Wednesday's proceedings, there was no mention of a plan to push Amazon to agency and Jobs actually recognized that wholesale pricing may continue.


    Un-frickin'-believable.


     


    I think I am ready to put on a tinfoil hat, if this is the state of affairs at the "Justice" Department in this country....

  • Reply 73 of 85
    ewtheckmanewtheckman Posts: 309member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


     


    No, they haven't shown that he was, "thinking about trying to get that to happen." What they've actually shown is that certain thoughts occurred to him which he did not follow through on. Not sending that email, and sending an entirely different email, shows the intent not to follow that line of action.



    Riiiight. Apparently you're unfamiliar with the concept of "plausible deniability".


     


    What shows whether or not he followed though on that "line of action" is, by definition, his actions.

  • Reply 74 of 85
    pendergastpendergast Posts: 1,358member
    ewtheckman wrote: »
    Riiiight. Apparently you're unfamiliar with the concept of "plausible deniability".

    What shows whether or not he followed though on that "line of action" is, by definition, his actions.

    And what actions were those?

    All the written paperwork Ive seen makes no mention of a price floor (thus raising prices).

    Considering this is the DOJ's "smoking gun", there's not much evidence of such actions on Apple's part.
  • Reply 75 of 85
    minicaptminicapt Posts: 219member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by EWTHeckman View Post


    Riiiight. Apparently you're unfamiliar with the concept of "plausible deniability".


     


    What shows whether or not he followed though on that "line of action" is, by definition, his actions.



    How is the DoJ compensating you for your vigorous defence of their 'impartial' and 'non-partisan' interests?


     


    Cheers


  • Reply 76 of 85
    ewtheckmanewtheckman Posts: 309member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Pendergast View Post





    And what actions were those?



    All the written paperwork Ive seen makes no mention of a price floor (thus raising prices).



    Considering this is the DOJ's "smoking gun", there's not much evidence of such actions on Apple's part.


     


    Like I said, I am not sure whether Apple actually acted in accord with the intent in that draft email. They must demonstrate that Apple acted in a way which created collusion among the publishers. Based on what has been reported here, I don't think the DOJ has demonstrated that beyond reasonable doubt (so far).


     


    I personally would not call this draft a "smoking gun". A "smoking gun" settles an entire case beyond reasonable doubt. This is crucially important evidence which shows that Steve Jobs at least considered the idea of collusion, but by itself it does not demonstrate that he actually acted on it.


     


    The "price floor" was the retail price. Because of the Agency Model (Publisher sets the selling price) plus MFN (no reseller gets a better deal), no other reseller (including—but not limited to—Amazon) was allowed to sell a particular book for less than whatever wholesale price the publisher was willing to accept plus Apple's 30%. That means no loss leaders, no sales, no dealer willing to settle for a smaller margin to beat the competition. That means that if you wanted to buy the book "My Life as an Apple Fan" (made up title), and you have several ereader platforms, you could not do price shopping to get the best deal. Period.

  • Reply 77 of 85
    ewtheckmanewtheckman Posts: 309member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by minicapt View Post


    How is the DoJ compensating you for your vigorous defence of their 'impartial' and 'non-partisan' interests?




    I've been a certified "bleed in 6 colors" guy for more than 30 years. But that doesn't mean I'm blind, biased, or stupid. The evidence proves only what it proves, no more, no less. That's what I am trying to get you to understand.

  • Reply 78 of 85
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,855member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by EWTHeckman View Post


    ... This is crucially important evidence ...



     


    More like much ado about nothing.

  • Reply 79 of 85
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,855member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by EWTHeckman View Post


    [classic words of the troll removed]. But that doesn't mean I'm blind, biased, or stupid. The evidence proves only what it proves, no more, no less. That's what I am trying to get you to understand.



     


    Apparently, you don't understand logic or what 'prove' means, because none of your, "trying to get you to understand," posts on the so-called "evidence" show any signs of applying the one or doing the other. In terms of "proof", the DoJ's case is as flimsy as it gets. There's nothing at all to it but unsubstantiated assertions and hand waving. If the evidence can be said to "prove" anything, it's exactly the opposite of this tale the DoJ has concocted.

  • Reply 80 of 85
    ewtheckmanewtheckman Posts: 309member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


     


    Apparently, you don't understand logic or what 'prove' means, because none of your, "trying to get you to understand," posts on the so-called "evidence" show any signs of applying the one or doing the other. In terms of "proof", the DoJ's case is as flimsy as it gets. There's nothing at all to it but unsubstantiated assertions and hand waving. If the evidence can be said to "prove" anything, it's exactly the opposite of this tale the DoJ has concocted.





    Typical response of someone with an a priori bias.

Sign In or Register to comment.