Don't get your hopes up. The judge will rule against Apple, that's a done deal. Remember, there are a number of state's Attorneys General waiting to pounce on Apple with lawsuits, as well as the class actions being brought. Apple needs to be guilty for this to happen and the lawyers to collect their fees. Money talks and bullshit walks.
Yes, I'm a cynic.
I'll take that bet. I'm pretty sure Apple wins this one.
It looks like the Publisher lawyers was a bunch of pussy, they advised their client to settle out of court as the less costly solution to the government coming after them. This is why the DoJ went after Apple. If Publisher lawyer was balls like apple and they all stood together the DoJ probably would have gone away.
The DoJ probably used the prisoner dilemma to get the publisher to fold.
It looks like the Publisher lawyers was a bunch of pussy, they advised their client to settle out of court as the less costly solution to the government coming after them. This is why the DoJ went after Apple. If Publisher lawyer was balls like apple and they all stood together the DoJ probably would have gone away.
The DoJ probably used the prisoner dilemma to get the publisher to fold.
That's possible. Also, the publishers don't have Apple's resources, so, for them, the settlement may have been more of a business decision than a legal one. It's also possible that the publishers were guilty of collusion while Apple is not, although, none of them, I believe, was required to admit wrongdoing. (Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean there wasn't wrongdoing.)
The problem I see here, and which Apple may need to follow up on with further legal action, against the government, is that the very terms of the settlements the DoJ forced on the publishers are anti-competitive and favor Amazon. Given the evidence that has come out in this trial, it's almost impossible to see this as some sort of honest misunderstanding by the DoJ of what was really going on. It's impossible to believe that the DoJ is that stupid.
It looks like the Publisher lawyers was a bunch of pussy, they advised their client to settle out of court as the less costly solution to the government coming after them. This is why the DoJ went after Apple. If Publisher lawyer was balls like apple and they all stood together the DoJ probably would have gone away.
The DoJ probably used the prisoner dilemma to get the publisher to fold.
While I don't personally believe Apple is guilty of antitrust violations regarding e-books, the fact they agreed to a settlement with the EU is a bit confusing. If they honestly believe nothing they did was legally questionable, why cave to EU authorities?
While I don't personally believe Apple is guilty of antitrust violations regarding e-books, the fact they agreed to a settlement with the EU is a bit confusing. If they honestly believe nothing they did was legally questionable, why cave to EU authorities?
Maybe because they didn't feel they'd get a fair shake from the legal system in the EU?
Of course, you can continue to ignore all the testimony in this trial so far and pretend that the facts are as yo'd like them to be.So, if you don't personally believe Apple is guilty of collusion, why are you attempting to make an implicit argument that they are based on what happened with the EU?
Sorry, but as usual, your statements are pathetically inconsistent, and the motives behind your post embarrassingly transparent. This is why you don't deserve respect.
So when do B&N or Apple or any other book retailer get to file suit against Amazon for abusing its large market-share to drive competitors out of business?
So when do B&N or Apple or any other book retailer get to file suit against Amazon for abusing its large market-share to drive competitors out of business?
Once this lawsuit is over and the DoJ is forced to pay reparations.
So when do B&N or Apple or any other book retailer get to file suit against Amazon for abusing its large market-share to drive competitors out of business?
- Jasen.
The real issue isn't even that Amazon is abusing it's market share in books to drive competitors out of business. The real issue is that Amazon is leveraging it's dominance as an online retailer and it's ability to absorb losses in one area of business by subsidizing them with small profits from the rest of its operation to engage in predatory pricing and drive competitors out of the book business.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Once this lawsuit is over and the DoJ is forced to pay reparations.
Actually slander is "The action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation." and libel is "A published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation." Nothing in his statement could be considered either of those, so his first amendment rights are very much in force. And while yes, the NSA has their hands in everything, I refuse to be crippled by fear.
That is why I post with my actual name, not a pseudonym.
Mike, Thanks for the clarification of slander. Obviously a couple of folks are a little more sensitive than I thought.
Come on guys, a little brevity with your expresso makes it easier to swallow.
The closest thing to slander in my comment was "old girl"
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkrupp
Don't get your hopes up. The judge will rule against Apple, that's a done deal. Remember, there are a number of state's Attorneys General waiting to pounce on Apple with lawsuits, as well as the class actions being brought. Apple needs to be guilty for this to happen and the lawyers to collect their fees. Money talks and bullshit walks.
Yes, I'm a cynic.
I'll take that bet. I'm pretty sure Apple wins this one.
Looks like "Egg On Face" is being served for breakfast.
It looks like the Publisher lawyers was a bunch of pussy, they advised their client to settle out of court as the less costly solution to the government coming after them. This is why the DoJ went after Apple. If Publisher lawyer was balls like apple and they all stood together the DoJ probably would have gone away.
The DoJ probably used the prisoner dilemma to get the publisher to fold.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64
It looks like the Publisher lawyers was a bunch of pussy, they advised their client to settle out of court as the less costly solution to the government coming after them. This is why the DoJ went after Apple. If Publisher lawyer was balls like apple and they all stood together the DoJ probably would have gone away.
The DoJ probably used the prisoner dilemma to get the publisher to fold.
That's possible. Also, the publishers don't have Apple's resources, so, for them, the settlement may have been more of a business decision than a legal one. It's also possible that the publishers were guilty of collusion while Apple is not, although, none of them, I believe, was required to admit wrongdoing. (Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean there wasn't wrongdoing.)
The problem I see here, and which Apple may need to follow up on with further legal action, against the government, is that the very terms of the settlements the DoJ forced on the publishers are anti-competitive and favor Amazon. Given the evidence that has come out in this trial, it's almost impossible to see this as some sort of honest misunderstanding by the DoJ of what was really going on. It's impossible to believe that the DoJ is that stupid.
While I don't personally believe Apple is guilty of antitrust violations regarding e-books, the fact they agreed to a settlement with the EU is a bit confusing. If they honestly believe nothing they did was legally questionable, why cave to EU authorities?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
While I don't personally believe Apple is guilty of antitrust violations regarding e-books, the fact they agreed to a settlement with the EU is a bit confusing. If they honestly believe nothing they did was legally questionable, why cave to EU authorities?
Maybe because they didn't feel they'd get a fair shake from the legal system in the EU?
Of course, you can continue to ignore all the testimony in this trial so far and pretend that the facts are as yo'd like them to be. So, if you don't personally believe Apple is guilty of collusion, why are you attempting to make an implicit argument that they are based on what happened with the EU?
Sorry, but as usual, your statements are pathetically inconsistent, and the motives behind your post embarrassingly transparent. This is why you don't deserve respect.
So when do B&N or Apple or any other book retailer get to file suit against Amazon for abusing its large market-share to drive competitors out of business?
- Jasen.
Once this lawsuit is over and the DoJ is forced to pay reparations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasenj1
So when do B&N or Apple or any other book retailer get to file suit against Amazon for abusing its large market-share to drive competitors out of business?
- Jasen.
The real issue isn't even that Amazon is abusing it's market share in books to drive competitors out of business. The real issue is that Amazon is leveraging it's dominance as an online retailer and it's ability to absorb losses in one area of business by subsidizing them with small profits from the rest of its operation to engage in predatory pricing and drive competitors out of the book business.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Once this lawsuit is over and the DoJ is forced to pay reparations.
Well, that's not very likely to happen
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Eggleston
Actually slander is "The action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation." and libel is "A published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation." Nothing in his statement could be considered either of those, so his first amendment rights are very much in force. And while yes, the NSA has their hands in everything, I refuse to be crippled by fear.
That is why I post with my actual name, not a pseudonym.
Mike, Thanks for the clarification of slander. Obviously a couple of folks are a little more sensitive than I thought.
Come on guys, a little brevity with your expresso makes it easier to swallow.
The closest thing to slander in my comment was "old girl"
Quote:
Originally Posted by BuzDots
Mike, Thanks for the clarification of slander. Obviously a couple of folks are a little more sensitive than I thought.
Come on guys, a little brevity with your expresso makes it easier to swallow.
The closest thing to slander in my comment was "old girl"
Espresso.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
Espresso.
Darn, I thought that what I typed... guess my finger slipped downhill.