Apple to appeal e-book decision, maintains company did 'nothing wrong'

24

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 72
    russellrussell Posts: 296member


    Thankfully none of the pro-Apple people actually practice law, they don't even know what basic Antitrust laws are about.


     


     


    Everything below was copied from the FTC's website.


    The words in CAPS are for emphasis.


     


    The Antitrust Laws


     


    "Congress passed the first antitrust law, the Sherman Act, in 1890 as a "comprehensive charter of economic liberty aimed at preserving free and UNFETTERED COMPETITION as the rule of trade."


     


    "...Yet for over 100 years, the antitrust laws have had the same basic objective: to protect the process of competition for the BENEFIT OF CONSUMERS, making sure there are strong incentives for businesses to operate efficiently, KEEP PRICES DOWN,..."


     


    "...an agreement between two individuals to form a partnership restrains trade, but may not do so unreasonably, and thus may be lawful under the antitrust laws. On the other hand, certain acts are considered so harmful to competition that they are almost always illegal. These include plain ARRANGEMENTS AMONG COMPETING INDIVIDUALS OR BUSINESSES TO FIX PRICES...


     


    These acts are "per se" violations of the Sherman Act; in other words, NO DEFENSE OR JUSTIFICATION IS ALLOWED."


     


    ftc.gov/bc/antitrust/antitrust_laws.shtm


     


     


     


    I can't wait for apple to lose the No Poach Agreement lawsuit.

  • Reply 22 of 72
    charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,217member
    Calling it 'false accusations' is like saying the judge's verdict was wrong.

    So is filing an appeal. By its nature you are saying the court is wrong.
  • Reply 23 of 72
    charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,217member
    jragosta wrote: »
    Apple would likely have been dragged into court for predatory pricing if they had done that.

    Or not, after all Amazon wasn't.

    Oh wait, it's Apple of course they get judged while everyone else just keeps at it. Whatever 'it' is
  • Reply 24 of 72
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,889member
    jragosta wrote: »
    Apple would likely have been dragged into court for predatory pricing if they had done that.

    You mean like Amazon was dragged into court?
  • Reply 25 of 72
    larryalarrya Posts: 583member
    Calling it 'false accusations' is like saying the judge's verdict was wrong. Can't they get in trouble like they did in the UK where they had to put up an apology on their website?

    I don't know if there is precedence for that in the US, but I doubt it. It seems pretty bush-league, frankly.
  • Reply 26 of 72


    As I posted back in June:  "Apple was price fixing, its an open and shut case. They helped organize an effort among top publishers to raise e-book prices. The government has a bunch of e-mail, phone calls, and key witnesses that seem to make this a done deal."  etc.


     


    At the time, the response was that I was an Amazon shill, a one-post troll, etc.  



    Actually all I did was read the news of the day and had a pretty good idea of what the DOJ was presenting.  It simply made sense to me, and obviously to every involved publisher as well, since they all ultimately settled.


     


    I expected Apple to appeal, not because their case has merit or they were short-changed during the trial, but simply due to their corporate arrogance.   They have more than enough money to keep fighting, so its no big deal to them.  In the end, they won't acquiesce and they'll never admit wrong doing - they'll simply bow to the verdict and pay.  

  • Reply 27 of 72
    mhiklmhikl Posts: 471member
    realistic wrote: »
    <span style="font-size:10px;line-height:9px;">Another comment by someone who has no clue about Apple. </span>
    [SIZE=10px]Do you really think using a larger font adds anything? [/SIZE]

    I apologies for the large font. I wrote it in notes and pasted it in. Will remember to re-size next time. :\

    However, to your second comment, the language was quite clear: it was a "what if" speculation which had already been addressed in a next post. One should try to take the time to learn the nuances of language.
  • Reply 28 of 72
    19831983 Posts: 1,225member


    I believe Apple here. At least these e-book shenanigans don't seem to of impacted Apple's share price for once.

  • Reply 29 of 72
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,660member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Russell View Post





    Thankfully none of the pro-Apple people actually practice law, they don't even know what basic Antitrust laws are about.


     


     


    Everything below was copied from the FTC's website.


    The words in CAPS are for emphasis.


     


    The Antitrust Laws


     


    "Congress passed the first antitrust law, the Sherman Act, in 1890 as a "comprehensive charter of economic liberty aimed at preserving free and UNFETTERED COMPETITION as the rule of trade."


     


    "...Yet for over 100 years, the antitrust laws have had the same basic objective: to protect the process of competition for the BENEFIT OF CONSUMERS, making sure there are strong incentives for businesses to operate efficiently, KEEP PRICES DOWN,..."


     


    "...an agreement between two individuals to form a partnership restrains trade, but may not do so unreasonably, and thus may be lawful under the antitrust laws. On the other hand, certain acts are considered so harmful to competition that they are almost always illegal. These include plain ARRANGEMENTS AMONG COMPETING INDIVIDUALS OR BUSINESSES TO FIX PRICES...


     


    These acts are "per se" violations of the Sherman Act; in other words, NO DEFENSE OR JUSTIFICATION IS ALLOWED."


     


    ftc.gov/bc/antitrust/antitrust_laws.shtm


     


     


     


    I can't wait for apple to lose the No Poach Agreement lawsuit.



     


    You obviously don't practice law either since you seem to have no notion of what the quoted, and particularly the emphasized, text actually means. If you do practice law, you should find another profession.

  • Reply 30 of 72
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,660member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sac2dude View Post


    As I posted back in June:  "Apple was price fixing, its an open and shut case. They helped organize an effort among top publishers to raise e-book prices. The government has a bunch of e-mail, phone calls, and key witnesses that seem to make this a done deal."  etc.


     


    At the time, the response was that I was an Amazon shill, a one-post troll, etc.  



    Actually all I did was read the news of the day and had a pretty good idea of what the DOJ was presenting.  It simply made sense to me, and obviously to every involved publisher as well, since they all ultimately settled. ...



     


    So, what you're saying is that, just like the judge, you ignored the actual evidence and based your opinion only on the allegations. Congratulations, now you're a 4-post troll.

  • Reply 31 of 72


    Just admit it Apple got caught red handed along with the five publishers.


     


    The judge was not biased as is being claimed in these forums. She was asked by both parties for her opinion on the documents she had reviewed up to that time and she concluded that from what had been presented to that point the government would likely win, she also stated that other evidence could change that. Seems the evidence was not enough to change it so maybe it is just high time you got off you're high horses and just admit that Apple was wrong.


     


    If Apple does appeal and lose I hope the remedy is twice as harsh as it would have been and I hope the remedy is harsh to begin with. Apple has become way to arrogant.

  • Reply 32 of 72

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


     


    So, what you're saying is that, just like the judge, you ignored the actual evidence and based your opinion only on the allegations. Congratulations, now you're a 4-post troll.



    Take off your apple shaped and shaded glasses. The evidence was strong against Apple. The publishers knew it and settled but Apple was to arrogant and took a chance and Apple lost.

  • Reply 33 of 72

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


     


    You obviously don't practice law either since you seem to have no notion of what the quoted, and particularly the emphasized, text actually means. If you do practice law, you should find another profession.



    You are pretty full of yourself. Apple thought they could get away with price fixing and they failed. Now they have to accept their punishment. Hopefully it will be a severe punishment.

  • Reply 34 of 72


    Yep, you must be right.   We're all simply Apple-haters.  Obviously myself, the judge, the DOJ...  (Does this mean I'll have to sell my Macbook?)  image


     


    Or perhaps you're the one in denial and everyone else is making an educated decision based on the presented evidence in the case?


     


    It's okay to like the products a company makes, yet be critical of decisions that seem short-sighted or surprisingly daft given the pay-grade of the executives that work at the company.    You don't have to be "all in" (aka. "a fanboy"),  having perspective is a healthy thing.

  • Reply 35 of 72
    If apple were trying to ring prices it sure did not work for the two books I bought from iBooks. Both statistics for dummies and beginning programming in java for dummies were both cheaper on Amazon. If this holds true for other books then how can Apple be complicit in book price fixing when these two e books are both cheaper on Amazon. From what I saw Apple just asked for the best price to buy the books at I.e. a publisher would not charge apple more for the same book as amazon. What Amazon or others chose to sell the books at was still up to them as is evident by the two e book examles I chose. Before you ask these are the only two books I have bought. I think there is a very anti apple thing going a the moment. Basically Apple is not there to bail out failed economies and I think it is about time cases like these were judged by comity. Maybe this one was but the ongoing cases with Samsung seem to depend on the presiding judge at the time.
  • Reply 36 of 72
    russellrussell Posts: 296member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Russell View Post





    Thankfully none of the pro-Apple people actually practice law, they don't even know what basic Antitrust laws are about.


     


     


    Everything below was copied from the FTC's website.


    The words in CAPS are for emphasis.


     


    The Antitrust Laws


     


    "Congress passed the first antitrust law, the Sherman Act, in 1890 as a "comprehensive charter of economic liberty aimed at preserving free and UNFETTERED COMPETITION as the rule of trade."


     


    "...Yet for over 100 years, the antitrust laws have had the same basic objective: to protect the process of competition for the BENEFIT OF CONSUMERS, making sure there are strong incentives for businesses to operate efficiently, KEEP PRICES DOWN,..."


     


    "...an agreement between two individuals to form a partnership restrains trade, but may not do so unreasonably, and thus may be lawful under the antitrust laws. On the other hand, certain acts are considered so harmful to competition that they are almost always illegal. These include plain ARRANGEMENTS AMONG COMPETING INDIVIDUALS OR BUSINESSES TO FIX PRICES...


     


    These acts are "per se" violations of the Sherman Act; in other words, NO DEFENSE OR JUSTIFICATION IS ALLOWED."


     


    ftc.gov/bc/antitrust/antitrust_laws.shtm


     


     


     


    I can't wait for apple to lose the No Poach Agreement lawsuit.



     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


     


    You obviously don't practice law either since you seem to have no notion of what the quoted, and particularly the emphasized, text actually means. If you do practice law, you should find another profession.



     






    People can see I know it better than you.


    The Judge's summary backs up what I posted.


     


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post





    Judge Cote, however, found that the government's case sufficient for a finding of liability.



    "The question in this case has always been a narrow one: whether Apple participated in a price-fixing scheme in violation of this country's antitrust laws," Cote wrote. "Apple is liable here for facilitating and encouraging the Publisher Defendants' collective, illegal restraint of trade."

  • Reply 37 of 72
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mrrodriguez View Post



    Calling it 'false accusations' is like saying the judge's verdict was wrong. Can't they get in trouble like they did in the UK where they had to put up an apology on their website?


     


    Why?


     


    Is this judge taking a job with Amazon, like the UK judge who began working for Samsung shortly after the case?

  • Reply 38 of 72
    philgarphilgar Posts: 93member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Spanading View Post



    If apple were trying to ring prices it sure did not work for the two books I bought from iBooks. Both statistics for dummies and beginning programming in java for dummies were both cheaper on Amazon. If this holds true for other books then how can Apple be complicit in book price fixing when these two e books are both cheaper on Amazon. From what I saw Apple just asked for the best price to buy the books at I.e. a publisher would not charge apple more for the same book as amazon. What Amazon or others chose to sell the books at was still up to them as is evident by the two e book examles I chose. Before you ask these are the only two books I have bought. I think there is a very anti apple thing going a the moment. Basically Apple is not there to bail out failed economies and I think it is about time cases like these were judged by comity. Maybe this one was but the ongoing cases with Samsung seem to depend on the presiding judge at the time.


    maybe the reason you found the books cheaper on amazon is because the publishers of those books admitted they were guilty of price fixing, and have since reverted to their previous pricing agreements.  Under the agreement signed with apple, Amazon was NOT ALLOWED to price their books less than a fixed price, and apple would be able to buy their books for 30% less than that fixed price.  As apple charges a 30% premium on content, that would mean the CHEAPEST amazon could sell their books was at the same price apple was selling their books.  Under the old agreement, amazon could sell their books at whatever price they wanted to (you know... competition), which meant they could accept a 20% margin and sell their books for less than apple.  


     


    The book publishers admitted they were breaking the law almost immediately when the government went after them, so the illegal price fixing scheme wasn't in effect for very long.  The funniest part about this case is watching the apple zealots defend apple here when at the end of the day this will make next to NO difference in apple's bottom line.  Apple has no change of changing to the favorable pricing agreements they wanted, and if they admitted to being guilty at first, there would have been a small slap on the wrist, and a fine (which would likely be so small that it wouldn't remotely impact apple's profits).  Now they're spending millions fighting this case, and they really have no hope of winning (where winning is defined as using the pricing they want).  I just don't see why they're bothering, and I hope that if they're found guilty (assuming it goes to appeal) the judges slap down a far harsher punishment on apple for their arrogance in this matter.


     


    Phil

  • Reply 39 of 72
    snovasnova Posts: 1,281member


    Anyone else think this verdict is linked to yesterday's odd announcement that Apple will drop the Amazon lawsuit over use of the trademark "App"?


    Surely the verdict of this trial was leaked and was the cause of yesterday's oddly timed announcement. Amazon is playing puppet master here. I think the message is, fight Amazon and you will lose in court.

  • Reply 40 of 72
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,889member
    philgar wrote: »
    maybe the reason you found the books cheaper on amazon is because the publishers of those books admitted they were guilty of price fixing, and have since reverted to their previous pricing agreements.  Under the agreement signed with apple, Amazon was NOT ALLOWED to price their books less than a fixed price, and apple would be able to buy their books for 30% less than that fixed price.  As apple charges a 30% premium on content, that would mean the CHEAPEST amazon could sell their books was at the same price apple was selling their books.  Under the old agreement, amazon could sell their books at whatever price they wanted to (you know... competition), which meant they could accept a 20% margin and sell their books for less than apple.  

    The book publishers admitted they were breaking the law almost immediately when the government went after them, so the illegal price fixing scheme wasn't in effect for very long.  The funniest part about this case is watching the apple zealots defend apple here when at the end of the day this will make next to NO difference in apple's bottom line.  Apple has no change of changing to the favorable pricing agreements they wanted, and if they admitted to being guilty at first, there would have been a small slap on the wrist, and a fine (which would likely be so small that it wouldn't remotely impact apple's profits).  Now they're spending millions fighting this case, and they really have no hope of winning (where winning is defined as using the pricing they want).  I just don't see why they're bothering, and I hope that if they're found guilty (assuming it goes to appeal) the judges slap down a far harsher punishment on apple for their arrogance in this matter.

    Phil

    Wrong. If Amazon wanted to sell for less, Apple had the option to lower its prices too. Amazon sells ebooks at a loss while undercutting everyone.
Sign In or Register to comment.