Apple ordered to prepare for May 2014 trial on e-book antitrust damages
An order issued on Tuesday by U.S District Court Judge Denise Cote, who is presiding over the Justice Department's antitrust case against Apple's e-book pricing policies, notes all parties must by ready for a damages trial tentatively scheduled for May 2014.
Apple's closing slide in its e-book antitrust case. | Source: U.S. District Court
Judge Cote in July found Apple guilty of conspiring with five major U.S. book publishers to raise the price of e-books sold through the iBookstore, an allegation lodged against the company by the Department of Justice.
At the time of her decision, the jurist did not set a court date to decide possible damages that could amount to hundreds of millions of dollars. Alongside the DOJ, plaintiffs include 33 U.S. states and territories.
Tuesday's order, first reported by Reuters after being made public on Wednesday, outlines the parties' upcoming schedule to argue damages against Apple. As seen below, plaintiffs are required to identify experts and expert testimony by Oct. 11, 2013, while Apple must do the same by Nov. 15. Expert discovery will conclude by Dec. 13, the same day that class certification is due.
The case has been placed on the May 2014 "trial ready" calendar, meaning by that time, parties must be ready to begin proceedings on 24 hours notice.
Following the guilty verdict, the U.S. Justice Department proposed settlement terms that would require Apple to terminate existing contracts and bar any further agency model deals for five years. In addition, the DOJ called for Apple to be banned from entering similar arrangements with providers of other content, such as music and video. This last provision was seen by some as overreaching, as it would extend the proposal's scope beyond the iBookstore and into the iTunes Store.
For its part, Apple called the measures a "draconian and punitive intrusion" on its iBookstore business. The five book publishers associated with the case, HarperCollins, Hachette, Simon & Schuster, Penguin Group and Macmillan, also opposed the DOJ's proposal, saying it would hurt them more than Apple. All five publishers settled before the trial began.
Last Friday, Judge Cote proposed a separate settlement plan that would stagger Apple's deals with the five book publishers to prevent further price fixing allegations.
Apple's closing slide in its e-book antitrust case. | Source: U.S. District Court
Judge Cote in July found Apple guilty of conspiring with five major U.S. book publishers to raise the price of e-books sold through the iBookstore, an allegation lodged against the company by the Department of Justice.
At the time of her decision, the jurist did not set a court date to decide possible damages that could amount to hundreds of millions of dollars. Alongside the DOJ, plaintiffs include 33 U.S. states and territories.
Tuesday's order, first reported by Reuters after being made public on Wednesday, outlines the parties' upcoming schedule to argue damages against Apple. As seen below, plaintiffs are required to identify experts and expert testimony by Oct. 11, 2013, while Apple must do the same by Nov. 15. Expert discovery will conclude by Dec. 13, the same day that class certification is due.
The case has been placed on the May 2014 "trial ready" calendar, meaning by that time, parties must be ready to begin proceedings on 24 hours notice.
Following the guilty verdict, the U.S. Justice Department proposed settlement terms that would require Apple to terminate existing contracts and bar any further agency model deals for five years. In addition, the DOJ called for Apple to be banned from entering similar arrangements with providers of other content, such as music and video. This last provision was seen by some as overreaching, as it would extend the proposal's scope beyond the iBookstore and into the iTunes Store.
For its part, Apple called the measures a "draconian and punitive intrusion" on its iBookstore business. The five book publishers associated with the case, HarperCollins, Hachette, Simon & Schuster, Penguin Group and Macmillan, also opposed the DOJ's proposal, saying it would hurt them more than Apple. All five publishers settled before the trial began.
Last Friday, Judge Cote proposed a separate settlement plan that would stagger Apple's deals with the five book publishers to prevent further price fixing allegations.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by quinney
I didn't follow all the links in the article, but if this one is not there, it should be.
Good reminder.
And it should be noted that Apple will appeal this ridiculous verdict, so expect this to drag on for years more.
All I can say is: she's still on the bench!?
Add: I notice the [B]quinney[/B] referenced the same link (but more subtly).
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
Here's some superb reporting by Phlip Elmer-Dewitt on Judge Denise Cote: http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2013/08/14/apple-ebook-judge-cote-2/
All I can say is: she's still on the bench!?
Add: I notice the quinney referenced the same link (but more subtly).
????????????
Philip Elmer-Dewitt, Florian Müller, and Daniel Erant Dilger...
... and you sheep talk about "paid trollers"!
Quote:
Originally Posted by exom
????????????
Philip Elmer-Dewitt, Florian Müller, and Daniel Erant Dilger...
... and you sheep talk about "paid trollers"!
Look in the mirror exom. The three people you mentioned are experts in their fields. I doubt you're an expert in anything.
I have 33 years of advanced experience in digital publishing IT management, that's my experience. Yes, this predates the Mac.
Her mind was made up before the evidence was even presented. How this woman is still on the bench is a testament to all that's wrong with the judicial system.
Exactly. Her ranting about them not being repentant is a sure sign that it's not about the law. The law says absolutely nothing about a company needing to be repentant, nor does the law state that the penalties should be any different for a repentant company.
As shown below, Cole had her mind made up before this case even started and was not interested in the law or the facts of the case. I don't have any doubt that her decision will be reversed on appeal - long before the May 2014 hearing.
That is just plain unfathomable. She really ought to know better than prejudging a case, much less telling the world that she had prejudged it.
How did she even become a judge and isn't investigated ?
Originally Posted by Robin Huber
At least he doesn't pretend, guess that's something.
If only they could all be that honest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
If only they could all be that honest.
If they all were that honest they know they would get sent limping out here with a bottle of Vaseline Intensive Care.
The system for removing an incompetent judge is so slow and cumbersome that it rarely, if ever, gets used.
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/stop-doj-and-save-consumer-choice-ebooks/GF68xsB7