Judge hits Apple with e-book injunction, requires external compliance monitor

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 46

    I'm not a lawyer but after reading this all seem pretty legit and acceptable for Apple.

    Only the MFN is now forbidden for E-Book and Agency model is in no way endangered.

     

    Also monitoring seems to be there only to ensure Apple won't be the middle-man between all publishers.

     

    Apple now have two options : live with it or appeal.

     

    But what is really fun now is that they might accept theses terms and then in a totally "business-safe" way launch an antitrust complaint against Amazon...

  • Reply 22 of 46

    These comments are quite shameful. Apple should not enforce MFN as well as take 30%, it's just a joke and one of the reasons you get stupid situations like magazine subscriptions being so expensive on the iPad for digital, but cheaper to get the hard copy PLUS digital.

     

    It's also hurting the Mac app store.

  • Reply 23 of 46

    Our law schools unfortunately produce business illiterates that rule on business matters. Cote is Exhibit A.

     

    What a travesty.

  • Reply 24 of 46
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post



    Because how often does Apple give concessions?

    1) We don't know.

     

    2) That is not the legal point.

  • Reply 25 of 46
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    dasanman69 wrote: »


    Because how often does Apple give concessions?

    They obviously have. Sometimes it's because the technology has changed. Sometimes it's just a response to market changes.

    How often they give concessions is irrelevant. Legally, Judge Cole just ruled that if Apple gives one publisher a deal, that they have to wait years before other publishers can have the same thing. That's extremely anticompetitive.
  • Reply 26 of 46
    jragosta wrote: »
    They obviously have. Sometimes it's because the technology has changed. Sometimes it's just a response to market changes.

    How often they give concessions is irrelevant. Legally, Judge Cole just ruled that if Apple gives one publisher a deal, that they have to wait years before other publishers can have the same thing. That's extremely anticompetitive.

    I said I agreed with your point, but Apple doesn't make it a habit of giving concessions which is why I said it was a bad example.
  • Reply 27 of 46
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post





    They obviously have. Sometimes it's because the technology has changed. Sometimes it's just a response to market changes.



    How often they give concessions is irrelevant. Legally, Judge Cole just ruled that if Apple gives one publisher a deal, that they have to wait years before other publishers can have the same thing. That's extremely anticompetitive.

     

     

    I don't see anything like that in the actual injunction. Please provide quote and explain how you came to that conclusion.

     

    Also it's specifically stated in provision III.E that Apple can use a Standard contract and inform the retailer that it a  standard contract.

    This sound totally incompatible with your assertion, so please explain your point.

  • Reply 28 of 46
    Fú?k you, Judge Cote! Leave your fucking shitty nose out of Apple's business! Also fú?k you Holder too!
  • Reply 29 of 46

    When Apple gets justice, this judge should be disbarred. Along with the DoJ being dismantled.

  • Reply 30 of 46
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    twisell wrote: »

    I don't see anything like that in the actual injunction. Please provide quote and explain how you came to that conclusion.

    Also it's specifically stated in provision III.E that Apple can use a Standard contract and inform the retailer that it a  standard contract.
    This sound totally incompatible with your assertion, so please explain your point.

    I didn't read the actual injunction. I was replying to the AI article above:
    Under Cote's injunction, Apple will be required to stagger new contract negotiations with HarperCollins, Hachette, Simon & Schuster, Penguin, and Macmillan. Negotiations with Hachette would begin two years after the effective date of the final judgment, with Harper Collins negotiations commencing six months after that. Apple would be able to enter negotiations with Simon & Schuster, Penguin, and Macmillan successively every six months following.

    So either it's a stupid order or stupid reporting.

    ETA - it's bad wording. Read section IIIC. It basically sets different renewal dates for the different publishers. Of course, the wording of section IIIC is ridiculous, anyway. It says that Apple can't have an agreement that restricts Apple's ability to set or discount prices. So? That was never the issue.


    BTW, another major flaw with the order just occurred to me. The order bars Apple from using a Most-Favored Nation clause for 5 years. Why for 5 years? Either it's legal or it's not. If it's legal, it shouldn't be barred. If it's not legal, it shouldn't be allowed after 5 years.

    The only argument for it would be if Apple were the monopolist and were keeping other companies out. In that case, it might make sense to bar MFN clauses for some period to allow the competition to get established. But since Amazon had the near monopoly and Apple was the outsider, it makes absolutely no sense at all.
  • Reply 31 of 46
    Wtf? Why are you mods/adm remove my post?! Don't "freedom to speech" ringing a bell??? Stop remove my damn post!
  • Reply 32 of 46
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    texdeafy wrote: »
    Wtf? Why are you mods/adm remove my post?! Don't "freedom to speech" ringing a bell??? Stop remove my damn post!

    Freedom of speed applies only in a public forum. This isn't a public forum.

    Read the terms of service.
  • Reply 33 of 46
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    texdeafy wrote: »
    Wtf? Why are you mods/adm remove my post?! Don't "freedom to speech" ringing a bell??? Stop remove my damn post!

    While profanity is allowed you used it excessively. Nothing wrong with voicing your displeasure just keep the curse words down.
  • Reply 34 of 46
    The whole suit is wrong but it is based on long settled bad economic policy which has substantially contributed to the economic failure generally, IMNSHO.

    Long ago, in the late '60s, we as a population decided that the primary task of the economy was cheap and plentiful goods -- that is a pure consumer economy. This policy virtually eliminated the vision of ourselves as people who produce things, instead we became a people who consumed things.

    As a result, elimination of production was supported by the vast majority of people including those in government (the agencies, the courts, the legislatures, and the executives), as long as the result was cheaper and more.

    The govt attack on Apple was the simple result of allowing the publishers to set the price of goods, which here resulted in increased cost to the consumer. An increase in consumer price is pretty much all it takes. Most comments on this site at the time was in agreement with the govt suit.

    However, the narrow focus on consumer price means destruction of productivity and the creation of low price monopolies and elimination of jobs and minimization of value of work, and of course, the shipping of jobs overseas.
  • Reply 35 of 46
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,354member
    texdeafy wrote: »
    Wtf? Why are you mods/adm remove my post?! Don't "freedom to speech" ringing a bell??? Stop remove my damn post!

    jragosta wrote: »
    Freedom of speed applies only in a public forum. This isn't a public forum.

    Read the terms of service.

    Adding to JR's spot-on comment, before you lean on "freedom of speech" as permission to say whatever you wish you might familiarize yourself with some of the legal exceptions.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions
  • Reply 36 of 46
    When Apple gets justice, this judge should be disbarred. Along with the DoJ being dismantled.


    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHHAHHAHHAH
    BAHAHAHAHHAHAHH HAHAHA
  • Reply 37 of 46
    Originally Posted by Potsie Webber View Post

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHHAHHAHHAH

    BAHAHAHAHHAHAHH HAHAHA

     

    Apple has done nothing illegal. Your problem is what, exactly?

  • Reply 38 of 46
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    Apple has done nothing illegal. Your problem is what, exactly?

    Regardless of whether they did anything illegal or not they were found guilty.
  • Reply 39 of 46
    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

    Regardless of whether they did anything illegal or not they were found guilty.

     

    So far.

  • Reply 40 of 46
    jragosta wrote: »
    Freedom of speed applies only in a public forum. This isn't a public forum.

    Read the terms of service.

    dasanman69 wrote: »
    While profanity is allowed you used it excessively. Nothing wrong with voicing your displeasure just keep the curse words down.

    gatorguy wrote: »

    Adding to JR's spot-on comment, before you lean on "freedom of speech" as permission to say whatever you wish you might familiarize yourself with some of the legal exceptions.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions

    Due to this thingy above.. I had to censor my swears.

    WT(Bleep) (Bleep) you, Judge Cote! Keep your (bleep) (bleep) nose out of Apple's (bleep) business! Oh and (bleep) you, AG Holder! I'm getting sick of DOJ and our lawmaker corruption crap! LOL
Sign In or Register to comment.