Apple appeals verdict, punishment in e-book antitrust case

124

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 82
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by TBell View Post

     

    But it is interesting that you have no problem with Amazon trying to artificially lower the price of e-books by forcing publishers to do away with their traditional tiered release schedules by using its monopoly position to make the publishers release both hardcover and e-books at the same time while significantly undercutting the price of hardcover books. In the short term, that might benefit consumers, but in the long term it hurts consumers, as well as the competition. Surely, you have to agree that Amazon, not Apple, is the big gorilla on the block when it comes to book sales. Apple had no power to dictate terms to publishers that they did not thmeselves want. That, however, is what anti-trust is all about. 


     

    Lowering prices is how the Free Market works. Company A offers a product at a price. If Company B wants to compete, they either find a way to lower the price or offer more value at the same price. If they offer the same value at a higher price, then that's not competitive, and Company B should not be expected to gain market share.

     

    Selling a loss leader for below or at cost is a legitimate strategy. Grocery stores do this all the time. So do many other retailers. That's just normal good business.

     

    There is also the illegal practice known as dumping where a large company sells most of its products below cost to drive a competitor out of business. They are similar in that both are below cost, but is a monopolistic practice, the other is not; it's primarily a matter of what percentage of sales are below cost.

     

    Has Amazon sold e-books below cost? Absolutely. Do they sell even 1% of e-books below cost? Apparently not the books I want to buy.

     

    But let's say that they are engaging in dumping. That's an illegal activity. In that case, Amazon should be punished by the government for their crime. That does not justify someone else committing a crime, even if Amazon is getting away with it.

     

    Apple has rarely been the first into a market segment. There were a lot of hobby computer companies around before Apple was founded. When Apple released the Apple II, they essentially created the personal computer market because no one else had found the right combination of tech plus mainstream appeal. Even though Microsoft eventually monopolized the market, Apple successfully competed and pushed the market forward, always ready to eat Microsoft's lunch if (when) they floundered.

     

    They did the same thing with tablets. There were a bunch of companies floundering around with tablets until Apple figured out how to do it right. As a result, they quickly dominated (monopolized) the market. They still make the most money, and still powerful in unit sales because (IMHO) they make the best tablets. They earned their market position. But the Nexus is carving out a chunk of the market because they're willing to play the game and compete.

     

    The same goes with cell phones. Apple didn't create the cell phone market. Heck, they didn't even create the smart phone market. But they were the first ones to really do it right. And now they're dominating. But they can't rest on their laurels because there are other companies who are competing.

     

    In all these cases, we are better off because companies are competing for our business. Prices are lower, features are more advanced yet easier to use, and choices are practically overwhelming.

     

    The same is true of the e-book market. There were abortive attempts to create a viable e-book market for years before Amazon got involved. The mobi format was developed for the MobiPocket device, which didn't take off. Sony had several e-readers out. There was software for devices like the Palm. None of these attempts really succeeded because they were clumsy and difficult to use. I certainly didn't want to use them. But Amazon finally put all the pieces together in a fashion that worked. Just like Apple in those other markets (including iTunes Music), they took a nascent market and made it viable, and reaped the rewards as a result.

     

    If Amazon is acting illegally to maintain their position, then they should be punished by the government. But to punish consumers like you and me in an attempt to enter the market without being competitive is just plain wrong.

     

    Short version: If Amazon is doing something illegal, punish them. Don't excuse other illegal actions.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 62 of 82

    Well, here in France we consider dumping as illegal.

    Only under strict circumstance should one sell at losses (mostly to clean outdated product out of inventory)

     

    And for the book, as it's a cultural product, selling at losses is even more forbidden.

     

    This is why from our point of view the MFN dilema is quite bizarre since it the common rule here. And even Amazon have to comply with it.

     

    Thats said, try to listen more to each others.

    When you think all the others missed the whole point, maybe you are actually the one missing some part of the point.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 63 of 82
    gtrgtr Posts: 3,231member
    ewtheckman wrote: »
    But to punish consumers like you and me in an attempt to enter the market without being competitive is just plain wrong.

    If Apple did not force consumers to buy books then how were consumers punished? Didn't you just say that Amazon was an alternative, competing option?

    Entering a market without being competitive is plain wrong? It could be understood as not being competitive but why could you define it as illegal?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 64 of 82
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by GTR View Post



    If Apple did not force consumers to buy books then how were consumers punished?

     

    By causing prices to go up everywhere. (Or more accurately, participating in raised prices.)

     

    Quote:


    Entering a market without being competitive is plain wrong?


     

    No, that's not what I said. Distorting the market so you don't have to compete is wrong. It's the distortion that's wrong. If someone wants to enter a market without distorting it and being competitive, it's not illegal, just stupid.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 65 of 82
    gtrgtr Posts: 3,231member
    ewtheckman wrote: »
    By causing prices to go up everywhere. (Or more accurately, participating in raised prices.)

    No, that's not what I said. Distorting the market so you don't have to compete is wrong. It's the distortion that's wrong. If someone wants to enter a market without distorting it and being competitive, it's not illegal, just stupid.

    Don't consumers have the right to stop purchasing books if they think the prices are unfair?

    Don't you think that consumers lose out when Amazon sells the creations of hundreds of thousands of authors, at an amount that will not sustain the industry, just to drive sales of their Kindle eReader?

    Don't you find it a little unusual that the judge announced her decision BEFORE the investigation and trial had been completed?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 66 of 82
    Ah boy I never said apple should not be allowed to appeal I said they should let it go!

    And apple chose the judge trial too they could have opted for a jury.

    Amazing how people can worship a company and never see them as wrong dispute them making god products.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 67 of 82
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by GTR View Post



    Don't consumers have the right to stop purchasing books if they think the prices are unfair?

     

    Don't consumers have a right to shop around for a better deal if they think prices are unfair? Price fixing destroys that ability. That's why it's illegal.

     

    Quote:


    Don't you think that consumers lose out when Amazon sells the creations of hundreds of thousands of authors, at an amount that will not sustain the industry, just to drive sales of their Kindle eReader?


     

    A) Dumping (selling below cost to drive competitors out of the market) is illegal. If Amazon is actually guilty of dumping, they should be prosecuted for it. (You know, I could have sworn I've said this already.)

     

    B) Consistently selling below cost is not a sustainable business model.

     

    C) Publishers are being paid at the price they negotiated. If that payment is insufficient, they need to negotiate better prices.

     

    D) Electronic books change the marketplace by their very nature. A business model based solely on the pre-e-book market isn't sustainable, nor should it be.

     

    Quote:


    Don't you find it a little unusual that the judge announced her decision BEFORE the investigation and trial had been completed?


     

    Here is the original AppleInsider article on that.

     

    Quote:


    She was quick to note, however, that the opinion was not final as all of the evidence had yet to be accounted for.

     

    Though unusual, the jurist's statements did not come unsolicited, as DOJ lawyer Mark Ryan requested she share any thoughts on the case given the evidence at hand. The "tentative view," which came down negatively for Apple, was based largely on correspondence from a six-week period between December 2009 and January 2010.



     

    A) It was not a decision.

     

    B) Though "unusual", it was not unprecedented. Furthermore, requests for preliminary judgements are routine.

     

    C) Having a view based on the "evidence presented so far" is not bias, it is an opinion based on incomplete information, which she pointed out.

     

    D) In the comments to that article Gatorguy pointed out the legal standard for judges commenting on evidence. There was nothing unethical or illegal about it.

     

    Quote:


     "federal trial judges have long had the authority to comment on the evidence. The judge “may not assume the role of a witness. He may analyze and dissect the evidence, but he may not either distort it or add to it. ... This court has accordingly emphasized the duty of the trial judge to use great care that an expression of opinion upon the evidence ‘should be so given as not to mislead, and especially that it should not be one-sided’; that ‘deductions and theories not warranted by the evidence should be studiously avoided.’” Quercia v. United States, 289 U.S. 466, 470 (1933)"

    www.lexisnexis.com/lawschool/study/outlines/word/evid.doc



     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 68 of 82
    gtrgtr Posts: 3,231member
    holmstockd wrote: »
    Ah boy I never said apple should not be allowed to appeal I said they should let it go!

    I hate to break this to you, sunshine, but letting it go means not appealing.

    You know that, right?

    Nobody here considers Apple in the the light that you claim but they do an awful lot of good and change, not only industries, but the world for the better so, when they cop unwarranted criticism, they'll usually be defended.

    You do realise all the benefits they've given us over the years? The mouse, the GUI, the personal computer, the music player, the mobile phone, the tablet, saving the legal music industry, implementing industry wide formats, and demonstrations in how retail and customer service should be done. And suddenly a few individuals are claiming they've gone rogue and are trying to unfairly make a few bucks in the book publishing industry?

    Believing THAT, would be amazing.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 69 of 82
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by GTR View Post



    I hate to break this to you, sunshine, but letting it go means not appealing.

     

    I hate to break this to you, sunshine, but voluntarily choosing not to appeal is not the same thing as not being allowed to appeal.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 70 of 82
    gtrgtr Posts: 3,231member
    ewtheckman wrote: »
    I hate to break this to you, sunshine, but voluntarily choosing not to appeal is not the same thing as not being allowed to appeal.

    Did I mention anything about voluntarily appealing or choosing not to appeal?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 71 of 82
    gtrgtr Posts: 3,231member
    ewtheckman wrote: »
    C) Having a view based on the "evidence presented so far" is not bias, it is an opinion based on incomplete information, which she pointed out.

    D) In the comments to that article Gatorguy pointed out the legal standard for judges commenting on evidence. There was nothing unethical or illegal about it.

    Incorrect.

    Her comments (which are considered to be her opinion) demonstrated bias before ALL of the evidence had been presented to her, therefore making them 'an opinion based on incomplete information'.

    Apple has the option to appeal, and they will do so.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 72 of 82
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by GTR View Post



    Her comments (which are considered to be her opinion) demonstrated bias before ALL of the evidence had been presented to her, therefore making them 'an opinion based on incomplete information'.

     

    You have demonstrated intense pro-Apple bias in this thread. Your evaluation of the Judges' statement is therefore unreliable because that pro-Apple bias appears to be distorting your judgement.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 73 of 82
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by GTR View Post



    Did I mention anything about voluntarily appealing or choosing not to appeal?

     

    Did you read his statement before you jumped all over it? He made that distinction. You ignored it.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 74 of 82
    gtrgtr Posts: 3,231member
    You have demonstrated incredibly poor perception issues and, arguing on a technicality, are attempting to convince us that a situation involving a company, who has a long and distinguished history of revolutionising and improving industries for consumers and the general public, should let things go and not appeal, as is their legal right.

    I proudly announce my pro-Apple stance, and request your remarks be stricken from the record.

    Thank you, your honor.

    Case closed.

    Let's go for drinks!

    ;)
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 75 of 82

    Please demonstrate how "a long and distinguished history of revolutionising and improving industries for consumers and the general public" equals "can do no wrong."

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 76 of 82
    gtrgtr Posts: 3,231member
    I'd love to but you claimed I was an unreliable witness with distorted perception, and the case was closed in post 74.

    (See what I meant about perception issues?)

    However, you are more than welcome to appeal...

    Or are you?

    ;)
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 77 of 82
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    ewtheckman wrote: »
    C) Having a view based on the "evidence presented so far" is not bias, it is an opinion based on incomplete information, which she pointed out.

    Except that's not what happened.

    She didn't simply present a view. She said that it appeared likely that the DOJ would prove that Apple illegally conspired to fix prices.

    That is a clear case of prejudging the matter. Not to mention clear evidence that the judge is a moron for saying it publicly.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 78 of 82
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,680member
    jragosta wrote: »
    Except that's not what happened.

    She didn't simply present a view. She said that it appeared likely that the DOJ would prove that Apple illegally conspired to fix prices.

    That is a clear case of prejudging the matter. Not to mention clear evidence that the judge is a moron for saying it publicly.

    ...and quoting her exactly " I believe that the government will be able to show at trial direct evidence that Apple knowingly participated in and facilitated a conspiracy to raise prices of e-books, and that the circumstantial evidence in this case, including the terms of the agreements, will confirm that."

    Philip Elmer Dewitt, who no one would rationally accuse of being anti-Apple, was pragmatic about the judicial comments writing:
    "In her defense -- a strange phrase to use about a judge -- she's had a chance to read some of the evidence. Much of it is contained in e-mails and correspondence exchanged over a six-week period before the launch of the iPad, when Apple and five book publishers worked on alternatives to Amazon's (AMZN) below-cost pricing model of $9.99 for bestsellers.
    The book publishers have long since settled with the DOJ, leaving Apple as the sole defendant. It could be that Judge Cote is trying to put pressure on Apple to settle as well, something federal judges with heavy schedules have been known to do."
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 79 of 82
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    ...and quoting her exactly " I believe that the government will be able to show at trial direct evidence that Apple knowingly participated in and facilitated a conspiracy to raise prices of e-books, and that the circumstantial evidence in this case, including the terms of the agreements, will confirm that.""

    Exactly. She said that the DOJ would be able to win the case before it even started.

    The only remaining question is whether the Appeals court will overturn it or send it back to the court.

    Ordinarily, I would expect it to be remanded to the original court, but given the blatant bias and disregard for legal procedures, I wouldn't be surprised to see it either overturned or sent to a different judge for a new hearing.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 80 of 82

    There goes jrgosta again, reading meaning into what the judge said.

     

    It must be fun going around pretending that people say what you want them to say. So many people do it.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
Sign In or Register to comment.