I'm actually from England, North West England to be more precise. Here a Corporation is a distinct legal entity, but it does not have rights akin to a person. The whole situation in the US with people (corporations) having free speech (spending money) on any topic they like is utterly weird to us
Well it's very weird to Americans that you don't have nearly the same freedom of the press as in the US. Neither the government nor the monarchy (which we obviously don't have) could tell a paper they're not allowed to print something just because it's unfavorable to them. If they could no US paper would be reporting on Snowden leaks...
In your reading of Judge Cote's 60+ pages, did she explain why she had decided to put in motion the ex parte meetings? I admit I did not read the document?
Not I that I really care how the government of this banana-republic is set up, but yes I am aware of this.
Maybe some people associated with US government are not yet brainwashed iSheep, or maybe the whole affair was set up to maintain the appearance of "fairness"? Who knows.
After all, some patent office also ordered the import ban on some iPhones (or some other Apple crap) only to have the order overturned after Apple managers whined to Obama about it...
So now the ITC is a patent office? I imagine people on here with similar feelings to you would appreciate it if you would stop making their "side" look so uneducated.
Well it's very weird to Americans that you don't have nearly the same freedom of the press as in the US. Neither the government nor the monarchy (which we obviously don't have) could tell a paper they're not allowed to print something just because it's unfavorable to them. If they could no US paper would be reporting on Snowden leaks...
Oh crikey I am not getting into this discussion here! There are ways to prevent media publication of things in the UK but they are rarely used and at least accountable to some oversight. It's a really complex and difficult topic with people who feel incredibly strongly. I've already taken enough abuse for one afternoon.
If you do want to discuss this though, PM me and I'll compare and contrast, although what's the whole 'In Prague' part about eh? Finally your secret identity exposed! :-p
The ultimate comedy of this is, I wouldn't accept one if they gave it me, because then I'd probably have to use it and all their added software is awful. My father has an S4 and it's absolutely stuffed with crap.
Bloatware-filled phones are even more horrible than bloatware-filled laptops and desktops - it's even harder to clean all the crap off with a mobile device. Quite why anyone would want to use worse versions of the stock apps with [company name] prepended to the app title is a mystery to me.
Even though the Judge didn't act on the ex-parte conversations yet doesn't mean it wasn't part of the original agreement. I actually also read that she REMOVED that provision. Thus, it was part of the original scope.
The other part you are overlooking here is that Bromwich wasn't supposed to be on the clock. apple had until like mid January before the monitoring was to take effect. The time was for them to put their plans into place. Bromwich had no business interviewing anyone yet. period. If he chose to do it then it probably should have been on his own dime.
The judge solely based her entire ruling on he interpretation of Eddie Cue. She went with that there was a conversation that took place between all book publishers and Apple No evidence was presented to prove it. She just thought Eddie Cue was lying. I read all the info that was presented day by day. Fortune 2.0 posted great recaps each and every day. The evidence was overwhelmingly sided in Apples favor. All of the DOJ witnesses fell apart. Including the liars from Google and Amazon whose stories all turned from what they gave in that "pre-trial" evidence. In addition, Apple is a vertical not horizontal player. While there could be collusion between all the publishers and they can do it via a mechanism that Apple supplies, does not make it anti-trust. It is unheard of for a vertical player, to be accused on an anti-trust violation. This is why this will also be overturned.
Lets also not forget the fact that Amazon held a 90+% marketshare over the e-book market by selling below cost. Remember Amazzon started solely as a bookstore. It cut the price of best sellers by 30% and forced other retailers to do the same. This put all the mom and pop and major bookstores out of business. It then developed its own e-reader and with the clout, forced publishers to go along and make e-books. Amazon then sold those e-books at a loss. Customers would then flock to e-books and that was cannibalizing hardcover book sales of NYT bestsellers. This was where the publishers made their money. This was Amazons end game. Kill the hardcover books and have the only viable e-reader in town and thus corner the market. They were pretty much there. I'm sure taking over the entire publish industry would have been the next phase. The publishers had no clout and could not make any demands from Amazon. Even if they wanted to raise their price, Amazon would sell for a loss and kill of their profit making source of hardcovers. If a publisher tried to window (i.e. hold distribution of e-books for a period of time to sell hardcovers) Amazon put the pressure on that they would remove all their books. Why were they never prosecuted.
Now the sole fact that Apple had an alternative, ibookstore, meant that the publishers knew they might have some clout at Amazon. But, that doesn't mean that there was collusion between all parties. The publishers could have colluded on their own or just accepted Apples terms independently knowing what the benefits would be for them. Going back to the case. Many of the publishers argued the Favored Nations Clause. This was all proven in court. If they all colluded then why would this be the case? In addition, it was also proven that Apple had to negotiate over months each and every publishers agreement. If they all colluded wouldn't this have been a slam dunk?
Sorry but opinions were made up in this case by the judge and then she went with her opinions vs. the facts that were presented. To top it off, the whole curx of the argument was that Apple increased pricing. However, it has come to light that the avg price of e-books have been falling ever since the iBookstore went live. This also goes to show it was a bogus claim and you can bet this will come up in the re-trial.
Just to leave one last tid bit. Apple has only been found guilty in one part of the process. by a sole judge. They have the right to appeal, which they did. If they are found not guilty is your view of the judge then going to change?
I doubt this will happen. Cote's opinion reads very well and the basis of her judgements also seems sound. I doubt anyone so far in this thread actually read her 64 page opinion filing.
I did, Apple comes across very badly in it, so I would not be cheerleading this at all. There's no evidence whatsoever of Cote being prejudicial, if there is I invite you to cite it.
"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."
Sorry, that oversteps a pre-trial opinion. That's judgement. Indeed, pre-judgement. She drew hard conclusions that should have been subject to evidence presented during proceedings. This is most certainly going to come back to bite her.
In your reading of Judge Cote's 60+ pages, did she explain why she had decided to put in motion the ex parte meetings? I admit I did not read the document?
It seems like it was just a way of ensuring that the court was kept up to date but without adding a bunch of hassle to the schedule and lawyers. Apple seems to think that this is dangerous and insidious but I really don't understand what exactly they're afraid of. From my reading it sounds like he was going to appear, say "Yeah all going fine, they're working on the new policies now" and bugger off.
IANAL though, and I am not based in the US, so it's certainly possible I have misunderstood, don't take my word as gospel.
Even though the Judge didn't act on the ex-parte conversations yet doesn't mean it wasn't part of the original agreement. I actually also read that she REMOVED that provision. Thus, it was part of the original scope.
The other part you are overlooking here is that Bromwich wasn't supposed to be on the clock. apple had until like mid January before the monitoring was to take effect. The time was for them to put their plans into place. Bromwich had no business interviewing anyone yet. period. If he chose to do it then it probably should have been on his own dime.
Before I even continue to address the rest of your post. This is wholly incorrect. Apple disagrees with you here too. Please read her latest opinion and then reformulate your post because it's clear you're working off third party sources or information.
"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."
Sorry, that oversteps a pre-trial opinion. That's judgement. Indeed, pre-judgement. She drew hard conclusions that should have been subject to evidence presented during proceedings. This is most certainly going to come back to bite her.
I am not convinced. Could you reword her statement so it confirms more to an opinion in your eyes? I can't imagine how else she could say "I have seen some evidence which appears to be damning and the circumstantial evidence points in the DOJs favour either" without you claiming it was a pre-judgement.
Bloatware-filled phones are even more horrible than bloatware-filled laptops and desktops - it's even harder to clean all the crap off with a mobile device. Quite why anyone would want to use worse versions of the stock apps with [company name] prepended to the app title is a mystery to me.
Agreed. I picked up a Nexus 5 because my old phone was unbearably slow and it was available for a ridiculously low price. The simpler, non bloaty interface is lovely. It's a great phone and they've been smart and competed where Apple has a hard time doing in the UK, price.
Maybe some people associated with US government are not yet brainwashed iSheep, or maybe the whole affair was set up to maintain the appearance of "fairness"? Who knows.
After all, this has happened before and will happen again... if you remember, some patent office ordered the import ban on some iPhones (or some other Apple crap) only to have the order overturned after Apple managers whined to Obama about it...
So now the ITC is a patent office? I imagine people on here with similar feelings to you would appreciate it if you would stop making their "side" look so uneducated.
Indeed. People posting nonsense doesn't help either side, regardless of what side they're posting it for.
It seems like it was just a way of ensuring that the court was kept up to date but without adding a bunch of hassle to the schedule and lawyers. Apple seems to think that this is dangerous and insidious but I really don't understand what exactly they're afraid of. From my reading it sounds like he was going to appear, say "Yeah all going fine, they're working on the new policies now" and bugger off.
IANAL though, and I am not based in the US, so it's certainly possible I have misunderstood, don't take my word as gospel.
Did Judge Cote explain why she ultimately decided to remove the ex parte meetings motion?
Did Judge Cote explain why she ultimately decided to remove the ex parte meetings motion?
She just mentioned that Apple filed a particularly strong objection. I can look for more info if you like but I'm not sure where you're going with this line of questioning.
So now the ITC is a patent office? I imagine people on here with similar feelings to you would appreciate it if you would stop making their "side" look so uneducated.
Americans spewing non-sense about "education" always make chuckle...
After all, it is precisely the lack of education which caused USA to fall behind other countries and the resulting heavy-handed protectionism is to defend "American" innovations... America COMPETES via patent-law!
Right a resistive touchscreen. I never claimed it had a capacitive screen. It was just a touch screen with a virtual keyboard, a similar model to what Apple used. Nor did I claim it was good, because it wasn't.
No it wasn't, because it didn't have multitouch, the screen could only respond to one touch at a time.
Comments
I'm actually from England, North West England to be more precise. Here a Corporation is a distinct legal entity, but it does not have rights akin to a person. The whole situation in the US with people (corporations) having free speech (spending money) on any topic they like is utterly weird to us
Well it's very weird to Americans that you don't have nearly the same freedom of the press as in the US. Neither the government nor the monarchy (which we obviously don't have) could tell a paper they're not allowed to print something just because it's unfavorable to them. If they could no US paper would be reporting on Snowden leaks...
In your reading of Judge Cote's 60+ pages, did she explain why she had decided to put in motion the ex parte meetings? I admit I did not read the document?
Who is surprised at this?
In the end, US government will always come to Apple's aid and overturn any court case which go against the patent-trolling fruit company.
Not I that I really care how the government of this banana-republic is set up, but yes I am aware of this.
Maybe some people associated with US government are not yet brainwashed iSheep, or maybe the whole affair was set up to maintain the appearance of "fairness"? Who knows.
After all, some patent office also ordered the import ban on some iPhones (or some other Apple crap) only to have the order overturned after Apple managers whined to Obama about it...
So now the ITC is a patent office? I imagine people on here with similar feelings to you would appreciate it if you would stop making their "side" look so uneducated.
Well it's very weird to Americans that you don't have nearly the same freedom of the press as in the US. Neither the government nor the monarchy (which we obviously don't have) could tell a paper they're not allowed to print something just because it's unfavorable to them. If they could no US paper would be reporting on Snowden leaks...
Oh crikey I am not getting into this discussion here! There are ways to prevent media publication of things in the UK but they are rarely used and at least accountable to some oversight. It's a really complex and difficult topic with people who feel incredibly strongly. I've already taken enough abuse for one afternoon.
If you do want to discuss this though, PM me and I'll compare and contrast, although what's the whole 'In Prague' part about eh? Finally your secret identity exposed! :-p
The ultimate comedy of this is, I wouldn't accept one if they gave it me, because then I'd probably have to use it and all their added software is awful. My father has an S4 and it's absolutely stuffed with crap.
Bloatware-filled phones are even more horrible than bloatware-filled laptops and desktops - it's even harder to clean all the crap off with a mobile device. Quite why anyone would want to use worse versions of the stock apps with [company name] prepended to the app title is a mystery to me.
Even though the Judge didn't act on the ex-parte conversations yet doesn't mean it wasn't part of the original agreement. I actually also read that she REMOVED that provision. Thus, it was part of the original scope.
The other part you are overlooking here is that Bromwich wasn't supposed to be on the clock. apple had until like mid January before the monitoring was to take effect. The time was for them to put their plans into place. Bromwich had no business interviewing anyone yet. period. If he chose to do it then it probably should have been on his own dime.
The judge solely based her entire ruling on he interpretation of Eddie Cue. She went with that there was a conversation that took place between all book publishers and Apple No evidence was presented to prove it. She just thought Eddie Cue was lying. I read all the info that was presented day by day. Fortune 2.0 posted great recaps each and every day. The evidence was overwhelmingly sided in Apples favor. All of the DOJ witnesses fell apart. Including the liars from Google and Amazon whose stories all turned from what they gave in that "pre-trial" evidence. In addition, Apple is a vertical not horizontal player. While there could be collusion between all the publishers and they can do it via a mechanism that Apple supplies, does not make it anti-trust. It is unheard of for a vertical player, to be accused on an anti-trust violation. This is why this will also be overturned.
Lets also not forget the fact that Amazon held a 90+% marketshare over the e-book market by selling below cost. Remember Amazzon started solely as a bookstore. It cut the price of best sellers by 30% and forced other retailers to do the same. This put all the mom and pop and major bookstores out of business. It then developed its own e-reader and with the clout, forced publishers to go along and make e-books. Amazon then sold those e-books at a loss. Customers would then flock to e-books and that was cannibalizing hardcover book sales of NYT bestsellers. This was where the publishers made their money. This was Amazons end game. Kill the hardcover books and have the only viable e-reader in town and thus corner the market. They were pretty much there. I'm sure taking over the entire publish industry would have been the next phase. The publishers had no clout and could not make any demands from Amazon. Even if they wanted to raise their price, Amazon would sell for a loss and kill of their profit making source of hardcovers. If a publisher tried to window (i.e. hold distribution of e-books for a period of time to sell hardcovers) Amazon put the pressure on that they would remove all their books. Why were they never prosecuted.
Now the sole fact that Apple had an alternative, ibookstore, meant that the publishers knew they might have some clout at Amazon. But, that doesn't mean that there was collusion between all parties. The publishers could have colluded on their own or just accepted Apples terms independently knowing what the benefits would be for them. Going back to the case. Many of the publishers argued the Favored Nations Clause. This was all proven in court. If they all colluded then why would this be the case? In addition, it was also proven that Apple had to negotiate over months each and every publishers agreement. If they all colluded wouldn't this have been a slam dunk?
Sorry but opinions were made up in this case by the judge and then she went with her opinions vs. the facts that were presented. To top it off, the whole curx of the argument was that Apple increased pricing. However, it has come to light that the avg price of e-books have been falling ever since the iBookstore went live. This also goes to show it was a bogus claim and you can bet this will come up in the re-trial.
Just to leave one last tid bit. Apple has only been found guilty in one part of the process. by a sole judge. They have the right to appeal, which they did. If they are found not guilty is your view of the judge then going to change?
I doubt this will happen. Cote's opinion reads very well and the basis of her judgements also seems sound. I doubt anyone so far in this thread actually read her 64 page opinion filing.
I did, Apple comes across very badly in it, so I would not be cheerleading this at all. There's no evidence whatsoever of Cote being prejudicial, if there is I invite you to cite it.
"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."
Sorry, that oversteps a pre-trial opinion. That's judgement. Indeed, pre-judgement. She drew hard conclusions that should have been subject to evidence presented during proceedings. This is most certainly going to come back to bite her.
In your reading of Judge Cote's 60+ pages, did she explain why she had decided to put in motion the ex parte meetings? I admit I did not read the document?
It seems like it was just a way of ensuring that the court was kept up to date but without adding a bunch of hassle to the schedule and lawyers. Apple seems to think that this is dangerous and insidious but I really don't understand what exactly they're afraid of. From my reading it sounds like he was going to appear, say "Yeah all going fine, they're working on the new policies now" and bugger off.
IANAL though, and I am not based in the US, so it's certainly possible I have misunderstood, don't take my word as gospel.
Even though the Judge didn't act on the ex-parte conversations yet doesn't mean it wasn't part of the original agreement. I actually also read that she REMOVED that provision. Thus, it was part of the original scope.
The other part you are overlooking here is that Bromwich wasn't supposed to be on the clock. apple had until like mid January before the monitoring was to take effect. The time was for them to put their plans into place. Bromwich had no business interviewing anyone yet. period. If he chose to do it then it probably should have been on his own dime.
Before I even continue to address the rest of your post. This is wholly incorrect. Apple disagrees with you here too. Please read her latest opinion and then reformulate your post because it's clear you're working off third party sources or information.
Looks like Obama's America COMPETES Act strikes again.
How long before the possession of a least one Apple gadget per household becomes mandatory?
How long before the possession of non-US headquarter'ed electronics becomes illegal?
"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."
Sorry, that oversteps a pre-trial opinion. That's judgement. Indeed, pre-judgement. She drew hard conclusions that should have been subject to evidence presented during proceedings. This is most certainly going to come back to bite her.
I am not convinced. Could you reword her statement so it confirms more to an opinion in your eyes? I can't imagine how else she could say "I have seen some evidence which appears to be damning and the circumstantial evidence points in the DOJs favour either" without you claiming it was a pre-judgement.
Bloatware-filled phones are even more horrible than bloatware-filled laptops and desktops - it's even harder to clean all the crap off with a mobile device. Quite why anyone would want to use worse versions of the stock apps with [company name] prepended to the app title is a mystery to me.
Agreed. I picked up a Nexus 5 because my old phone was unbearably slow and it was available for a ridiculously low price. The simpler, non bloaty interface is lovely. It's a great phone and they've been smart and competed where Apple has a hard time doing in the UK, price.
Maybe some people associated with US government are not yet brainwashed iSheep, or maybe the whole affair was set up to maintain the appearance of "fairness"? Who knows.
After all, this has happened before and will happen again... if you remember, some patent office ordered the import ban on some iPhones (or some other Apple crap) only to have the order overturned after Apple managers whined to Obama about it...
Looks like Obama's America COMPETES Act strikes again.
How long before the possession of a least one Apple gadget per household becomes mandatory?
How long before the possession of non-US headquarter'ed electronics becomes illegal?
So now the ITC is a patent office? I imagine people on here with similar feelings to you would appreciate it if you would stop making their "side" look so uneducated.
Indeed. People posting nonsense doesn't help either side, regardless of what side they're posting it for.
Did Judge Cote explain why she ultimately decided to remove the ex parte meetings motion?
Did Judge Cote explain why she ultimately decided to remove the ex parte meetings motion?
She just mentioned that Apple filed a particularly strong objection. I can look for more info if you like but I'm not sure where you're going with this line of questioning.
So now the ITC is a patent office? I imagine people on here with similar feelings to you would appreciate it if you would stop making their "side" look so uneducated.
Americans spewing non-sense about "education" always make chuckle...
After all, it is precisely the lack of education which caused USA to fall behind other countries and the resulting heavy-handed protectionism is to defend "American" innovations... America COMPETES via patent-law!
http://thelearningcurve.pearson.com/index/index-ranking
South Korea 1.23 #2
.
.
.
USA 0.35 #17
Wow! How embarrassing!
Right a resistive touchscreen. I never claimed it had a capacitive screen. It was just a touch screen with a virtual keyboard, a similar model to what Apple used. Nor did I claim it was good, because it wasn't.
No it wasn't, because it didn't have multitouch, the screen could only respond to one touch at a time.