Apple certainly should have the right to appeal any ruling, but in this case I find it extremely hard to believe they will prevail. The attitude seems to be that they have done no wrong therefore they should escape any repercussions.
The problem with that is that until the ruling is overturned, Apple did indeed do wrong and cannot expect to prevail with an attitude that they should not be held accountable.
This attitude is silly. Apple clearly thinks it did not do anything wrong. If that is the case, why would Apple act as if it thinks it did something wrong? If you are found guilty of a crime you did not commit (which happens all the time) are people wrongly convicted supposed to lie and feign contrition for something they did not do? Speaking out against a wrong be damned the consequences is a strong character trait.
Further, the whole case stunk against Apple, and the Judge did in fact display bias before the case was heard. Here is a Reuters article where the paper reports on how the Judge claims in a pretrial hearing she believes the evidence viewed to date leads her to think Apple likely is guilty.
The trial itself was a joke. The governments case relied heavily on Thomas Turvey's testimony, director of strategic relationships for Google. Turvey claimed publishers told him Apple forced them to adopt a pricing model that would result in higher book prices. On the stand, however, Turvey could not remember the name of one publishers. Further, he provided a written declaration to the government outlying what he supposedly heard from the publishers. Under oath, however, he admitted his lawyer wrote what was supposed to be Turvey's statement of what he heard. The Judge, herself, found the evidence to be reliable while allowing a whole bunch of other government evidence, such as alleged quotes from Jobs who was not there to testify. She also disallowed a whole bunch of Apple evidence. The Google executives testimony stunk of a competitor trying to lash out at Apple because he could not remember anything on the stand.
Moreover, the Judge appointed a personal friend who by his own admission has no anti-trust experience. So, in effect Apple in essence has to pay double the amount to be monitored. Why wouldn't the judge actually hire an anti-trust law expert to be the monitor? Duh. Perhaps it is because the Judge and the Monitor have a long history. She was responsible for him being appointed to the Department of Justice despite him having a conflict of interest. It was her letter that got him the appointment. Further, the Judge and the Monitor had ex-parte communications regarding the case before she appointed him monitor and wanted to continue such communications after she appointed him despite the fact she is still involved in other aspects of this case.
Finally, as I said this whole case against Apple was rotten. Apple had no monopoly power. Amazon does have monopoly power. Amazon used its power to force publishers to abandon their tiered pricing model. When a new book came out, publishers would first release it in hardcover, then months later softcover. This allowed it to charge more for the hardcover and recoup its costs before releasing a soft cover version. Movie distributors do the same thing. The publishers wanted to do the same thing with eBooks. Namely, release them months after hard cover books are released. Amazon, however, essentially told publishers we will not carry your hardcover books if you do not give us access to eBook version at the same time as the hard cover books. That would have killed publishers so that had to bend to Amazon's will. Amazon then undercut the price of the hardcover books essentially burying the market for hardcover books. The result was Amazon quickly gained a 90 percent monopoly on eBooks. That is classic anti-trust abuse 101. Yet, Amazon escaped unscathed. Apple's deal with publishers benefited the whole industry (e.g. Barnes and Noble and Apple picked up share) and on a whole actually lowered the price of Ebooks (with the exception of New Releases).
The trial also showed it was not Apple's idea to switch to the agency model. Barnes and Noble and the publishers were already discussing this. Apple essentially was the beneficiary of the publishers hatred of Amazon. Apple, however, was not a player in the market, so it had no monopoly power to force publishers to do anything. Moreover, normally when anti-trust matters are at issue it involves one of two scenarios. First, a company with monopoly power using its power in one market to force others to help it gain footing in another market to the detriment of competitors in the other market. For example, Microsoft forced hardware manufacturers to adopt Microsoft Explorer or lose discount pricing on WIndows. This allowed Microsoft to use Windows to steal Netscape's market share. Apple had zero market share when it came to books, and had no power to force publishers to do anything. Second, competitors in a certain market get together to fix prices so competitors do not have to compete on price. That is what LCD displays companies got caught doing (e.g. Samsung, LG, etc.). Apple does not compete with publishers, and any agreement with them was not collusion. Had Apple made the deal directly with Amazon, that would have been a different matter.
Apple likely was a victim of strong Amazon lobbying ties with the government. I also do not understand why Apple went with a Judge trial. It should have known the Judge was known to make up here mind early and favor the government.
No it wasn't, because it didn't have multitouch, the screen could only respond to one touch at a time.
Sure, but it's a very hard claim to make that going from a direct interaction touch screen to a direct interaction multitouch screen is complete invention from scratch. The whole point of what I have been saying is that the Windows Mobile smartphones and indeed the first iPhone are 'proto-smartphones' by todays standards. I agree that multitouch forms part of the key components for a modern smartphone but so does wireless sync and installing apps. I honestly don't understand why some posters find this such a contentious issue. Do people really believe that the iPhone was something nobody else had considered in the industry? In reality Apple were the only people who could make an iPhone due to their position and power.
It seems like it was just a way of ensuring that the court was kept up to datebut without adding a bunch of hassle to the schedule and lawyers. Apple seems to think that this is dangerous and insidiousbut 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.
Ex-Parte communications are generally frowned on in legal matters. The fact is Judge Cote is still preceding over several legal matters related to this case. She is supposed to be an unbiased fact determiner. Yet, she is going to allow herself to have ex-parte communications with the monitor, her friend, who Apple clearly is not happy to have. Yes, those one sided communications that Apple would not be privy to surely wouldn't taint the Judge's position on matters.
This attitude is silly. Apple clearly thinks it did not do anything wrong. If that is the case, why would Apple act as if it thinks it did something wrong? If you are found guilty of a crime you did not commit (which happens all the time) are people wrongly convicted supposed to lie and feign contrition for something they did not do? Speaking out against a wrong be damned the consequences is a strong character trait.
I'm confused as to why you'd think I'm saying Apple should act with contrition. I'm not, the first sentence states clearly that they absolutely should have every right of appeal, ie to maintain their pledge of innocence.
What I was discussing was repercussions, while you can still maintain you are innocent, you cannot decide that you get to stay out of jail until such time as your guilt is proved to your own standards. This is what I am saying, I hope that's more clear now. I didn't feel it was needed to respond to a couple of the paragraphs that follow. I am not about to give my opinion on who is a credible witness at a trial in a foreign country, but I certainly have reviewed as many filings as I can and regardless of testimony the emails and agreements originating from Apple seem fairly damning to me.
Quote:
Finally, as I said this whole case against Apple was rotten. Apple had no monopoly power
A quick aside here. As far as I am aware the laws here do not require any monopoly power in order to prohibit actions.
Quote:
Amazon then undercut the price of the hardcover books essentially burying the market for hardcover books. The result was Amazon quickly gained a 90 percent monopoly on eBooks. That is classic anti-trust abuse 101. Yet, Amazon escaped unscathed.
The reason Amazon escaped unscathed here is that their eBooks department overall still made a profit. That is, they weren't engaging in predatory pricing, they were using a tactic known as a loss-leader. This is perfectly legitimate and not a violation of anti-trust law (as I understand it!)
Quote:
The trial also showed it was not Apple's idea to switch to the agency model. Barnes and Noble and the publishers were already discussing this. Apple essentially was the beneficiary of the publishers hatred of Amazon
I agree this is the case, but remember that all of those publishers already came before the court and settled. Apple is simply the last of the bunch and the only one to continuously maintain its plea of innocence.
Quote:
Second, competitors in a certain market get together to fix prices so competitors do not have to compete on price. That is what LCD displays companies got caught doing (e.g. Samsung, LG, etc.). Apple does not compete with publishers, and any agreement with them was not collusion. Had Apple made the deal directly with Amazon, that would have been a different matter.
As I understand it, the requirement for illegal conduct is that there be a price fixing conspiracy, be that in competition or not. Apple can certainly be argued to have colluded with the publishers, and certain statements indicate that they were aware of the tenous legal ground.
Quote:
Apple likely was a victim of strong Amazon lobbying ties with the government. I also do not understand why Apple went with a Judge trial. It should have known the Judge was known to make up here mind early and favor the government.
This is a pretty cynical view, but it's Apple's mistake to make really. I am nowhere near the US courts system so I couldn't possibly comment on likelyhood or lobbying. I think it's pretty unlikely though, but that's just an opinion.
Thanks for the well thought out and coherent reply. I got so mobbed when I started posting that it's good to be able to have a calm discussion.
There is plenty of evidence that supports Apple's "price-fixing" scheme actually de-monopolized the Amazon "sell-at-a-loss" strategy, allowed new entries like the Nook to be somewhat profitable, etc, turning a 1 horse e-book race into a healthy competitive eco-system.
Now the nook is dead, authors are paid less for their content and anyone looking to enter this arena can't compete with Amazon.
The price of ebooks never rose, the level of discounts decreased.
Apple should pay the publishers a fixed price outside the US for exclusive access all their works then parallel import them and give them away for free.
F*ck the USA's communist policy of government mandated pricing on non essential items.
The burden of proof was on the Prosecution. They managed it. What Apple did wrong was to organise a horizontal price fixing conspiracy.
Because Apple objected to the other candidate much more strongly, and Bromwich has carried out extremely high level monitorships before.
I didn't do either of these things. Please don't make up lies about me.
I'm uh, British, so no to the last few. I don't have anything against Apple. On the contrary I find them to be one of the most advanced companies technologically. They pushed 64 bit ARM before anyone else. They push manufacturing technology right to the limit.
I'm here because I'm interested in the future of Apple. I didn't defend 'Google stealing'. I can't even stand most of Samsung's products. Maybe before you accuse me you should bother to actually read what I am posting.
One perspective should be cleared up: British Law does not translate as well to American Law, especially US Corporate Law.
If you don't have much exposure to US Corporate Law then start reading up. Perceiving this case from UK eyes won't help your cause.
1. Currently Apple is guilty. They were found by a court of law to have broken the law.
2. Apple are appealing and have a stay until the appeal has been heard, until that appeal has been dealt with (and possibly and further appeals?) Apple are still guilty.
I have read this thread with fascination and much mirth, please keep it going. " src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
Ex-Parte communications are generally frowned on in legal matters. The fact is Judge Cote is still preceding over several legal matters related to this case. She is supposed to be an unbiased fact determiner. Yet, she is going to allow herself to have ex-parte communications with the monitor, her friend, who Apple clearly is not happy to have. Yes, those one sided communications that Apple would not be privy to surely wouldn't taint the Judge's position on matters.
I believe you meant to say, ``...presiding over several legal matters related to this case.''
1. Currently Apple is guilty. They were found by a court of law to have broken the law.
2. Apple are appealing and have a stay until the appeal has been heard, until that appeal has been dealt with (and possibly and further appeals?) Apple are still guilty.
I have read this thread with fascination and much mirth, please keep it going. " src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
I'm not certain Apple is appealing the ruling of price fixing, but rather the punishment that is interfering with its ability to compete in a fair and open market.
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...
Actually it was anybody who was interested in maintaining standards and the agreements patent holders make to ensure those standards are available to all, on a fair, reasonable and non discriminatory basis.
Without a reliable standards based system there would be anarchy where nothing works with anything else.
Samsung was threatening that, so the decision was overturned.
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
In the UK, the US and Australia you mainly get to see what Rupert wants you to see, the Internet breaks media baron's hold on what we get to see.
Sure, but it's a very hard claim to make that going from a direct interaction touch screen to a direct interaction multitouch screen is complete invention from scratch. The whole point of what I have been saying is that the Windows Mobile smartphones and indeed the first iPhone are 'proto-smartphones' by todays standards. I agree that multitouch forms part of the key components for a modern smartphone but so does wireless sync and installing apps. I honestly don't understand why some posters find this such a contentious issue. Do people really believe that the iPhone was something nobody else had considered in the industry? In reality Apple were the only people who could make an iPhone due to their position and power.
Multitouch was as much an important innovation as 64bit.
They define modern smartphones now and into the future.
Single touch resistive screens were what Apple was doing in the early nineties with the Newton which not only introduced the term "PDA" but also influenced Apple to work with Acorn and set up ARM.
Multitouch was as much an important innovation as 64bit.
They define modern smartphones now and into the future.
Single touch resistive screens were what Apple was doing in the early nineties with the Newton which not only introduced the term "PDA" but also influenced Apple to work with Acorn and set up ARM.
Not sure I agree they were as important, but I don't really have an argument with what you're saying. The fact is that I carried out many of the same tasks on my horrible HTC Wizard as I do on my Nexus 5. Functionally they're not far apart, what has changed massively is the quality of the interaction. Apple is responsible in big part to that but I feel that their competitors have also driven them to improve. Is this really a contentious topic? It doesn't seem it to me.
you know guys - including you who is trying to set a record for posts on a single thread (not really good manners to always want the last word every single time) - the appeals court will decide this issue, one way or the other, not us. i'll wait for that definitive analysis.
the real world problem is Amazon's very real undeinable monopoly power in the book world. they have been engaged in a classic "dumping" strategy, forcing prices down with their market control to levels that they know will put their retail compeition out of business. in the process publishers and authors also get whacked by Amazon of course.
the fact they have gotten away with this certainly strongly suggests political manipulation. has there been any detailed reporting on Amazon's influence in D.C.?
The problem with that is that until the ruling is overturned, Apple did indeed do wrong and cannot expect to prevail with an attitude that they should not be held accountable.
They did not do wrong.
Don't take my word for it, take the word of your beloved judge in her ruling, here's an excerpt of her ruling, also known as :
Judge Denise Cote's Opinion & Order on the DOJ Witch hunt on Apple to reestablish Amazon's Monopoly
If Apple is suggesting that an adverse ruling necessarily
implies that agency agreements, pricing tiers with caps, MFN
clauses, or simultaneous negotiations with suppliers are
improper, it is wrong. As explained above, the Plaintiffs have
not argued and this Court has not found that any of these or
other such components of Apple’s entry into the market were
wrongful, either alone or in combination. What was wrongful was
the use of those components to facilitate a conspiracy with the
Publisher Defendants.
Let me translate this for you, since Cote managed to obfuscate a very simple fact into an obtuse opinion piece. She candidly admits that she can't find any legal grounds to find Apple guilty of anything, but in her opinion decided that it facilitated other parties to do something wrong, therefore she can rule them guilty of … of … um … some kind of conspiracy I guess. WTF ?
This is even more surprising coming from a land where not a single gun manufacturer or association has been found guilty of facilitating the slaughter of children with military grade assault weapons, yet a successful company entering a new market with new competitive tools can be found guilty of enabling competitors to compete. The answer of course is that it interfered with the continuation of an unchecked monopoly favored by the DOJ. It is truly mind boggling.
Speaking of monopoly, it gets better (or sadder actually) one paragraph further ( emphasis mine ) :
While a Court must take seriously a prediction that its
decision will harm our nation’s economy, particularly when made
by skilled counsel on behalf of an esteemed company, it is
difficult to see how competition will be stifled by the ruling
in this Opinion. This Opinion’s findings arise from the
specific events that unfolded in the trade e-book market as 2009
became 2010. It does not seek to paint with a broader brush.
Really ? Is it that difficult to see ? Maybe if we close our eyes to the bigger picture and focus on a very brief period of time, like say "as 2009became 2010", this Court will not be found accountable for its shortsightedness. Granted she's just a legal civil servant currently assigned as a judge (even sadder) and clueless in business, but any savvy consumer can see what will happen when Amazon is allowed to crush the final remnants of what used to be a free market in publishing. Prices will indeed go up, they already have because of this ruling.
Every year, the “Library & Book Trade Almanac,” an authority in the field, reports annual sales by book category. It 2008, when Amazon had a lock on the market, it reported that the average price of an adult fiction e-book in the U.S. in was $8.71. In 2009, as more people self-published books, the average dropped to $8.21. In 2010, when Apple introduced its agency model for e-books, the price dropped 14 percent to $7.06. And when publishers were up and running against Amazon in 2011, the average price of an e-book sank by an astonishing 32 percent — to $4.83. “That’s a steal,” said Al Greco, a professor of marketing at Fordham University.
The almanac has yet to publish final figures for 2012. But Digital Book World Daily, another expert, reports that e-book prices for fiction in 2012 ranged from $4 to $7.
“My feeling is that the DOJ didn’t see these numbers,” said Greco.
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.
You might have read your darling's 64 page opinion filing defending her buddy's appointment, but you either haven't read her other 160 page opinion piece masquerading as a court order, or then you just picked and chose the same facts that she did to come to the same prejudgement that fits your common narrative of Apple's manufactured guilt. I did read it, not all 160 pages though, and Cote comes across very badly in it, so I would not be cheerleading her at all, with a lot of evidence of being prejudicial, and well before she wrote it, even before the trial.
1) The judge actually taking the time to JUSTIFY her wrong is a preemptive measure against any oversight action taken against her. she knows what she is doing. Of course she comes up roses and Apple is "the bad guy" in her written OPINION. And that's all it is.
I can see her abuse of power serving her very poorly in the near future.
2) Let's not forget, she was publicly stating Apple was guilty way BEFORE THE TRIAL ever began. There was no impartial judging. This was a woman on a mission, hoping to gain political capital of her own by nailing Apple to the wall.
3) It's not a light matter to have her ruling interrupted. Likely other judges without the same agenda are not seeing things similarly and don't want to risk putting themselves on the wrong side of good judgement.
4) The fact that the judge knows and has given Bromwich an appointed source of income in the past is unsettling. Her meeting with him behind closed doors, in secret, with no accountability does more than raise an eyebrow.
5) The fact that Bromwich was forced to reveal his incompetence and yet be able to still charge fees for not only himself, but his support staff (to fill him on on the areas he is completely clueless about), is unbelievable. He actually stated his mission was to accrue income for himself and those people. The problem with this? The court did not rule Apple had to give this guy a job. They ruled he was to keep them accountable. that's it. He can do that for the minimum. And if he isn't qualified, they need to get someone else. simple as that.
6) The whole "trial" in itself proved nothing other than e-book sellers now had options from which to build pricing models and that they were no longer beholden to sell cheaper on Amazon, yet higher everywhere else. they could set their own prices instead of a retailer doing it for them in a self-serving manner to where amazon would be cheapest place to buy. Always - regardless of the financial loss to the publishers. THAT actually seems to be the part that needs looking into.
The judge probably expected Apple to feel the heavy handed sting of her fast and furious "ruling," with no budging on any requests whatsoever, while paying out the ying-yang to support this external monitor/wannabe czar. With such heavy measures and stonewall tactics, it's not hard to imagine a company simply caving so as not to bring more hurt upon itself. Bravo to Apple for standing up for their rights, for truth, and for fighting illogical abuse. It was very smart of them to go public to various news outlets in details concerning what was going on. Now the judge herself is feeling the pressure - and that's where it belongs.
It may be the Apple still has to have monitor or some type of set up. but I doubt it will be what Cote envisioned. she was flat out wrong on too many levels. If there is justice in the justice system, her way is out the door. But, in the interest of maintaining respect for the office, she will be allowed to save face and apple will likely still have to comply with a lesser punishment.
I couldn't find any evidence for that other than the monitor being recommended by the Judge 19 years ago. A Judge appointing someone she has previously recommended for good work is not evidence of corruption
I disagree. The facts of the case might support Apple but as there has been a court ruling then stating it outright is at odds with the law. If the case gets overturned then perhaps you'll have a point.
I see so you didn't even bother to read the opinion. I don't think we can really discuss it any further when you're admitting to being intentionally ignorant and being very rude towards me. Good day.
I have read the opinion and it is a bunch of crap. Cote came out before this case even went to trial and said apple was guilty. She is a bias judge and her and bromwich are indeed friends. She wrote him a glowing recommendation letter to get browich a job with the DOJ. She refused to listen to Phil Schiller's testimony and stated so in her ruling and called him an unreliable witness. This case against apple stinks. Of course the judge is going to support bromwich. She put him there. If she didn't she would have to admit she was wrong in the first place. Bromwich didn't even follow the original ruling from Cote. All of these things are fact. Read the original case ruling. She also changed the ruling after the trial, and started ex parte meetings with bromwich about his interviews with apple execs which she has no legal right to do. Also she changed the original ruling to allow bromwich to conduct interviews of apple execs with no legal counsel present and then report back to her ex parte again with no representation for apple present and no minutes taken. That is at odds with her original ruling at the conclusion of the trial. Then when apple complained about bromwich she changed back to the original trial ruling and withdrew her ex parte meetings with browich in a court filing in december. The judicial branch has no right to conduct investigations and yet that is what she is doing with bromwich, it is the purview of the executive branch to conduct investigations and enforce law.
You really need to read the entire trial before you just read one filing by this crooked and incompetent judge to get the over all picture.
Comments
Apple certainly should have the right to appeal any ruling, but in this case I find it extremely hard to believe they will prevail. The attitude seems to be that they have done no wrong therefore they should escape any repercussions.
The problem with that is that until the ruling is overturned, Apple did indeed do wrong and cannot expect to prevail with an attitude that they should not be held accountable.
This attitude is silly. Apple clearly thinks it did not do anything wrong. If that is the case, why would Apple act as if it thinks it did something wrong? If you are found guilty of a crime you did not commit (which happens all the time) are people wrongly convicted supposed to lie and feign contrition for something they did not do? Speaking out against a wrong be damned the consequences is a strong character trait.
Further, the whole case stunk against Apple, and the Judge did in fact display bias before the case was heard. Here is a Reuters article where the paper reports on how the Judge claims in a pretrial hearing she believes the evidence viewed to date leads her to think Apple likely is guilty.
The trial itself was a joke. The governments case relied heavily on Thomas Turvey's testimony, director of strategic relationships for Google. Turvey claimed publishers told him Apple forced them to adopt a pricing model that would result in higher book prices. On the stand, however, Turvey could not remember the name of one publishers. Further, he provided a written declaration to the government outlying what he supposedly heard from the publishers. Under oath, however, he admitted his lawyer wrote what was supposed to be Turvey's statement of what he heard. The Judge, herself, found the evidence to be reliable while allowing a whole bunch of other government evidence, such as alleged quotes from Jobs who was not there to testify. She also disallowed a whole bunch of Apple evidence. The Google executives testimony stunk of a competitor trying to lash out at Apple because he could not remember anything on the stand.
Moreover, the Judge appointed a personal friend who by his own admission has no anti-trust experience. So, in effect Apple in essence has to pay double the amount to be monitored. Why wouldn't the judge actually hire an anti-trust law expert to be the monitor? Duh. Perhaps it is because the Judge and the Monitor have a long history. She was responsible for him being appointed to the Department of Justice despite him having a conflict of interest. It was her letter that got him the appointment. Further, the Judge and the Monitor had ex-parte communications regarding the case before she appointed him monitor and wanted to continue such communications after she appointed him despite the fact she is still involved in other aspects of this case.
Finally, as I said this whole case against Apple was rotten. Apple had no monopoly power. Amazon does have monopoly power. Amazon used its power to force publishers to abandon their tiered pricing model. When a new book came out, publishers would first release it in hardcover, then months later softcover. This allowed it to charge more for the hardcover and recoup its costs before releasing a soft cover version. Movie distributors do the same thing. The publishers wanted to do the same thing with eBooks. Namely, release them months after hard cover books are released. Amazon, however, essentially told publishers we will not carry your hardcover books if you do not give us access to eBook version at the same time as the hard cover books. That would have killed publishers so that had to bend to Amazon's will. Amazon then undercut the price of the hardcover books essentially burying the market for hardcover books. The result was Amazon quickly gained a 90 percent monopoly on eBooks. That is classic anti-trust abuse 101. Yet, Amazon escaped unscathed. Apple's deal with publishers benefited the whole industry (e.g. Barnes and Noble and Apple picked up share) and on a whole actually lowered the price of Ebooks (with the exception of New Releases).
The trial also showed it was not Apple's idea to switch to the agency model. Barnes and Noble and the publishers were already discussing this. Apple essentially was the beneficiary of the publishers hatred of Amazon. Apple, however, was not a player in the market, so it had no monopoly power to force publishers to do anything. Moreover, normally when anti-trust matters are at issue it involves one of two scenarios. First, a company with monopoly power using its power in one market to force others to help it gain footing in another market to the detriment of competitors in the other market. For example, Microsoft forced hardware manufacturers to adopt Microsoft Explorer or lose discount pricing on WIndows. This allowed Microsoft to use Windows to steal Netscape's market share. Apple had zero market share when it came to books, and had no power to force publishers to do anything. Second, competitors in a certain market get together to fix prices so competitors do not have to compete on price. That is what LCD displays companies got caught doing (e.g. Samsung, LG, etc.). Apple does not compete with publishers, and any agreement with them was not collusion. Had Apple made the deal directly with Amazon, that would have been a different matter.
Apple likely was a victim of strong Amazon lobbying ties with the government. I also do not understand why Apple went with a Judge trial. It should have known the Judge was known to make up here mind early and favor the government.
No it wasn't, because it didn't have multitouch, the screen could only respond to one touch at a time.
Sure, but it's a very hard claim to make that going from a direct interaction touch screen to a direct interaction multitouch screen is complete invention from scratch. The whole point of what I have been saying is that the Windows Mobile smartphones and indeed the first iPhone are 'proto-smartphones' by todays standards. I agree that multitouch forms part of the key components for a modern smartphone but so does wireless sync and installing apps. I honestly don't understand why some posters find this such a contentious issue. Do people really believe that the iPhone was something nobody else had considered in the industry? In reality Apple were the only people who could make an iPhone due to their position and power.
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.
Ex-Parte communications are generally frowned on in legal matters. The fact is Judge Cote is still preceding over several legal matters related to this case. She is supposed to be an unbiased fact determiner. Yet, she is going to allow herself to have ex-parte communications with the monitor, her friend, who Apple clearly is not happy to have. Yes, those one sided communications that Apple would not be privy to surely wouldn't taint the Judge's position on matters.
Well, this has been fun,
but enough has been said-
Time for the BLOCK
And off with his head.
That a chance has been given
Cannot be disputed.
The dude is driven
By rocks in his head.
This attitude is silly. Apple clearly thinks it did not do anything wrong. If that is the case, why would Apple act as if it thinks it did something wrong? If you are found guilty of a crime you did not commit (which happens all the time) are people wrongly convicted supposed to lie and feign contrition for something they did not do? Speaking out against a wrong be damned the consequences is a strong character trait.
I'm confused as to why you'd think I'm saying Apple should act with contrition. I'm not, the first sentence states clearly that they absolutely should have every right of appeal, ie to maintain their pledge of innocence.
What I was discussing was repercussions, while you can still maintain you are innocent, you cannot decide that you get to stay out of jail until such time as your guilt is proved to your own standards. This is what I am saying, I hope that's more clear now. I didn't feel it was needed to respond to a couple of the paragraphs that follow. I am not about to give my opinion on who is a credible witness at a trial in a foreign country, but I certainly have reviewed as many filings as I can and regardless of testimony the emails and agreements originating from Apple seem fairly damning to me.
A quick aside here. As far as I am aware the laws here do not require any monopoly power in order to prohibit actions.
The reason Amazon escaped unscathed here is that their eBooks department overall still made a profit. That is, they weren't engaging in predatory pricing, they were using a tactic known as a loss-leader. This is perfectly legitimate and not a violation of anti-trust law (as I understand it!)
I agree this is the case, but remember that all of those publishers already came before the court and settled. Apple is simply the last of the bunch and the only one to continuously maintain its plea of innocence.
As I understand it, the requirement for illegal conduct is that there be a price fixing conspiracy, be that in competition or not. Apple can certainly be argued to have colluded with the publishers, and certain statements indicate that they were aware of the tenous legal ground.
This is a pretty cynical view, but it's Apple's mistake to make really. I am nowhere near the US courts system so I couldn't possibly comment on likelyhood or lobbying. I think it's pretty unlikely though, but that's just an opinion.
Thanks for the well thought out and coherent reply. I got so mobbed when I started posting that it's good to be able to have a calm discussion.
There is plenty of evidence that supports Apple's "price-fixing" scheme actually de-monopolized the Amazon "sell-at-a-loss" strategy, allowed new entries like the Nook to be somewhat profitable, etc, turning a 1 horse e-book race into a healthy competitive eco-system.
Now the nook is dead, authors are paid less for their content and anyone looking to enter this arena can't compete with Amazon.
The price of ebooks never rose, the level of discounts decreased.
Apple should pay the publishers a fixed price outside the US for exclusive access all their works then parallel import them and give them away for free.
F*ck the USA's communist policy of government mandated pricing on non essential items.
The burden of proof was on the Prosecution. They managed it. What Apple did wrong was to organise a horizontal price fixing conspiracy.
Because Apple objected to the other candidate much more strongly, and Bromwich has carried out extremely high level monitorships before.
I didn't do either of these things. Please don't make up lies about me.
I'm uh, British, so no to the last few. I don't have anything against Apple. On the contrary I find them to be one of the most advanced companies technologically. They pushed 64 bit ARM before anyone else. They push manufacturing technology right to the limit.
I'm here because I'm interested in the future of Apple. I didn't defend 'Google stealing'. I can't even stand most of Samsung's products. Maybe before you accuse me you should bother to actually read what I am posting.
One perspective should be cleared up: British Law does not translate as well to American Law, especially US Corporate Law.
If you don't have much exposure to US Corporate Law then start reading up. Perceiving this case from UK eyes won't help your cause.
two main facts.
1. Currently Apple is guilty. They were found by a court of law to have broken the law.
2. Apple are appealing and have a stay until the appeal has been heard, until that appeal has been dealt with (and possibly and further appeals?) Apple are still guilty.
I have read this thread with fascination and much mirth, please keep it going.
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
Ex-Parte communications are generally frowned on in legal matters. The fact is Judge Cote is still preceding over several legal matters related to this case. She is supposed to be an unbiased fact determiner. Yet, she is going to allow herself to have ex-parte communications with the monitor, her friend, who Apple clearly is not happy to have. Yes, those one sided communications that Apple would not be privy to surely wouldn't taint the Judge's position on matters.
I believe you meant to say, ``...presiding over several legal matters related to this case.''
two main facts.
1. Currently Apple is guilty. They were found by a court of law to have broken the law.
2. Apple are appealing and have a stay until the appeal has been heard, until that appeal has been dealt with (and possibly and further appeals?) Apple are still guilty.
I have read this thread with fascination and much mirth, please keep it going.
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
I'm not certain Apple is appealing the ruling of price fixing, but rather the punishment that is interfering with its ability to compete in a fair and open market.
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...
Actually it was anybody who was interested in maintaining standards and the agreements patent holders make to ensure those standards are available to all, on a fair, reasonable and non discriminatory basis.
Without a reliable standards based system there would be anarchy where nothing works with anything else.
Samsung was threatening that, so the decision was overturned.
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
In the UK, the US and Australia you mainly get to see what Rupert wants you to see, the Internet breaks media baron's hold on what we get to see.
Sure, but it's a very hard claim to make that going from a direct interaction touch screen to a direct interaction multitouch screen is complete invention from scratch. The whole point of what I have been saying is that the Windows Mobile smartphones and indeed the first iPhone are 'proto-smartphones' by todays standards. I agree that multitouch forms part of the key components for a modern smartphone but so does wireless sync and installing apps. I honestly don't understand why some posters find this such a contentious issue. Do people really believe that the iPhone was something nobody else had considered in the industry? In reality Apple were the only people who could make an iPhone due to their position and power.
Multitouch was as much an important innovation as 64bit.
They define modern smartphones now and into the future.
Single touch resistive screens were what Apple was doing in the early nineties with the Newton which not only introduced the term "PDA" but also influenced Apple to work with Acorn and set up ARM.
Multitouch was as much an important innovation as 64bit.
They define modern smartphones now and into the future.
Single touch resistive screens were what Apple was doing in the early nineties with the Newton which not only introduced the term "PDA" but also influenced Apple to work with Acorn and set up ARM.
Not sure I agree they were as important, but I don't really have an argument with what you're saying. The fact is that I carried out many of the same tasks on my horrible HTC Wizard as I do on my Nexus 5. Functionally they're not far apart, what has changed massively is the quality of the interaction. Apple is responsible in big part to that but I feel that their competitors have also driven them to improve. Is this really a contentious topic? It doesn't seem it to me.
you know guys - including you who is trying to set a record for posts on a single thread (not really good manners to always want the last word every single time) - the appeals court will decide this issue, one way or the other, not us. i'll wait for that definitive analysis.
the real world problem is Amazon's very real undeinable monopoly power in the book world. they have been engaged in a classic "dumping" strategy, forcing prices down with their market control to levels that they know will put their retail compeition out of business. in the process publishers and authors also get whacked by Amazon of course.
the fact they have gotten away with this certainly strongly suggests political manipulation. has there been any detailed reporting on Amazon's influence in D.C.?
The problem with that is that until the ruling is overturned, Apple did indeed do wrong and cannot expect to prevail with an attitude that they should not be held accountable.
They did not do wrong.
Don't take my word for it, take the word of your beloved judge in her ruling, here's an excerpt of her ruling, also known as :
Judge Denise Cote's Opinion & Order on the DOJ Witch hunt on Apple to reestablish Amazon's Monopoly
implies that agency agreements, pricing tiers with caps, MFN
clauses, or simultaneous negotiations with suppliers are
improper, it is wrong. As explained above, the Plaintiffs have
not argued and this Court has not found that any of these or
other such components of Apple’s entry into the market were
wrongful, either alone or in combination. What was wrongful was
the use of those components to facilitate a conspiracy with the
Publisher Defendants.
decision will harm our nation’s economy, particularly when made
by skilled counsel on behalf of an esteemed company, it is
difficult to see how competition will be stifled by the ruling
in this Opinion. This Opinion’s findings arise from the
specific events that unfolded in the trade e-book market as 2009
became 2010. It does not seek to paint with a broader brush.
Really ? Is it that difficult to see ? Maybe if we close our eyes to the bigger picture and focus on a very brief period of time, like say "as 2009 became 2010", this Court will not be found accountable for its shortsightedness. Granted she's just a legal civil servant currently assigned as a judge (even sadder) and clueless in business, but any savvy consumer can see what will happen when Amazon is allowed to crush the final remnants of what used to be a free market in publishing. Prices will indeed go up, they already have because of this ruling.
Every year, the “Library & Book Trade Almanac,” an authority in the field, reports annual sales by book category. It 2008, when Amazon had a lock on the market, it reported that the average price of an adult fiction e-book in the U.S. in was $8.71. In 2009, as more people self-published books, the average dropped to $8.21. In 2010, when Apple introduced its agency model for e-books, the price dropped 14 percent to $7.06. And when publishers were up and running against Amazon in 2011, the average price of an e-book sank by an astonishing 32 percent — to $4.83. “That’s a steal,” said Al Greco, a professor of marketing at Fordham University.
The almanac has yet to publish final figures for 2012. But Digital Book World Daily, another expert, reports that e-book prices for fiction in 2012 ranged from $4 to $7.
“My feeling is that the DOJ didn’t see these numbers,” said Greco.
Amazon’s bogus anti-Apple crusade - Salon.com
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.
You might have read your darling's 64 page opinion filing defending her buddy's appointment, but you either haven't read her other 160 page opinion piece masquerading as a court order, or then you just picked and chose the same facts that she did to come to the same prejudgement that fits your common narrative of Apple's manufactured guilt. I did read it, not all 160 pages though, and Cote comes across very badly in it, so I would not be cheerleading her at all, with a lot of evidence of being prejudicial, and well before she wrote it, even before the trial.
Way too many disturbing facts about this case.
1) The judge actually taking the time to JUSTIFY her wrong is a preemptive measure against any oversight action taken against her. she knows what she is doing. Of course she comes up roses and Apple is "the bad guy" in her written OPINION. And that's all it is.
I can see her abuse of power serving her very poorly in the near future.
2) Let's not forget, she was publicly stating Apple was guilty way BEFORE THE TRIAL ever began. There was no impartial judging. This was a woman on a mission, hoping to gain political capital of her own by nailing Apple to the wall.
3) It's not a light matter to have her ruling interrupted. Likely other judges without the same agenda are not seeing things similarly and don't want to risk putting themselves on the wrong side of good judgement.
4) The fact that the judge knows and has given Bromwich an appointed source of income in the past is unsettling. Her meeting with him behind closed doors, in secret, with no accountability does more than raise an eyebrow.
5) The fact that Bromwich was forced to reveal his incompetence and yet be able to still charge fees for not only himself, but his support staff (to fill him on on the areas he is completely clueless about), is unbelievable. He actually stated his mission was to accrue income for himself and those people. The problem with this? The court did not rule Apple had to give this guy a job. They ruled he was to keep them accountable. that's it. He can do that for the minimum. And if he isn't qualified, they need to get someone else. simple as that.
6) The whole "trial" in itself proved nothing other than e-book sellers now had options from which to build pricing models and that they were no longer beholden to sell cheaper on Amazon, yet higher everywhere else. they could set their own prices instead of a retailer doing it for them in a self-serving manner to where amazon would be cheapest place to buy. Always - regardless of the financial loss to the publishers. THAT actually seems to be the part that needs looking into.
The judge probably expected Apple to feel the heavy handed sting of her fast and furious "ruling," with no budging on any requests whatsoever, while paying out the ying-yang to support this external monitor/wannabe czar. With such heavy measures and stonewall tactics, it's not hard to imagine a company simply caving so as not to bring more hurt upon itself. Bravo to Apple for standing up for their rights, for truth, and for fighting illogical abuse. It was very smart of them to go public to various news outlets in details concerning what was going on. Now the judge herself is feeling the pressure - and that's where it belongs.
It may be the Apple still has to have monitor or some type of set up. but I doubt it will be what Cote envisioned. she was flat out wrong on too many levels. If there is justice in the justice system, her way is out the door. But, in the interest of maintaining respect for the office, she will be allowed to save face and apple will likely still have to comply with a lesser punishment.
Then... hopefully she is quietly dismissed.
I couldn't find any evidence for that other than the monitor being recommended by the Judge 19 years ago. A Judge appointing someone she has previously recommended for good work is not evidence of corruption
I disagree. The facts of the case might support Apple but as there has been a court ruling then stating it outright is at odds with the law. If the case gets overturned then perhaps you'll have a point.
I see so you didn't even bother to read the opinion. I don't think we can really discuss it any further when you're admitting to being intentionally ignorant and being very rude towards me. Good day.
I have read the opinion and it is a bunch of crap. Cote came out before this case even went to trial and said apple was guilty. She is a bias judge and her and bromwich are indeed friends. She wrote him a glowing recommendation letter to get browich a job with the DOJ. She refused to listen to Phil Schiller's testimony and stated so in her ruling and called him an unreliable witness. This case against apple stinks. Of course the judge is going to support bromwich. She put him there. If she didn't she would have to admit she was wrong in the first place. Bromwich didn't even follow the original ruling from Cote. All of these things are fact. Read the original case ruling. She also changed the ruling after the trial, and started ex parte meetings with bromwich about his interviews with apple execs which she has no legal right to do. Also she changed the original ruling to allow bromwich to conduct interviews of apple execs with no legal counsel present and then report back to her ex parte again with no representation for apple present and no minutes taken. That is at odds with her original ruling at the conclusion of the trial. Then when apple complained about bromwich she changed back to the original trial ruling and withdrew her ex parte meetings with browich in a court filing in december. The judicial branch has no right to conduct investigations and yet that is what she is doing with bromwich, it is the purview of the executive branch to conduct investigations and enforce law.
You really need to read the entire trial before you just read one filing by this crooked and incompetent judge to get the over all picture.