Court shoots down Apple motion to rein in e-books antitrust monitor

13

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 74
    Who the heck did I elect to the DoJ? :grumble:  

    Every position appointable by the President should be fireable by Congress at the behest of its constituents.

    At the very least there should never be such a thing as a "lifetime appointment".
  • Reply 42 of 74
    The good part: The court greatly limited Bromwich's abilities

    Quote: The three-judge panel did, however, reinforce the narrow scope of Apple's monitorship. Apple executives and board members are to be instructed on the antitrust compliance stipulations and what they mean, but Bromwich is not allowed to "investigate whether such personnel were in fact complying with the antitrust or other laws."

    The court stated:

    1. Bromwich is not allowed to investigate if Apple executives and board members are complying with the antitrust law or other laws.

    2. Bromwich is suppose to only instruct them on what the antitrust compliance stipulations are and what they mean.
  • Reply 43 of 74
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,684member
    At the very least there should never be such a thing as a "lifetime appointment".

    No cabinet level position is a lifetime job. The only ones are fed judges (at least SCOTUS).

    On a side note, B&N killed their hardware group. I wonder if the DOJ will go after Apple for that.
  • Reply 44 of 74
    Apple has won in that:

    1. Bromwich does not have to be given documents or information which have nothing to do with eBooks.

    2. Bromwich cannot investigate if Apple executives are complying with antitrust laws or any other law. Bromwich is limited to only educating the executives.

    The court greatly curtailed his ability to do a witchhunt.
  • Reply 45 of 74
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,451member
    jungmark wrote: »
    No cabinet level position is a lifetime job. The only ones are fed judges (at least SCOTUS).

    On a side note, B&N killed their hardware group. I wonder if the DOJ will go after Apple for that.
    Nope. They should'a gone after Microsoft on that one. :\
  • Reply 46 of 74
    mhiklmhikl Posts: 471member

    So the pocket hungry judge can be refused and sent home empty handed and empty pocketed we hope (little DED,dear wife and me) when he tries to snoop where his nose is not legally assigned to go.

    Cool.

  • Reply 47 of 74
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jameskatt2 View Post



    Apple has won in that:



    1. Bromwich does not have to be given documents or information which have nothing to do with eBooks.



    2. Bromwich cannot investigate if Apple executives are complying with antitrust laws or any other law. Bromwich is limited to only educating the executives.



    The court greatly curtailed his ability to do a witchhunt.

     

    As far as I am aware, these were the original terms of the order. The DOJ just confirmed that this was its interpretation. Apple said that this was insufficient and would press for removal of the monitor regardless.

     

    This isn't really a win for either side as I see it, it's maintaining the status quo.

  • Reply 48 of 74
    elrothelroth Posts: 1,201member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post

     

     

    As far as I am aware, these were the original terms of the order. The DOJ just confirmed that this was its interpretation. Apple said that this was insufficient and would press for removal of the monitor regardless.

     

    This isn't really a win for either side as I see it, it's maintaining the status quo.


    Yes and no. Those were basically the original terms, but it wasn't clearly spelled out that he was strictly limited to that. Further, when Cote hired him, the two opf them discussed widening his job, and apparently agreed that he could do more investigating of Apple. The Justice Department supported the expanded powers in statements they made (I believe even in court to Judge Cote). Bromwich acted on the wider mandate, and was investigating Apple beyond the original order, with approval from Cote and the DOJ.

     

    During the appeals court hearing on the emergency stay, the Justice Department backtracked, and said that Bromwich was only there to check on Apple's compliance program, and was restricted to limited interviews with executives. They knew they would lose if they supported the expanded powers Bromwich was asserting.

     

    So while it restores the original intent of the monitor, it greatly scales back the overreaching of Bromwich, Cote and the DOJ.

  • Reply 49 of 74
    I had a bad feeling about Apple's sneaky book prices right off the get go. I had the 1st gen iPad a week into its release. I checked out the bookstore that same day. I was blown away by the book price comparison between apple bookstore and Amazon's kindle. I had the kindle and the iPad. I picked up two books from the apple bookstore and never ordered another since. Why accept a blatant ripoff regardless of the name brand?! I still have the original iPad. It works fine with the news and YouTube. Thank you very much.
  • Reply 50 of 74
    Originally Posted by ces69jen View Post

    I had a bad feeling about Apple's sneaky book prices right off the get go.

     

    Shut up.

     

    Why accept a blatant ripoff regardless of the name brand?!


     

    Because the only way it’s a “rip-off” is if you enjoy paying $50 for an eBook from Amazon for the rest of your life.

  • Reply 51 of 74
    Because the only way it’s a “rip-off” is if you enjoy paying $50 for an eBook from Amazon for the rest of your life.

    Ahh good ol' scare tactics. People wouldn't buy a $50 ebook, they'd just go buy to a book store and get the hardcover much cheaper.
  • Reply 52 of 74
    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

    a book store

     

    Yeah. About that.

  • Reply 53 of 74
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post



     

    Because the only way it’s a “rip-off” is if you enjoy paying $50 for an eBook from Amazon for the rest of your life.


    Amazon's prices were cheaper, not more expensive. Indeed the prices through Apple increased by between 30 and 50%

  • Reply 54 of 74
    Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post

    Amazon's prices were cheaper, not more expensive.

     

    Yes. No one has ever undercut competitors to drive them out of a business before raising prices to whatever they want now that they’re the only game in town. We certainly don’t have any examples of that from any time in history.

  • Reply 55 of 74
    Yeah. About that.

    There's still plenty around, and if ebook prices ever went that high more would open up. There will always be someone to satisfy a large enough demand.
  • Reply 56 of 74
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

     

     

    Yes. No one has ever undercut competitors to drive them out of a business before raising prices to whatever they want now that they’re the only game in town. We certainly don’t have any examples of that from any time in history.




    So let me get this straight, you can now predict the future and know that somehow Amazon will prevent other competitors buying ebooks from the publishers and selling to the users. Please explain how that works.

  • Reply 57 of 74
    Yes. No one has ever undercut competitors to drive them out of a business before raising prices to whatever they want now that they’re the only game in town. We certainly don’t have any examples of that from any time in history.

    You beat that by offering a better product. Who's better at doing that than Apple?
  • Reply 58 of 74
    Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post

    …you can now predict the future and know that somehow Amazon will prevent other competitors buying ebooks from the publishers and selling to the users. Please explain how that works.

     

    It’s this wonderful thing called literacy. Try it sometime. Or maybe just leave and never come back. Your ban was pretty nice; try that again.

  • Reply 59 of 74

    That is an opinion piece that says nothing like what you claimed. Amazon has direct competitors including Apple. How will Amazon prevent Apple undercutting them by selling at the wholesale price?

     

    I've not quoted your post because the rest of it is trolling.

  • Reply 60 of 74

    So let me get this straight, you can now predict the future and know that somehow Amazon will prevent other competitors buying ebooks from the publishers and selling to the users. Please explain how that works.

    TS acts like Amazon can kill ALL competition forever and always. If they raise the price that high it'll allow new competitors to beat them on price.
Sign In or Register to comment.