Apple officially appeals e-books antitrust ruling, asks for dismissal or retrial

124

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 98
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member

    Apple did nothing wrong, they are innocent and will be exonerated once they are away from the biased bitch of a judge and her money grubbing mate.

     

    The real conspiracy to fix prices happened at Bezo's boathouse on Jan 24 2010.

  • Reply 62 of 98
    froodfrood Posts: 771member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

     

     

    The district court's ruling that Apple, in the very act of launching the iPad, inventing the iBooks Store, and entering the e-books market, violated the Sherman Act is a radical departure from modern antitrust law and policy....
     
    ~~...which found the company culpable for colluding with five major book publishers to falsely inflate the cost of e-books sold through the iBookstore...
     


     

    The above statements attempt to add some AI pro-Apple spin.

     

    The first sentence is just blatantly and flat out wrong.  The court did not rule that launching the iPad, nor iBooks, were in violation of the Sherman anti-trust act.  Stating that is actually quite laughable- even for AI.

     

    The second sentence is what they were found guilty of, except the bit about the iBookstore.  Apple did not attempt to raise prices for eBooks on the iBookstore.  If they had, and offered the same books on iBooks for $14.99 as were offered on Amazon for $9.99, the justice department and everyone else would have been just fine with that.

     

    Steve was smart enough, as recognized by his emails, to note that he would likely fail if he sold iBooks for $14.99 that were available on Amazon for $9.99.    He set out from the start to put in place a plan so prices would rise *everywhere.*  By collaborating closely and getting the major book publishers on board with his scheme, he succeeded.

  • Reply 63 of 98
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

     

     

    Nonsense... and you are blocked.


    Block me all you want, it just shows that you are unwilling to listen to people who have different views than yourself.   Who needs to be exposed to different types of thinking that perhaps could lead you to challenge your own beliefs and perhaps your perspective on something.  Is it really that terrible to hear what others have to say if it does not conform to your own views?  Do you go through your own life with blinders on?  Imagine living in a world where everyone could filter out everything that did not conform to their way of living.  I don't think there would be a whole lot of personal growth going on.  Anyways, my 2 cents on that.

     

    While you probably won't read this, others can and for what it's worth, I think Apple has some great products and some not so great products.  While I use some, I don't use others.  Does that make me an Apple hater?  On this site, that kind of thinking appears to get you labelled as such and I find that really odd because most forums I participate in tend to have the kind of setup where people can engage in debate and not put their fingers in their ears and say "lalalalalalalalala - I never want to hear anything from you again" when they read something they don't like.

  • Reply 64 of 98
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    Block me all you want, it just shows that you are unwilling to listen to people who have different views than yourself.

    You're correct in that stupid and irrational views are different from his but you're irrationally attributing all differing views as ones he's not willing to entertain. Don't lump yourself in with everyone who has a different view him SpamSandwich. It's insulting to the rest of us.
  • Reply 65 of 98
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,705member
    I think the problem here is that Apple never thinks it has done anything wrong.   Well aside from the map thing.     Apple will deny, deny, deny until they are finally beaten into the ground despite the obvious staring them in the face.  

    Sometimes, it's good to just give in when you have been caught with your hand in the cookie jar and stop trying to use lawyers to get off on technicalities.   Of course that is not how our society and court systems work so they will continue to waste DOJ time/resources when common sense and the evidence tells you that they are guilty.  No company is perfect and that includes Apple.   The funny part is that in the eyes of the general public, they will always be guilty for what they did, no matter the outcome of this trial. 

    Apple didn't do anything wrong. The court came to the wrong conclusion. When has the DOJ ever investigated a new market that quickly.
    frood wrote: »
    The above statements attempt to add some AI pro-Apple spin.

    The first sentence is just blatantly and flat out wrong.  The court did not rule that launching the iPad, nor iBooks, were in violation of the Sherman anti-trust act.  Stating that is actually quite laughable- even for AI.

    The second sentence is what they were found guilty of, except the bit about the iBookstore.  Apple did not attempt to raise prices for eBooks on the iBookstore.  If they had, and offered the same books on iBooks for $14.99 as were offered on Amazon for $9.99, the justice department and everyone else would have been just fine with that.

    Blah

    Um you do realize those statements were from Apple's brief and not AI.
  • Reply 66 of 98
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post





    You're correct in that stupid and irrational views are different from his but you're irrationally attributing all differing views as ones he's not willing to entertain. Don't lump yourself in with everyone who has a different view him SpamSandwich. It's insulting to the rest of us.

    I have no idea what his threshold is for 'blocking' people but from my personal experience, it is NOT rare to see see people on this site post comments such as "BLOCKED!" when they see something that they do not agree with - particularly if it criticizes Apple in any way, shape or form. 

     

    While some of the offending posts are troll bait, I've seen others where the person actually has put some put some thought into their comment.  In SpamSandwich's world, there is no possible way now that I could provide him with any kind of meaningful dialogue or insight about something.   Don't get me wrong, it's no skin off my back but I just find the whole system a bit anti-social (not sure if that is the right word but that's what jumped into my head at the moment).  Was the block system put in place so a ban hammer does not have to be used?

  • Reply 67 of 98
    tundraboytundraboy Posts: 1,620member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

     

     

    That's rich...LOL! I recommend you read this.

     

    "The Misplaced Fear of Monopoly"


    LOL!  Oh jeez, junk social science.   You are using, to back up your argument, the work of intellectual whores that billionaires hire to hang a fig leaf of respectability on their rapacious quest to grab an ever greater slice of the economic pie?  You could have at least alluded to a Chicago economist or something a little more respectable.  Okay, I'm not debating you anymore.  It's pointless.  It's like arguing with climate change deniers and creationists.

  • Reply 68 of 98
    tundraboy wrote: »
    LOL!  Oh jeez, junk social science.   You are using, to back up your argument, the work of intellectual whores that billionaires hire to hang a fig leaf of respectability on their rapacious quest to grab an ever greater slice of the economic pie?  You could have at least alluded to a Chicago economist or something a little more respectable.  Okay, I'm not debating you anymore.  It's pointless.  It's like arguing with climate change deniers and creationists.

    Keynesianism has never worked. At least avail yourself of the numerous facts cited in the linked article.
  • Reply 69 of 98
    crowleycrowley Posts: 5,935member
    Keynesianism has never worked.
    Post-war Western Europe didn't rebuild? News to us.
  • Reply 70 of 98
    I think the problem here is that Apple never thinks it has done anything wrong.   Well aside from the map thing.     Apple will deny, deny, deny until they are finally beaten into the ground despite the obvious staring them in the face.  

    Sometimes, it's good to just give in when you have been caught with your hand in the cookie jar and stop trying to use lawyers to get off on technicalities.   Of course that is not how our society and court systems work so they will continue to waste DOJ time/resources when common sense and the evidence tells you that they are guilty.  No company is perfect and that includes Apple.   The funny part is that in the eyes of the general public, they will always be guilty for what they did, no matter the outcome of this trial. 

    You are begging the question. An appeal has been filed at this point. I find it disturbing that you wish to characterize Apple's appeal as "wasting DOJ time/resources". Checks and balances and higher courts exist in order to protect the rights of everyone.
  • Reply 71 of 98
    tbelltbell Posts: 3,146member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by zippy2shoes View Post

     

    I think the problem here is that Apple never thinks it has done anything wrong.   Well aside from the map thing.     Apple will deny, deny, deny until they are finally beaten into the ground despite the obvious staring them in the face.  

     

    Sometimes, it's good to just give in when you have been caught with your hand in the cookie jar and stop trying to use lawyers to get off on technicalities.   Of course that is not how our society and court systems work so they will continue to waste DOJ time/resources when common sense and the evidence tells you that they are guilty.  No company is perfect and that includes Apple.   The funny part is that in the eyes of the general public, they will always be guilty for what they did, no matter the outcome of this trial. 


     

    First, Apple is an "it", not a "they." It is a singular company. Second, we know the Justice Department is busy saving us from the evil Apple that only increased competition in the eBook market (Amazon's lobbyists can't have that), and across the board brought prices down. Since, the Department of Justice's foolishness, Barnes and Noble's Nook, which was doing well, is now suffering a loss, and the price of eBooks is actually rising on a whole. Third, please enlighten us to situations where Apple should have admitted to wrong doing? I think Apple is a pretty fair company with its customers. Some vocal customers were upset Apple brought a new iPhone out after six months, and lowered the price, something tons of companies do, and Apple certainly was in its rights to do. It responded by giving users a hundred dollar credit. Certain news organizations complained about the antennae design in the iPhone 4, a design shared by lots of phones at the time. Apple responded by giving away free thirty dollar bumpers and offering extended full refunds. I once contacted Steve Jobs about a five year old Mac that had a faulty logic board, Apple paid for shipping and fixed it for free even though it was well out of warranty. 

  • Reply 72 of 98
    tbelltbell Posts: 3,146member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post





    You are begging the question. An appeal has been filed at this point. I find it disturbing that you wish to characterize Apple's appeal as "wasting DOJ time/resources". Checks and balances and higher courts exist in order to protect the rights of everyone.

    Why sweat the details?

  • Reply 73 of 98
    jfc1138jfc1138 Posts: 3,090member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Frood View Post

     

     

    The above statements attempt to add some AI pro-Apple spin.

     

    The first sentence is just blatantly and flat out wrong.  The court did not rule that launching the iPad, nor iBooks, were in violation of the Sherman anti-trust act.  Stating that is actually quite laughable- even for AI.

    .....


    Laughable or not that wasn't a statement from AI, that was a direct quote of the Apple appeal.

     

    "A brief introductory statement inserts a few fresh arguments into Apple's case against, while rehashing older claims that the iBookstore and iPad created, not stifled, competition in the e-book space."

     

    Look at the original article, that's in a quote box:

    http://appleinsider.com/articles/14/02/26/apple-officially-appeals-e-books-antitrust-ruling-asks-for-dismissal-or-retrial

  • Reply 74 of 98
    crowley wrote: »
    Post-war Western Europe didn't rebuild? News to us.

    How's it working out now? It has exacerbated and extended this modern depression we have been mired in (yes, depression, not recession) lo, these many years. The bailouts were a massive scam. "Quantitative easing" has only benefitted Wall Street. Central planning DOES NOT WORK. It fosters corruption, political meddling and inefficiencies only a madman could dream up.
  • Reply 75 of 98
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,980member
    I think the problem here is that Apple never thinks it has done anything wrong.   Well aside from the map thing.     Apple will deny, deny, deny until they are finally beaten into the ground despite the obvious staring them in the face.  

    Sometimes, it's good to just give in when you have been caught with your hand in the cookie jar and stop trying to use lawyers to get off on technicalities.   Of course that is not how our society and court systems work so they will continue to waste DOJ time/resources when common sense and the evidence tells you that they are guilty.  No company is perfect and that includes Apple.   The funny part is that in the eyes of the general public, they will always be guilty for what they did, no matter the outcome of this trial. 

    None of us like to admit that we've done wrong so Apple is acting quite normally. I always believed that the publishers were guilty, not Apple, but I was not surprised that Apple lost simply because the government doesn't like to lose, however I am surprised at the punishment that was handed down. In my opinion it is way too severe for what Apple was found guilty of.
  • Reply 76 of 98
    elrothelroth Posts: 1,201member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Russell View Post



    "The brief clarified that the district court's decision "did not find that 'Apple itself desired higher e-book prices than those offered at Amazon." (emphasis in original) Instead, the court found the iPad to have "encouraged innovation and competition."



    Oh really? Trying to rewrite history are we?





    "...records of Apple saying it "cannot tolerate a market where the product is sold significantly more cheaply elsewhere." And some of the most damning statements, Cote said, came all the way from the top of Apple.



    "Compelling evidence of Apple's participation in the conspiracy came from the words uttered by Steve Jobs, Apple's founder, CEO, and visionary. Apple has struggled mightily to reinterpret Jobs's statements in a way that will eliminate their bite. Its efforts have proven fruitless." In one statement, Jobs told James Murdoch that Amazon's $9.99 sales were "eroding the value perception" of its products, and that Apple would be trying higher price points. This was confirmed at launch. "Jobs's purchase of an e-book for $14.99 at the Launch, and his explanation to a reporter that day that Amazon's $9.99 price for the same book would be irrelevant because soon all prices will "be the same" is further evidence that Apple understood and intended that Amazon's ability to set retail prices would soon be eliminated."



    Jobs' statements, Cote said, "remain powerful evidence of conspiratorial knowledge and intent."



    http://www.theverge.com/2013/7/10/4510338/apple-found-guilty-of-ebook-price-fixing

    If you would actually read the court's decision, and Apple's filing today, you would find that the court did indeed rule that "the record is equivocal on whether Apple itself desired higher e-book prices than those offered at Amazon."  In case you still don't understand, that means the judge said herself (in her ruling) that it hasn't been shown that Apple desired higher prices. Yet she convicted Apple anyway. She also said in her ruling that the iPad encouraged innovation and competition. Yet she ruled against that also.

     

    You're so fond of quoting what a reporter said Steve Jobs told him. The fact that Jobs was not around to be cross-examined about the statements seems to escape you. You can't convict someone on hearsay when the person who supposedly said it can't be cross-examined (that's according to many previous higher court rulings). She did it anyway. These are all points Apple makes in its appeal (among many others) - that Cote jumped to conclusions, although lacking real evidence. She kept supposing things were true - things that were never proven.

     

    I really suggest you read Apple's filing. It will be interesting to see what the appeals court has to say about Cote suppositions and inferences, which (according to Apple) are not supported by law. Also interesting will be the DOJ response, trying to legitimize Cote's rulings.

     

    If the appeals court overturns the decision, will you stop posting the same statements over and over?

  • Reply 77 of 98
    elrothelroth Posts: 1,201member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post

     

     

    1. The pre-trial opinion was solicited, not spontaneous. If a Judge is not allowed to have an opinion before a case then you will find no judge suitable

    2. Please provide evidence that Bromwich was a 'well known friend' and why this would be a bad thing for the Judge to appoint someone she knows is talented.


    1. Her pre-trial opinion was way too strong - she didn't say "the gov't. seems to have a strong case," or something like that - she said she believed the government will show Apple engaged in a conspiracy. Before any evidence was introduced, before any opening arguments, before she heard anything from Apple. That's not really appropriate.

    2. Cote and Bromwich worked together for years, and she gave him a glowing recommendation to the DOJ for a previous job. All news reports have them being friends. Bromwich has NO experience in anti-trust issues (NONE), and in fact had to hire an outside lawyer to look over the info he gets from Apple, and advise him about anti-trust (at Apple's expense). Does that seem like a qualified, talented person for this case?

  • Reply 78 of 98
    elrothelroth Posts: 1,201member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Twisell View Post

     

    Apple could have settled with the DOJ before the trial like the editors.

    They probably wouldn't have Bromwich on their neck right now.

     

    Apple could have accepted the first ruling, thus not risking further annoyances.

     

    But no, Apple filed an appeal.

     

    Do you really think that one of the world biggest company is ruled by a horde of headless childish monkeys?

    It's pretty funny to watch self-appointed experts claiming that everything in this case is crystal clear while people at the head of Apple are precisely betting otherwise.


    You're right. Apple is not one of the publishers. It's a totally different case than the publishers colluding (a horizontal relationship, which Apple was not a part of). Apple is asserting its innocence and its rights. It's unbelievable the people that so strongly declare Apple guilty, when their appeal hasn't been heard. Lots of interesting arguments of law in today's filing.

  • Reply 79 of 98
    elrothelroth Posts: 1,201member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ealvarez View Post

     

     

    It's always surprising that justice stands with a monopoly. 

     

    I do understand that, from a strict (and narrow) point of view, a model that lower the price for consumers may be seen positive. However, is it the role of justice to decide what is better: a model that "protects" consumers or a model that "protects" the companies (editors) that produce the goods (books)?


    In its filing, Apple quotes a number of courts who concluded the same thing - that having lower prices is not a good measure of competition. Sometimes prices are too low (below cost), and stifle competition by preventing new sellers entering the market. Sound familiar, Amazon?

  • Reply 80 of 98
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,980member
    elroth wrote: »
    You're right. Apple is not one of the publishers. It's a totally different case than the publishers colluding (a horizontal relationship, which Apple was not a part of). Apple is asserting its innocence and its rights. It's unbelievable the people that so strongly declare Apple guilty, when their appeal hasn't been heard. Lots of interesting arguments of law in today's filing.

    What is interesting is that Apple did settled with the EU courts for the very same thing. While a settlement isn't a admission of guilt it probably would've been a much better idea to settle in the US than fight it. A settlement agreement would have been far more favorable than what they going through now.
Sign In or Register to comment.