Judge denies Apple motion to dismiss states' e-books suit

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 37
    vaporlandvaporland Posts: 358member
    Lawyers nationwide rejoice. Was there ever a class action that benefited [B]victims[/B]?
  • Reply 22 of 37
    charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,215member
    Of course it was Cote. And of course she ruled against Apple. More and more it seems like she's ruled every case and possible case against them as guilty before they are even filed.

    They need to get above her, especially over those guilty comments before the trial started.
  • Reply 23 of 37
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 31,015member
    Next trial against Samsung by Apple needs to be moved to that oh-so-famous Eastern District of Texas. Aren't their lawyers thinking strategically? Easy win!
  • Reply 24 of 37
    pazuzupazuzu Posts: 1,728member
    I look forward to my check and not an iTunes gift card.
  • Reply 25 of 37
    Question - I've been following all this ebook fixing accusations from Apple, and being an average consumer that spends a good amount on digital media including ebooks, I just don't get what set this judge off on due course to call what apple did as a monopoly or price fixing scheme.

    I didn't extensively read into the court documentation that was public. But was the key to it all the favored nations clause?

    I mean really, all these "damages" and dollar amounts being thrown... When I didn't see a damn thing wrong.

    Maybe I'm too biased to realize Apples wrong in this. But. I feel this judge truly has a stick up her ass when it comes to Apple.
  • Reply 26 of 37
    pazuzupazuzu Posts: 1,728member
    Question - I've been following all this ebook fixing accusations from Apple, and being an average consumer that spends a good amount on digital media including ebooks, I just don't get what set this judge off on due course to call what apple did as a monopoly or price fixing scheme.

    I didn't extensively read into the court documentation that was public. But was the key to it all the favored nations clause?

    I mean really, all these "damages" and dollar amounts being thrown... When I didn't see a damn thing wrong.

    Maybe I'm too biased to realize Apples wrong in this. But. I feel this judge truly has a stick up her ass when it comes to Apple.

    Were you a consumer of all things digital before Apple's iBooks? Weren't you p'd off when your eBook price jumped from $9.99 to $14.99 per book?
  • Reply 27 of 37
    I didn't really notice I suppose.
  • Reply 28 of 37
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,684member
    pazuzu wrote: »
    Were you a consumer of all things digital before Apple's iBooks? Weren't you p'd off when your eBook price jumped from $9.99 to $14.99 per book?

    What you and the judge dont realize was the average price for an ebook dropped. In addition, price isn't the only factor to consider for anti trust purposes.
  • Reply 29 of 37
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,989member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by pazuzu View Post



    I look forward to my check and not an iTunes gift card.

     

    Weren't you already paid out by the publishers?

     

    Maybe you got scared by $2 and got psychological damage.

  • Reply 30 of 37
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,989member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by pazuzu View Post





    Were you a consumer of all things digital before Apple's iBooks? Weren't you p'd off when your eBook price jumped from $9.99 to $14.99 per book?

     

    Nope.

     

    Do you go nuts when gas goes up?

  • Reply 31 of 37
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,454member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post



    The upcoming damages trial, to be heard on July 14, will come almost exactly one year after Judge Cote ruled Apple as liable in conspiring with five major book publishers to falsely inflate the price of e-books sold through the iBookstore.



    Following the guilty verdict, the court applied an injunction against Apple requiring the company not enter offending agreements with publishers or other business entities. In addition, Judge Cote installed external antitrust compliance monitor Michael Bromwich to ensure Apple's continued adherence to the law.



    It was revealed in February that state attorneys general are seeking $280 million in damages, an amount that could be trebled to $840 million.

     

    I can't believe the fanboyism in this thread. People are screaming about basic legal concepts like trebled damages above the original damages and making it sound like it is someone working against Apple when these are regular parts of lawsuits.

     

    Apple was wrong. Point blank it has been proven a half dozen ways and can be grasped by anyone with reasonable and rational understanding of the matter. Apple was helping publishers push up the price of e-books not just so that publishers would profit more and so would Apple with their cut. They would also limit price competition by Amazon, and also prop up the price of hardcover books as well which was the whole intention of taking action in the first place.

     

    It keeps getting bigger and the probability of the damages being trebled goes higher because Apple is dragging this out. It is no different than what Samsung is doing to Apple in reverse regarding the lawsuit there. When you are clearly wrong, the more you make the pain of getting justice out of it, the higher the damages above the regular ruling for damages.

     

    This would be easy to understand if it weren't Apple as a party. If someone owed Apple say a billion dollars and Apple had to drag them through courts for half a decade and spends hundred of millions to get that billion in damages. Then every person here would say Apple deserved well above that billion because the other party just dragged it out hoping to get some advantage in making it as painful as possible.

  • Reply 32 of 37
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

    Apple was wrong.


     

    Nope.

  • Reply 33 of 37
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,989member
    So if Apple demonstrates the fact that the average price of ebooks actually went down, does that mean the plaintiffs will have to pay Apple?
  • Reply 34 of 37
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 31,015member
    hill60 wrote: »
    So if Apple demonstrates the fact that the average price of ebooks actually went down, does that mean the plaintiffs will have to pay Apple?

    Whatever best delivers the government their pound of flesh.
  • Reply 35 of 37
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,454member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

     
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

    Apple was wrong.


     

    Nope.


     

    Yep. While you have your opinion. I have a judgement backing my view.

     

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by hill60 View Post



    So if Apple demonstrates the fact that the average price of ebooks actually went down, does that mean the plaintiffs will have to pay Apple?

     

    No because as I mentioned, that was only part of the issue. Limiting the competition in the e-book field had a two fold purpose, push up the price of certain books (averages don't matter because the average book doesn't count for the majority of profits or sales) and second use those prices to support the sale of hard cover books.

     

    If Samsung stole from Apple and noted that there weren't real damages because the AVERAGE level of profit for a smartphone company is next to nil, I'm sure you wouldn't see the value of using averages there. The majority of sales and profits do not come from AVERAGES. Apple is living proof of that.

  • Reply 36 of 37
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

     

    Yep. While you have your opinion. I have a judgement backing my view.

     

    And I have actual laws backing mine. I don’t care what your “judgment” says.
  • Reply 37 of 37
    singularitysingularity Posts: 1,329member
    <div class="quote-container" data-huddler-embed="/t/178519/judge-denies-apple-motion-to-dismiss-states-e-books-suit#post_2519102" data-huddler-embed-placeholder="false"><span>Quote:</span><div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>trumptman</strong> <a href="/t/178519/judge-denies-apple-motion-to-dismiss-states-e-books-suit#post_2519102"><img src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" class="inlineimg" alt="View Post"/></a><br/><br/><p> </p><p>Yep. While you have your opinion. I have a judgement backing my view.</p><p></div></div><p> </p><br />
    And I have actual laws backing mine. I don’t care what your “judgment” says.
    until the appeal is heard and any judgement is vacated his view has more weight. Currently as it stands Apple is guilty. It doesn't matter what anyone else's viewpoint is, what arguement they use. In law Apple is guilty.
    Time will tell if they get the reversal they want.
Sign In or Register to comment.