josephwinters wrote: »
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.
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?
Weren't you already paid out by the publishers?
Maybe you got scared by $2 and got psychological damage.
Do you go nuts when gas goes up?
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.
Apple was wrong.
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?
Yep. While you have your opinion. I have a judgement backing my view.
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.
tallest skil wrote: »
<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.