I never said AI weren't allowed to speak on the evidence, but AI talks about how ridiculous this judge is for making a pre-judgement based on MUCH MORE evidence than has been released, yet AI wants to make a judgement based on the LIMITED evidence released.
I can understand if people want to interpret the evidence released as "Not enough", but to bash a judge who has the entire case in her hands is just childish and fanboyish.
The judge has shown she is not impartial and should be struck from this case, immediately.
Not from that group of major publishers for the new release category, which is the only segment of e-book sales the price controls applied to. So you're still going to rely on misdirection to prove your point? Your argument is sounding weaker and weaker.
Consider Apple's position in trying to compete with Amazon's monopoly with ebooks. They were selling them at a loss. This was making them look cheap. This was hurting the perception of the product which would be devastating to the publishers in the long term.
Now consider Apple's offer without the agency model. "We'll let you set the prices and we don't care if Amazon sells them at a loss like they've been doing." That's an automatic failure the Bookstore since the publishers could then set their own prices and Apple would still be undercut by Amazon dumping their content. That means no competition for the ebook market. That means no fair pricing ever because once Amazon had a total lock on the market they could adjust prices as they saw fit without concern about competition.
The judge has shown she is not impartial and should be struck from this case, immediately.
Colluding with the prosecution.
That can't accurately be stated with the given information. She made a comment based on what she's read. If we wait for a person to hear all evidence before forming any thought on a subject then we'll be waiting a very long time. if she had said, "I don't anything about the case yet but I'm sure Apple is guilty" then that would be bias.
Based on that select set of e-mails Apple did not insist on a specific price.
What they did appear to insist on was a mandated minimum price and a guaranteed 30% profit with no competing consumer price options other than a higher price. Amazon and anyone else would be barred from reducing the price below that minimum, which could have negatively impacted Apple's gross profit from that big category from those major publishers if allowed to happen. Would you disagree Soli?
No kidding Apple will be found guilty. The government needs money and Apple has it. They always get what they want one way or another. If they can't get to Apple via the IRS then they will get it through other channels. Apple should have given more to the lobbyists and this would not have happened.
Consider Apple's position in trying to compete with Amazon's monopoly with ebooks. They were selling them at a loss. This was making them look cheap. This was hurting the perception of the product which would be devastating to the publishers in the long term.
Now consider Apple's offer without the agency model. "We'll let you set the prices and we don't care if Amazon sells them at a loss like they've been doing." That's an automatic failure the Bookstore since the publishers could then set their own prices and Apple would still be undercut by Amazon dumping their content. That means no competition for the ebook market. That means no fair pricing ever because once Amazon had a total lock on the market they could adjust prices as they saw fit without concern about competition.
I'm not disagreeing that Apple had very valid and logical business reasons for their e-books market pricing efforts.
From one of those 7 publishers Hill60? Apple violated the contract terms they had just agreed to with that group? Well of course they didn't and you know that. Apple wasn't permitted to sell from that specific category and published by the group of seven for any less than $12.99.
You're more than welcome to refute that with some citation to the contrary Hill60. You've already implied you have some to offer proving the $12.99 minimum price for new release best-sellers from those specific publishers wasn't true. Bring it on.
If Apple was guilty of "collusion", why were they selling bestsellers at $9.99 in iTunes, where publishers set the price not Apple.
The presence of $9.99 bestselling iBooks regardless of source proves that Apple had NO minimum price.
If Apple was guilty of "collusion", why were they selling bestsellers at $9.99 in iTunes, where publishers set the price not Apple.
The presence of $9.99 bestselling iBooks regardless of source proves that Apple had NO minimum price.
You just can't honestly answer the question I asked you without admitting your comments so far don't apply can you? You keep avoiding cites from the 7 major publishers involved in the DoJ investigation. Why is that? And why are you changing the argument you'd like to disagree with me on to Apple set the minimum price rather than the publishers, regardless of how they got there. I've always said the price was set in the publishers' contract and of course it would be. Apple on their own couldn't dictate the minimum selling price for Amazon on any book segment.
Not from that group of major publishers for the new release category, which is the only segment of e-book sales the price controls applied to. So you're still going to rely on misdirection to prove your point? Your argument is sounding weaker and weaker.
Apple did not set any prices, it was up to the publishers selling iBooks through iTunes to set the price, if the "seven" publishers chose not to compete with the other publishers also selling iBooks via iTunes at $9.99 that was their problem, not Apple's who opened the playing field for more (and smaller) publishers, increasing competition and consumer choice.
The railroad you base these crackpot collusion theories on is getting narrower and narrower, unfortunately your government agencies have strapped Apple to this railway and are heading full steam ahead to a predetermined finding of guilt.
So why did they all plead guilty to price fixing if they were all innocent?
Because you cannot fight the US government and win. The government is desperate for cash. Do you think with all of the problems the government has that it really care about the price of books? This is a classic strong-arm extortion racket. Expect to see more of this as they look for new ways to generate revenue. Classic that the judge already leaked the verdict to send Apple a message of what would happen if they went through with the trial. It is the government's version of the Mafia's "How's your family...".
That can't accurately be stated with the given information. She made a comment based on what she's read. If we wait for a person to hear all evidence before forming any thought on a subject then we'll be waiting a very long time. if she had said, "I don't anything about the case yet but I'm sure Apple is guilty" then that would be bias.
Not quite true. She said that Apple was probably guilty (which is essentially the same as her statement that the DOJ would probably prove its case) on the basis of only partial evidence. That's more than simply expressing an opinion.
Specifically, in a Federal case, the judge may form opinions, but may not prejudge the case: http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Judicial+disqualification:+what+every+practitioner+(and+judge)+should...-a078335432
"A judge may form mental impressions and opinions during the course of presentation of evidence so long as she does not prejudge the case."
In this case, the judge has stated that the DOJ will probably win - which is prejudging the case and not allowed under Federal Rules.
Apple did not set any prices, it was up to the publishers selling iBooks through iTunes to set the price, if the "seven" publishers chose not to compete with the other publishers also selling iBooks via iTunes at $9.99 that was their problem, not Apple's.
The railroad you base these crackpot collusion theories on is getting narrower and narrower, unfortunately your government agencies have strapped Apple to this railway and are heading full steam ahead to a predetermined finding of guilt.
Well there you go, something I would agree with based on everything I've personally read. Apple did not set $12.99 as the specific minimum selling price on that group of books. The 7 major publishers all agreed to that mandated minimum and identical price with Amazon and every other e-book seller bound by it.
At least you finally got past saying the $12.99 minimum didn't exist as you've been doing all along. Baby steps.
Ah, I see. Yup, that's price fixing. Interesting. Besides, $12.99 is too much for a digital book.
Not that it has anything to do with this case, but I've noticed that for pretty much any CD, movie, or book, that I've looked to purchase lately I can buy the physical book or disc and have it delivered to my door for cheaper than the downloaded version. Considering the printing, distribution, and delivery costs, that's just crazy.
Correct. They could have sold it for a higher price.
The minimum guaranteed gross profit for Apple on each title in that book group was $3.89 per sale. It would never be lower if the agreement had held because no other seller would be permitted to sell for less that $12.99.
The price was not fixed. If the publishers allowed another store to sell at a lower price, then Apple could also sell at the same price. Apple doesn't care what the price is as long as they get their 30% and that Amazon's retail price is the same as Apple's.
The price was not fixed. If the publishers allowed another store to sell at a lower price, then Apple could also sell at the same price. Apple doesn't care what the price is as long as they get their 30% and that Amazon's retail price is the same as Apple's.
Of course Apple would care what the minimum was. 30% of $7 is much different from 30% of $13.
On what basis do you claim the $12.99 was a negotiable price per title with the publishers. It was a contractually mandated minimum for that specific category of books in it's entirety, at least until a new contract was due according to the reports.
Apple had agreed to contracts from the seven setting $12.99 as the minimum and all other sellers would be required to accept the same according to that Apple contract. Sure sounds like a fixed minimum price to me.
Not quite true. She said that Apple was probably guilty (which is essentially the same as her statement that the DOJ would probably prove its case) on the basis of only partial evidence. That's more than simply expressing an opinion.
Specifically, in a Federal case, the judge may form opinions, but may not prejudge the case: http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Judicial+disqualification:+what+every+practitioner+(and+judge)+should...-a078335432
"A judge may form mental impressions and opinions during the course of presentation of evidence so long as she does not prejudge the case."
In this case, the judge has stated that the DOJ will probably win - which is prejudging the case and not allowed under Federal Rules.
Yep.
If she's taken off the case because of her comments I will concede that her comments did show she was bias. Otherwise, I wouldn't make a Federal case about it.
PS: What if she actually thought the opposite of what she stated but did so because she felt Apple was likely to to be found not guilty and was planning ahead for the eventuality that the anti-Apple crowd would come out of the woodwork against her. Don't you remember when people said Judge Koh hated Korea… despite being of Korean descent?
No kidding Apple will be found guilty. The government needs money and Apple has it. They always get what they want one way or another. If they can't get to Apple via the IRS then they will get it through other channels. Apple should have given more to the lobbyists and this would not have happened.
Who do you imagine was in the smoke-filled room when "they" decided "the government needs money and Apple has, how about we sue Apple for collusion."
Keep in mind the clause only applied to new releases, and publishers could get around the clause by not offering a particular title to Apple. Most importantly the Murdoch emails show Apple did not collude. It worked out the deals indepentently.
You can make the arguement that the Murdoch emails don't show that Apple colluded. You CAN'T make the argument that the Murdoch emails show Apple didn't collude.
There seems to be a lot of people that need to come to terms with the fact that Apple is just another big business. They make a lot of the toys we love. I have many of them and have helped many other people make the decision to buy Apple products. But one look at their profit margins should tell us that they also like to squeeze every penny from the consumer that they can. And that's fine, too. I make my buying decisions based on the products value to me. But to think it's inconceivable that Apple may occassionally cross the line in their pursuit of profits and do things that hurt the consumer is fairly naive (in my opinion).
Not that it has anything to do with this case, but I've noticed that for pretty much any CD, movie, or book, that I've looked to purchase lately I can buy the physical book or disc and have it delivered to my door for cheaper than the downloaded version. Considering the printing, distribution, and delivery costs, that's just crazy.
It looks like Judge Cote isn't in Love with Tim Cook and Apple the same way all the US Senators are. He wasnt about to complain that he had to update his apps everyday. What a shameful bunch of idiots we have working for us in the Government. The court was also not going to apologize like Rand Paul about being here for not paying your Taxes. Can you imagine... its like being on the Comedy Channel with these bunch of KooKs... Oh wait, it will probably go to the Supreme court and then Apple will get away with the ebooks also.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrodriguez
I never said AI weren't allowed to speak on the evidence, but AI talks about how ridiculous this judge is for making a pre-judgement based on MUCH MORE evidence than has been released, yet AI wants to make a judgement based on the LIMITED evidence released.
I can understand if people want to interpret the evidence released as "Not enough", but to bash a judge who has the entire case in her hands is just childish and fanboyish.
The judge has shown she is not impartial and should be struck from this case, immediately.
Colluding with the prosecution.
Consider Apple's position in trying to compete with Amazon's monopoly with ebooks. They were selling them at a loss. This was making them look cheap. This was hurting the perception of the product which would be devastating to the publishers in the long term.
Now consider Apple's offer without the agency model. "We'll let you set the prices and we don't care if Amazon sells them at a loss like they've been doing." That's an automatic failure the Bookstore since the publishers could then set their own prices and Apple would still be undercut by Amazon dumping their content. That means no competition for the ebook market. That means no fair pricing ever because once Amazon had a total lock on the market they could adjust prices as they saw fit without concern about competition.
That can't accurately be stated with the given information. She made a comment based on what she's read. If we wait for a person to hear all evidence before forming any thought on a subject then we'll be waiting a very long time. if she had said, "I don't anything about the case yet but I'm sure Apple is guilty" then that would be bias.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
The current evidence shows Apple fixed no price.
Based on that select set of e-mails Apple did not insist on a specific price.
What they did appear to insist on was a mandated minimum price and a guaranteed 30% profit with no competing consumer price options other than a higher price. Amazon and anyone else would be barred from reducing the price below that minimum, which could have negatively impacted Apple's gross profit from that big category from those major publishers if allowed to happen. Would you disagree Soli?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Consider Apple's position in trying to compete with Amazon's monopoly with ebooks. They were selling them at a loss. This was making them look cheap. This was hurting the perception of the product which would be devastating to the publishers in the long term.
Now consider Apple's offer without the agency model. "We'll let you set the prices and we don't care if Amazon sells them at a loss like they've been doing." That's an automatic failure the Bookstore since the publishers could then set their own prices and Apple would still be undercut by Amazon dumping their content. That means no competition for the ebook market. That means no fair pricing ever because once Amazon had a total lock on the market they could adjust prices as they saw fit without concern about competition.
I'm not disagreeing that Apple had very valid and logical business reasons for their e-books market pricing efforts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
From one of those 7 publishers Hill60? Apple violated the contract terms they had just agreed to with that group? Well of course they didn't and you know that. Apple wasn't permitted to sell from that specific category and published by the group of seven for any less than $12.99.
You're more than welcome to refute that with some citation to the contrary Hill60. You've already implied you have some to offer proving the $12.99 minimum price for new release best-sellers from those specific publishers wasn't true. Bring it on.
If Apple was guilty of "collusion", why were they selling bestsellers at $9.99 in iTunes, where publishers set the price not Apple.
The presence of $9.99 bestselling iBooks regardless of source proves that Apple had NO minimum price.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
If Apple was guilty of "collusion", why were they selling bestsellers at $9.99 in iTunes, where publishers set the price not Apple.
The presence of $9.99 bestselling iBooks regardless of source proves that Apple had NO minimum price.
You just can't honestly answer the question I asked you without admitting your comments so far don't apply can you? You keep avoiding cites from the 7 major publishers involved in the DoJ investigation. Why is that? And why are you changing the argument you'd like to disagree with me on to Apple set the minimum price rather than the publishers, regardless of how they got there. I've always said the price was set in the publishers' contract and of course it would be. Apple on their own couldn't dictate the minimum selling price for Amazon on any book segment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Not from that group of major publishers for the new release category, which is the only segment of e-book sales the price controls applied to. So you're still going to rely on misdirection to prove your point? Your argument is sounding weaker and weaker.
Apple did not set any prices, it was up to the publishers selling iBooks through iTunes to set the price, if the "seven" publishers chose not to compete with the other publishers also selling iBooks via iTunes at $9.99 that was their problem, not Apple's who opened the playing field for more (and smaller) publishers, increasing competition and consumer choice.
The railroad you base these crackpot collusion theories on is getting narrower and narrower, unfortunately your government agencies have strapped Apple to this railway and are heading full steam ahead to a predetermined finding of guilt.
Because you cannot fight the US government and win. The government is desperate for cash. Do you think with all of the problems the government has that it really care about the price of books? This is a classic strong-arm extortion racket. Expect to see more of this as they look for new ways to generate revenue. Classic that the judge already leaked the verdict to send Apple a message of what would happen if they went through with the trial. It is the government's version of the Mafia's "How's your family...".
Not quite true. She said that Apple was probably guilty (which is essentially the same as her statement that the DOJ would probably prove its case) on the basis of only partial evidence. That's more than simply expressing an opinion.
Specifically, in a Federal case, the judge may form opinions, but may not prejudge the case:
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Judicial+disqualification:+what+every+practitioner+(and+judge)+should...-a078335432
"A judge may form mental impressions and opinions during the course of presentation of evidence so long as she does not prejudge the case."
In this case, the judge has stated that the DOJ will probably win - which is prejudging the case and not allowed under Federal Rules.
Yep.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
Apple did not set any prices, it was up to the publishers selling iBooks through iTunes to set the price, if the "seven" publishers chose not to compete with the other publishers also selling iBooks via iTunes at $9.99 that was their problem, not Apple's.
The railroad you base these crackpot collusion theories on is getting narrower and narrower, unfortunately your government agencies have strapped Apple to this railway and are heading full steam ahead to a predetermined finding of guilt.
Well there you go, something I would agree with based on everything I've personally read. Apple did not set $12.99 as the specific minimum selling price on that group of books. The 7 major publishers all agreed to that mandated minimum and identical price with Amazon and every other e-book seller bound by it.
At least you finally got past saying the $12.99 minimum didn't exist as you've been doing all along. Baby steps.
Ah, I see. Yup, that's price fixing. Interesting. Besides, $12.99 is too much for a digital book.
Not that it has anything to do with this case, but I've noticed that for pretty much any CD, movie, or book, that I've looked to purchase lately I can buy the physical book or disc and have it delivered to my door for cheaper than the downloaded version. Considering the printing, distribution, and delivery costs, that's just crazy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Correct. They could have sold it for a higher price.
The minimum guaranteed gross profit for Apple on each title in that book group was $3.89 per sale. It would never be lower if the agreement had held because no other seller would be permitted to sell for less that $12.99.
The price was not fixed. If the publishers allowed another store to sell at a lower price, then Apple could also sell at the same price. Apple doesn't care what the price is as long as they get their 30% and that Amazon's retail price is the same as Apple's.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
The price was not fixed. If the publishers allowed another store to sell at a lower price, then Apple could also sell at the same price. Apple doesn't care what the price is as long as they get their 30% and that Amazon's retail price is the same as Apple's.
Of course Apple would care what the minimum was. 30% of $7 is much different from 30% of $13.
On what basis do you claim the $12.99 was a negotiable price per title with the publishers. It was a contractually mandated minimum for that specific category of books in it's entirety, at least until a new contract was due according to the reports.
Apple had agreed to contracts from the seven setting $12.99 as the minimum and all other sellers would be required to accept the same according to that Apple contract. Sure sounds like a fixed minimum price to me.
If she's taken off the case because of her comments I will concede that her comments did show she was bias. Otherwise, I wouldn't make a Federal case about it.
PS: What if she actually thought the opposite of what she stated but did so because she felt Apple was likely to to be found not guilty and was planning ahead for the eventuality that the anti-Apple crowd would come out of the woodwork against her. Don't you remember when people said Judge Koh hated Korea… despite being of Korean descent?
Quote:
Originally Posted by iSteelers
No kidding Apple will be found guilty. The government needs money and Apple has it. They always get what they want one way or another. If they can't get to Apple via the IRS then they will get it through other channels. Apple should have given more to the lobbyists and this would not have happened.
Who do you imagine was in the smoke-filled room when "they" decided "the government needs money and Apple has, how about we sue Apple for collusion."
Keep in mind the clause only applied to new releases, and publishers could get around the clause by not offering a particular title to Apple. Most importantly the Murdoch emails show Apple did not collude. It worked out the deals indepentently.
You can make the arguement that the Murdoch emails don't show that Apple colluded. You CAN'T make the argument that the Murdoch emails show Apple didn't collude.There seems to be a lot of people that need to come to terms with the fact that Apple is just another big business. They make a lot of the toys we love. I have many of them and have helped many other people make the decision to buy Apple products. But one look at their profit margins should tell us that they also like to squeeze every penny from the consumer that they can. And that's fine, too. I make my buying decisions based on the products value to me. But to think it's inconceivable that Apple may occassionally cross the line in their pursuit of profits and do things that hurt the consumer is fairly naive (in my opinion).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin
Not that it has anything to do with this case, but I've noticed that for pretty much any CD, movie, or book, that I've looked to purchase lately I can buy the physical book or disc and have it delivered to my door for cheaper than the downloaded version. Considering the printing, distribution, and delivery costs, that's just crazy.It's terrible, isn't it?