Your article says that judges have the authority to comment on the evidence. That's certainly true - and happens all the time. That's not at all what we're talking about here.
Judges do NOT have the right to prejudge the conclusions - which is what this judge did. See the link I provided.
I don't see any evidence that she pre-judged. For that to happen she'd have to say "Apple is guilty" or "Apple is not guilty." Anything less is just commentary.
I don't see any evidence that she pre-judged. For that to happen she'd have to say "Apple is guilty" or "Apple is not guilty." Anything less is just commentary.
"Judge Denise Cote said the U.S Department of Justice will likely be able to prove that Apple colluded with major book publishers to falsely inflate the prices of e-books sold through the iBookstore."
"Judge Denise Cote said the U.S Department of Justice will likely be able to prove that Apple colluded with major book publishers to falsely inflate the prices of e-books sold through the iBookstore."
If that's not pre-judging, I don't know what is.
"Falsely inflate"?
Removing a discount is falsely inflating, now, is it?
That means any seller of anything who offers a discount is now guilty of "price fixing" if they remove it.
Based on what? The fact that you are a Tim Cook pants dweller and that Apple can do no wrong? Apple is not your friend or the friend of anyone. They are as evil and greedy as Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, Nokia, etc... The moment you wake up to understand this, the better for you and your ill-informed comments.
That is to F**kin much. Lol. Pants dweller. Ahhahaha. Ah sh*t that was funny.
Removing a discount is falsely inflating, now, is it?
That means any seller of anything who offers a discount is now guilty of "price fixing" if they remove it.
America is so f*cked up.
That's not what it says.
Inflating prices is perfectly legal. Discounting is perfectly legal. Neither one is price fixing.
The key part of her statement was the collusion part. It may well be just as illegal to conspire to reduced prices as it is to increase prices. It's the collusion that's illegal - not the price you choose.
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.
This truly is silly. The DOJ did not seek money damages in the previous consent decrees against the other publishers. What the government sought was a consent that ended all the price fixing. An example of the consents that was signed can be found here. http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f291000/291018.pdf
The price of the equivalent paperback books, $12.99 which were selling in those dead things once known as book stores.
Bookstores are FAR from dead Hill60. They may not be as popular as they once were but there are MANY people, myself included, who prefer print media over ebooks and there are plenty of places to get them.
Yes we're probably dinosaurs but even the LP isn't dead despite the doom-sayers.
This truly is silly. The DOJ did not seek money damages in the previous consent decrees against the other publishers. What the government sought was a consent that ended all the price fixing. An example of the consents that was signed can be found here. http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f291000/291018.pdf
Sure i read that no money is going to the federal government for the lawsuit that it brought. Now if you're suggesting that the DOJ is bringing lawsuits so that state attorneys and private plaintiffscan bring their own lawsuit that is a bit far fetched. So no my statement remains unchainged.
Comments
I don't see any evidence that she pre-judged. For that to happen she'd have to say "Apple is guilty" or "Apple is not guilty." Anything less is just commentary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 9secondko
No wonder the American legal system is in trouble.
I think the phrase "American legal system" is increasingly oxymoronic.
"Judge Denise Cote said the U.S Department of Justice will likely be able to prove that Apple colluded with major book publishers to falsely inflate the prices of e-books sold through the iBookstore."
If that's not pre-judging, I don't know what is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
"Judge Denise Cote said the U.S Department of Justice will likely be able to prove that Apple colluded with major book publishers to falsely inflate the prices of e-books sold through the iBookstore."
If that's not pre-judging, I don't know what is.
"Falsely inflate"?
Removing a discount is falsely inflating, now, is it?
That means any seller of anything who offers a discount is now guilty of "price fixing" if they remove it.
America is so f*cked up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimk69
That is to F**kin much. Lol. Pants dweller. Ahhahaha. Ah sh*t that was funny.
Almost as funny as having a girl's name when you're a boy, eh?
And I think the '69' in your handle gave away your exact level of maturity and what would amuse you.
That's not what it says.
Inflating prices is perfectly legal. Discounting is perfectly legal. Neither one is price fixing.
The key part of her statement was the collusion part. It may well be just as illegal to conspire to reduced prices as it is to increase prices. It's the collusion that's illegal - not the price you choose.
This truly is silly. The DOJ did not seek money damages in the previous consent decrees against the other publishers. What the government sought was a consent that ended all the price fixing. An example of the consents that was signed can be found here. http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f291000/291018.pdf
Yes we're probably dinosaurs but even the LP isn't dead despite the doom-sayers.
Did you not read this?
http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/05/22/penguin-agrees-to-75m-settlement-in-apple-ibooks-price-fixing-lawsuit
And that's the year I was born. I guess the people that know me understand. Buts that post is still funny as sh*t.
Sure i read that no money is going to the federal government for the lawsuit that it brought. Now if you're suggesting that the DOJ is bringing lawsuits so that state attorneys and private plaintiffscan bring their own lawsuit that is a bit far fetched. So no my statement remains unchainged.
Fixed that for you.
Thanks! Much better.8-)