Apple calls antitrust suit 'bizarre,' says DOJ 'reverse-engineered a conspiracy'

2456

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 110
    sac2dudesac2dude Posts: 5member


    I'm not attempting to be a troll, but this article was posted and I came upon it while reading other stories regarding this case.  Personally I don't care.  I don't even own an eBook reader.  I've just read the various reports regarding the trial and the fact that every publisher has settled and paid restitution.


     


    Yet in spite of all this, regardless of the records the DoJ has collected and discussed, it appears as though the majority on this forum dismiss the DoJ "just because"...  From what I've read, it appears to be more than just nuisance litigation - but I can certainly be wrong.   It doesn't "seem" like a manufactured or thin case - but again that could just be me.

  • Reply 22 of 110
    malaxmalax Posts: 1,598member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sac2dude View Post



    How about when Jobs did his iPad introduction, where he bought a copy of the Edward Kennedy autobiography on stage for $14.99 ($9.99 on Amazon). When Walt Mossberg questioned Jobs on why people would pay more for an e-book from Apple, Jobs not so wisely replied, That wont be the case. The prices wontt remain the same.

     


     


    How about you present the actual fact then?  From the DoJ slideshow:


     


    "Mossberg wondered why someone ‘should buy a [b]book for $14.99 when you can buy one from Amazon for $9.99 on the Kindle or Barnes & Noble?’  A confident Jobs replies, ‘That won’t be the case.... The prices will be the same.’”


     


    In other words, "The market will work this out; maybe the publishers will choose to charge $9.99 on our platform or maybe Amazon will stop losing money on every single sale and the prices will go up."

  • Reply 23 of 110
    malaxmalax Posts: 1,598member


    Someone remind me what the DoJ is asking for in terms of damages?  Even if Apple loses, this could be a case like the classic NFL anti-trust loss.  The NFL was found guilty of collusion and because it was an anti-trust case the damages were tripled.  They had to pay $3.00 (plus interest).  1.9.3 USFL v. NFL lawsuit

  • Reply 24 of 110
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    malax wrote: »
    In other words, "The market will work this out; maybe the publishers will choose to charge $9.99 on our platform or maybe Amazon will stop losing money on every single sale and the prices will go up."

    Jobs made that very clear in the leaked email. He said he doesn't think selling it as a loss was sustainable. I don't see how it's likely that he'd be wrong but he still worded it as an opinion.
  • Reply 25 of 110
    stelligentstelligent Posts: 2,680member

    Quote:

    "What the government is trying to do is reverse engineer a conspiracy from a market effect," Snyder said.


     



    In this context, Snyder is effectively admitting a conspiracy. He is misusing the term "reverse engineer". Hopefully, he has been misquoted.

  • Reply 26 of 110
    slurpyslurpy Posts: 5,384member

    Quote:


    This is so obviously a political witch hunt it's not even funny. Amazon's near monopoly-- gained by engaging in dumping and clearly in violation of anti-trust, was threatened, so they got their boys in washington (obama's boys, a corrupt administration to begin with) to go after their competitor.


    Offering the same deal to multiple parties is not "collusion" or a "conspiracy".


    Offering a better deal than amazon to those parties is not "anti-competitive" it's COMPETITIVE.


    Requiring that anyone selling on your store not set higher prices for you than they do for others is not "price fixing" or any kind of attempt to artificially inflate the price, but in fact, an attempt to keep prices low.


    The smoking gun here is aimed at the DoJ's head and proves this is a politically motivated, corrupt, persecution of Apple.


    Too bad the government doesn't have to obey the law (and since the government runs the courts you can't get any justice when the government is the persecutor.)


    If Apple is punished with this, they really should consider moving their headquarters overseas.



  • Reply 27 of 110
    hmmhmm Posts: 3,405member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


     


    Oh, I know. I'm just saying. image



    Okay. Well I thought Amazon was basically dumping on prices. You get to buy cheap books. Content has been in decline no matter what, especially textbooks. There isn't any form of collusion there on Amazon's part as far as I can tell. If they were investigated, it would be over their use of loss leaders to starve any possible competition. They do this stuff in other markets too. Amazon isn't the first one  to take on such a strategy.


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by malax View Post


     


    How about you present the actual fact then?  From the DoJ slideshow:


     


    "Mossberg wondered why someone ‘should buy a [b]book for $14.99 when you can buy one from Amazon for $9.99 on the Kindle or Barnes & Noble?’  A confident Jobs replies, ‘That won’t be the case.... The prices will be the same.’”


     


    In other words, "The market will work this out; maybe the publishers will choose to charge $9.99 on our platform or maybe Amazon will stop losing money son every single sale and the prices will go up."



    Bleh. That's a nonsense way to spin such a statement. Most books have some kind of suggested retail price printed on them. It's not like they're going from something that was actually in the publisher agreements.


     


    I suspect they have actual evidence if they're pursuing this, not word twisting on the level of internet troll tactics. I'm just not interested enough to search for it here.

  • Reply 28 of 110
    krabbelenkrabbelen Posts: 243member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

    In this context, Snyder is effectively admitting a conspiracy. He is misusing the term "reverse engineer". Hopefully, he has been misquoted.


    The qualification is in the word "trying". The govt. is "trying" to do so. That their attempt won't be successful is not for lack of "trying", but because there isn't a conspiracy to reverse-engineer. Saying that the govt is evidently trying to do this and fit Apple up (the govt having used terms like "collude" that necessarily imply a "conspiracy")  does not admit that there is a conspiracy.

  • Reply 29 of 110
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member


    The strange thing is since the introduction of the iBookstore, prices have fallen rather than risen from $7.97 on average to $7.34.


     


    I expect Apple will introduce this evidence soon, after the DoJ has enough rope to hang themselves with, which they seem surprisingly good at.


     


    Anything to distract from the financiers who threw the world's economies into ruin with their greedy forays into unregulated mortgage markets, where maybe, just maybe the DoJ could do some real good.

  • Reply 30 of 110
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,865member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sac2dude View Post



    Apple was price fixing, its an open and shut case. They helped organize an effort among top publishers to raise e-book prices. The government has a bunch of e-mail, phone calls, and key witnesses that seem to make this a done deal.



    How about when Jobs did his iPad introduction, where he bought a copy of the Edward Kennedy autobiography on stage for $14.99 ($9.99 on Amazon). When Walt Mossberg questioned Jobs on why people would pay more for an e-book from Apple, Jobs not so wisely replied, That wont be the case. The prices wontt remain the same.



    Carolyn Reidy, the CEO of Simon & Schuster, ended up calling that remark incredibly stupid in an e-mail to a colleague.



    It doesn't matter how many people own iProducts - Apple is going to end up paying a bunch of that money they have banked.


     


    Great, now we've got DoJ lawyers signing up to post. Sorry, it doesn't sound any more convincing in this repetition.

  • Reply 31 of 110
    It seems the Feds and courts are all about creating monopolies. Cases involving mergers always make the argument that mergers are legal if they will keep prices low or lower them. Ever lowering prices results in competitors never being able to enter the market. We then have production monopolies. That results in job monopolies.

    If one wants a stable and vibrant economy and jobs, you have to make it easy for competition to enter the market. Along with a tax policy that allows the big guys to buy tax loopholes from Congress, you have the economic mess and political mess we're in.
  • Reply 32 of 110
    malaxmalax Posts: 1,598member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by hmm View Post


    Okay. Well I thought Amazon was basically dumping on prices. You get to buy cheap books. Content has been in decline no matter what, especially textbooks. There isn't any form of collusion there on Amazon's part as far as I can tell. If they were investigated, it would be over their use of loss leaders to starve any possible competition. They do this stuff in other markets too. Amazon isn't the first one  to take on such a strategy.


     


    Bleh. That's a nonsense way to spin such a statement. Most books have some kind of suggested retail price printed on them. It's not like they're going from something that was actually in the publisher agreements.


     


    I suspect they have actual evidence if they're pursuing this, not word twisting on the level of internet troll tactics. I'm just not interested enough to search for it here.



     


    I was quoting directly from the DoJ's opening arguments so they are using this.  And I did so only to correct a misquote from that other guy that made it sound more damning.  I agree with you that "prices will be the same"  does not mean "wink, wink, we know that our initial prices will stick." 

  • Reply 33 of 110
    jayparryjayparry Posts: 22member
    Rly? That's your graphic for this story? How is the DOJ burning apple
  • Reply 34 of 110
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member


    Originally Posted by jayparry View Post

    How is the DOJ burning apple


     


    0/10. Try harder.

  • Reply 35 of 110
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    It seems the Feds and courts are all about creating monopolies. Cases involving mergers always make the argument that mergers are legal if they will keep prices low or lower them. Ever lowering prices results in competitors never being able to enter the market. We then have production monopolies. That results in job monopolies.

    If one wants a stable and vibrant economy and jobs, you have to make it easy for competition to enter the market. Along with a tax policy that allows the big guys to buy tax loopholes from Congress, you have the economic mess and political mess we're in.

    Yes, government helps create and maintain monopolies (and near monopolies) thanks to corporatism, that heartwarmingly close relationship between narrow, select businesses and lawmakers.

    I could care less about unrestricted mergers, so long as competitors are not restricted from entering the same markets. Open, unrestricted competition has a way of flattening prices and breaking monopolies.
  • Reply 36 of 110


    There looks to be a lot of people in this forum who really need to take a few steps back and remove their bias for a few minutes. Here is the most telling thing in this case so far from a person (the judge) who has seen a lot of the evidence already. The judge has said that she feel the DOJ can prove their case against Apple.


     


    I know here come all the comments about how the judge is not being fair and she should be removed.


     


    Ah, but she made the comment because she was asked by both the DOJ and Apple to give her opinion of the case after she had already reviewed several hundred documents.


     


    Again the judge was asked by both Apple and the DOJ for her opinion about the case.


     


    It is clear Apple was in fact a part of price fixing with the publishers when Apple got the MFN clause that stated nobody would be allowed to sell the same books Apple sold for less money than Apple was selling the books for.


     


    Imagine you own a store and you buy a widget from XYB company, they sell you the widget for 7.50 each, you decided that you will charge 8.25 each in your store. But wait the company also sells the same widget to Apple and in their Apple contract they set the price at 12.50 each and stipulate that no one else can sell the same widget for less than 12.50.


     


    Apple has just fixed the price of those products.


     


    Not a single honest person can dispute that Apple did in fact contact each of the publishers involved and directed them what the prices would be.


     


    Apple thought they were being smart by not meeting with all the publishers in the same room at the same time, instead Apple thought they were smarter than the law and tried to do the same thing by phone and email but the end result was the same as all of them meeting in the same room discussing the pricing of e books and than setting up the most favored nation clause that only favored Apple.


     


    Sorry but this is a case that Apple is going to lose and while the DOJ is not seeking monetary penalties against Apple the states can all jump in after Apple is found guilty and sue Apple for millions or even billions of dollars.


     


    Apples own arrogance will be their down fall.

  • Reply 37 of 110
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    And yet, I've read other legal opinions that indicate exactly the opposite outcome
  • Reply 38 of 110

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by malax View Post


     


    I was quoting directly from the DoJ's opening arguments so they are using this.  And I did so only to correct a misquote from that other guy that made it sound more damning.  I agree with you that "prices will be the same"  does not mean "wink, wink, we know that our initial prices will stick." 



    Everyone knows what Jobs meaning was and that was Amazon would not be allowed to sell for less than Apple due to Apples new most favored nation clause in the contract with publishers.


     


    The comment Jobs made was very damning as one of the publishers even emailed Apple horrified that Jobs would make that comment.

  • Reply 39 of 110

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post



    And yet, I've read other legal opinions that indicate exactly the opposite outcome


    Legal opinions or stock analysts who are long on Apple?

  • Reply 40 of 110
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    Legal opinions or stock analysts who are long on Apple?

    Legal opinions. I have no link to offer.
Sign In or Register to comment.