Apple dismisses DOJ's proposed e-book penalties as 'a draconian and punitive intrusion'

13567

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 128
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    crowley wrote: »
    Of course they are.  So what?  Still got found guilty first time round.

    I'm going to assume you're not just stupid and don't know what an appeal is.
  • Reply 42 of 128
    crowleycrowley Posts: 9,083member




    Quote:

    Originally Posted by malax View Post


    "vague new compliance regime" is accurate and measured.




     


    Of a first proposal.  The details get sweated later, so this is a pretty weak criticism.


     




    Quote:

    Originally Posted by malax View Post


    "applicable only to Apple" is true.




     


    I'm sorry, what court case found anyone else guilty of conspiracy to price fix?


     




    Quote:

    Originally Posted by malax View Post


    "intrusive oversight" is accurate.




     


    Subjective.  And even so, not necessarily a bad thing.  Apple made it's own bed here.


     




    Quote:

    Originally Posted by malax View Post


    etc. etc.



     


    Alright.

  • Reply 43 of 128
    crowleycrowley Posts: 9,083member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post





    I'm going to assume you're not just stupid and don't know what an appeal is.


    Does it involve going back in time and erasing from history the guilty verdict, thereby removing the need for current discussions with the DoJ over recompense?


     


    If it does, then fine I don't know what an appeal is.  If it's anything else, I have no idea what point you're trying to make.

  • Reply 44 of 128
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,001member
    I have read so many articles on this case and I still don't get it.  Can someone explain to me in plain English what Apple did wrong in the eyes of the DOJ?

    Maybe this will help.

    http://tidbits.com/article/13912
  • Reply 45 of 128
    john.bjohn.b Posts: 2,740member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jungmark View Post



    I won't be surprised if some of the DOJ lawyers resign when this is over to work for Amazon.


     


    The POTUS is holding a big victory party Tuesday in Chattanooga.

  • Reply 46 of 128
    qamfqamf Posts: 87member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post


     


    Ha! Apple is appealing the ruling on that trial, as is their legal right and their responsibility to Apple's shareholders.



    Yes, and all 5 of the book publishers have settled.



    Apple has a long case which they are most likely to lose.




    The average price of ebooks rose by 19% 

     


     





    That’s one of the counterintuitive aspects of this situation. Yes, customers paid more — as noted, prices rose nearly 19 percent per book overall after the agency model went into effect.



    ...



    Initially the U.S. Department of Justice filed this lawsuit against Apple and five of the Big Six publishers (Random House didn’t agree to the initial iBookstore contracts). Over time, though, all five publishers settled with the Department of Justice,



    I would say that he appeal matters, but the evidence is pretty overwhelming:


     





    A recent government filing revealed an old email (dated in 2010) from Jobs to James Murdoch of News Corporation, which said "Throw in with Apple and see if we can all make a go of this to create a real mainstream e-books market at $12.99 and $14.99.”



    ...




    In addition to the email, there are statements from publishers saying that Apple bullied them into the e-books price-fixing situation. For instance, Jobs told Random House CEO Markus Dohle that his company would lose support from Apple if it didn't make a quick decision about joining back in 2010. Furthermore, Apple threatened to block an e-book application by Random House from Apple’s App Store if the publisher didn't agree to a deal with Apple.



    The government filing also mentions that Penguin CEO David Shanks said Apple was the facilitator between publishers when making the agreement.


    I don't know how you can sanely support Apple in this case.



    -QAMF

  • Reply 47 of 128
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    qamf wrote: »
    I would say that he appeal matters, but the evidence is pretty overwhelming:

    That appears to be the first true thing you've ever said in this forum.

    The judge announced that she believed Apple was guilty before the case even started. Overwhelming, indeed.
  • Reply 48 of 128
    It seems anyone that gets too powerful will abuse their power. The DOJ is definitely abusing their power here. It shows that the Obama regime is beyond corrupt as his DOJ is out of control. All the posters here like Crowley who defend this tyranny are nothing much stooges who are intellectually dishonest. This DOJ is so corrupt it's sickening and any loser who defends their actions have no intellectual honesty.
  • Reply 49 of 128
    crowley wrote: »
    I can take it.

    It's fair to say that my post wasn't on Apple's side.  That doesn't mean it isn't measured though, and it's not an argument against anyone on this forum.

    Not really sure what your point is, beyond a lot of quotations.

    Well, I was about to advise you to quit while you're ahead, but that wouldn't be very accurate... Go get some fresh air my friend. Your opinions have been noted but nobody here seems to agree with you. I'm certain your time can be better spent.
  • Reply 50 of 128
    QMAF - you side with the findings of a corrupt government. You, just like this corrupt judge, already made up your mind before this started. You cherry pick certain parts of the case just to bolster your argument but it just shows that you are a biased troll. The judge is corrupt and a statist and you are probably a fanboy for a competitor and have no intellectual honesty in your arguments.
  • Reply 51 of 128
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,001member
    Many say that this was the smoking gun.


    [VIDEO]
  • Reply 52 of 128
    jfc1138jfc1138 Posts: 3,090member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by TheUnfetteredMind View Post


    That was my interpretation as well, but I'm also not sure ... image



    They can't enter into "anti-competitive" contracts, they're free to enter into contracts that aren't "anti-competitive".


     


    Which is why a lot of the "BANNING" headlines are simply wrong.

  • Reply 53 of 128
    qamfqamf Posts: 87member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by vjbhatia77 View Post



    QMAF - you side with the findings of a corrupt government. You, just like this corrupt judge, already made up your mind before this started. You cherry pick certain parts of the case just to bolster your argument but it just shows that you are a biased troll. The judge is corrupt and a statist and you are probably a fanboy for a competitor and have no intellectual honesty in your arguments.


    1. Did ebook pricing rise, or fall after Apple got its way?



    That is the only question I need answered to decide my point of view.



    Apple got its agency model with the large companies, Amazon and Google "folded" before the forced agency model.  Prices rose after that.  Apple was the company that pushed for Agency pricing.  Therefore, Apple is directly responsible for the price in the rise of ebooks.  Having read all of the link (http://tidbits.com/article/13912) I don't see how the agency model helped anyone besides Apple.




    And lol, the only company I have occasional fits of fanboyism for is Lenovo's Thinkpad line, well, and WotC, but I don't think Apple is competing with WotC, and most people who buy Thinkpad's have been doing so since IBM made them (why did you have to sell it IBM :S).



    -QAMF



     

  • Reply 54 of 128
    qamfqamf Posts: 87member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post





    That appears to be the first true thing you've ever said in this forum.



    The judge announced that she believed Apple was guilty before the case even started. Overwhelming, indeed.


    Agency model occurred because Apple pushed for it.  ebook prices proceeded to rise 19%. (http://tidbits.com/article/13912)




    And the judge had done the case for 5 of the 6 major booksellers, in which 5 of them settled.  A lot of the evidence in the Apple trial had already been presented and talked about.  I would have gone for a different judge if I could choose, it would shut a lot of people up.




    -QAMF

  • Reply 55 of 128
    crowleycrowley Posts: 9,083member
    vjbhatia77 wrote: »
    It seems anyone that gets too powerful will abuse their power. The DOJ is definitely abusing their power here. It shows that the Obama regime is beyond corrupt as his DOJ is out of control. All the posters here like Crowley who defend this tyranny are nothing much stooges who are intellectually dishonest. This DOJ is so corrupt it's sickening and any loser who defends their actions have no intellectual honesty.
    Excuse me? Where did I "defend" or even comment on the DOJ? I've only been talking about Apple.

    I think you can look a little closer to home for intellectual dishonesty.



    P.S. "tyranny" :-D you nut balls crack me up every time.
  • Reply 56 of 128
    michael_cmichael_c Posts: 164member


    I think there is a bigger agenda going on than what is being said.  We, whether an individual or company, can say what type of business arrangement we want when do business with other business.  It's common, at  least in our business, that we get specific pricing in order for us to "do business".  Not all businesses agree to our terms, and that's fine -  it needs to be mutually beneficial for all.  Apple, as does any business, has the right to dictate what it needs in order to enter an agreement. The publishers have the right to agree with this, or not.  I don't think the issue is really about these book deals.  


     


    There have been a number of recent government actions against Apple, and continual pressure for Apple to pay more taxes, build more in the US, etc. This DOJ action, and the ITC suggested ban on some iDevices is just another level of coercion to get Apple to comply.  I think it's pretty simple - the interrogation of Apple Execs by congress, last spring, didn't go well, so use whatever means (ITC and DOJ) available.


     


    My suggestion is to write our representatives and tell them to "knock it off".  Apple isn't perfect, but they are one of the best companies in the US and it's not in any of our interests to "stand by" while our government does the old fashioned "shakedown".  They may get a few coins to fall out from their proverbial pockets, but the potential for damage to the company is significant.

  • Reply 57 of 128
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,001member
    qamf wrote: »
    1. Did ebook pricing rise, or fall after Apple got its way?


    That is the only question I need answered to decide my point of view.

    Actually both, some went up while others went down. So how is that possible? Simple, while Amazon was taking a loss on some books it was making a more than healthy profit on others.
  • Reply 58 of 128
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    qamf wrote: »
    Agency model occurred because Apple pushed for it.  ebook prices proceeded to rise 19%. (<a href="http://tidbits.com/article/13912" style="line-height:1.231;" target="_blank">http://tidbits.com/article/13912</a>;
    <span style="line-height:1.231;">)</span>



    And the judge had done the case for 5 of the 6 major booksellers, in which 5 of them settled.  A lot of the evidence in the Apple trial had already been presented and talked about.  I would have gone for a different judge if I could choose, it would shut a lot of people up.


    -QAMF

    The fact that the book publishers settled has no bearing on Apple's guilt. There was no real evidence presented that proved Apple conspired to set prices. They simply set up a mechanism that allowed the publishers to set their own prices.

    Your entire post demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the law. You can't use evidence in one case to convict an entirely different party in another case. Apple has the right to defend themselves and her statement that they were guilty before hearing their defense is clearly a violation of due process.
  • Reply 59 of 128
    qamfqamf Posts: 87member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post





    Actually both, some went up while others went down. So how is that possible? Simple, while Amazon was taking a loss on some books it was making a more than healthy profit on others.


    The average price of ebooks rose 19%.



    http://tidbits.com/article/13912



    -QAMF

  • Reply 60 of 128
    I am the last one to trash the government. However, this case was a ridiculous waste of taxpayer resources from the beginning. That ridiculousness has now been compounded by what appears to be the DOJ's attempt to gut Apple and its profit stream, in favor of Amazon. While Amazon acts like to 1000 lb gorilla destroying brick & mortar businesses, the DOJ turns a blind eye to such activity.

Sign In or Register to comment.