A better analogy is Amazon sells a 50000 ford for 35000, undercutting every ford dealership thus obtaining a 90% market share. Apple said "hey Ford, we'll let you sell ford at 50000 as long as we get 30%. We also want to be able to match a competitor's price if you let them sell for less. " more dealerships begin to appear as now they can compete and make money.
It wasn't a parable. It was plain English that even a 1st grader would understand.
It doesn't matter. There's a little legal terminology called 'hearsay'. Hearsay is normally not admissible unless it meets one of the exceptions (and I don't think this statement does).
If they have to terminate their current contract and cannot create a new one for 5 years, then wouldn't they be unable to sell any books from those publishers for those five years? If I understand this correctly, wouldn't that effectively force Apple to call the entire e-book market a big loss? Someone please correct me if I am wrong.
What about my iBook collection? How does this help consumers? If I understand this correctly, the DOJ very nearly wants Apple to remove itself from the e-book market, and I don't understand how that can be in anyone's best interest... except for Amazon.
They can still sell books using the agency model, I believe that the MFN clause has been tossed out for now.
It doesn't matter. There's a little legal terminology called 'hearsay'. Hearsay is normally not admissible unless it meets one of the exceptions (and I don't think this statement does).
It would've been hearsay if Mossberg claimed SJ said so and so without adequate substantiation, but we can hear the question asked and the answer given. We don't know for sure what SJ meant but what counts in a civil case is what he most likely meant.
It would've been hearsay if Mossberg claimed SJ said so and so without adequate substantiation, but we can hear the question asked and the answer given. We don't know for sure what SJ meant but what counts in a civil case is what he most likely meant.
Nope. It's still hearsay since he can't be cross-examined.
"Three tests are calculated to expose possible weaknesses in a statement:
Assertions must be taken under oath
Assertions must be made in front of the tribunal (judge or jury)
Assertions must be subject to cross-examination.
Assertions not subject to these three tests are (with some exceptions) prohibited insofar as they are offered testimonially (for the truth of what they assert)."
Nope. It's still hearsay since he can't be cross-examined.
"Three tests are calculated to expose possible weaknesses in a statement:
Assertions must be taken under oath
Assertions must be made in front of the tribunal (judge or jury)
Assertions must be subject to cross-examination.
Assertions not subject to these three tests are (with some exceptions) prohibited insofar as they are offered testimonially (for the truth of what they assert)."
So if a dying person tells a police officer who killed him/her that would be inadmissible because that person can't be cross examined on what he meant?
So if a dying person tells a police officer who killed him/her that would be inadmissible because that person can't be cross examined on what he meant?
No. That's one of the exceptions. There are something like half a dozen major exceptions to the hearsay rule and deathbed statements are one of them.
The presumption is that in a situation like the one you've outlined that you're not likely to lie. Still, a jury or judge may give it less weight than a statement made under oath and where the person can be cross-examined.
They can still sell books using the agency model, I believe that the MFN clause has been tossed out for now.
Well, moreover, Apple can just use the wholesale model. Then, if Amazon is selling a loss leading ebook, Apple could do the same. Not good news for the publishers or content providers, but for Apple I don't think that it's that big of deal to do that.
The anti-trust oversight over music, movies, other digital content, and the suspension of the agency fee for IAP for ebooks (and possibly over the other content since the DOJ is crossing the rubicon with ebooks) on the other hand, that's pretty devastating for Apple's platform. That will be going to the SCOTUS if the lower court approves of that.
Apple still has to go through it's appeals. Apple followed exactly what Amazon did to build it's book business. Only to be wrongly accused of starting some kind of fixing of prices which in reality it didn't do any of that and testimony was even put out there that proved that. But when the DOJ paid off the judge of course she already had her mind made up before the trial even began. Hopefully an appeals judge won't be tempted with bribes and will actually look at the facts this time.
As far as the DOJ with there penalty. They really stretch things way to far even as to monitor or intervene in Apple's music and video sales which has absolutely nothing to do with this books case. So draconian is an understatement in my opinion.
It is my understanding that this is Apple's official response, as posted on their website, and Tim Cook has been extremely upfront on his feelings in the matter.
It is my understanding that this is Apple's official response, as posted on their website, and Tim Cook has been extremely upfront on his feelings in the matter.
Actually it may not be a bad thing for Apple. Why selling books at a lost? Let Amazon sell books on iPad. The more books Amazon sells, the more loss it made for Amazon. It actually will eat into Amazon and B&N tablet shares. Government is always doing dumbest things/opposite effect.
Frood your iCars story want a lovely little venture into your mind but last I checked Amazon were the completion. So in a free market (I assume America still is) surely you under cut your competitors. So your argument does not make sense. So i thought i would tell a little story about a board meeting in (lets say Carzone) the current market leaders office that occured when they heard about iCars.
Boss: We could charging $ 52000 as well and take a 30% cut. That gives us much more profit than our current method of cutting prices to the bone and it will put us in better favour with the car manufacturers who have started to complain we under sell their cars just to become the market leader.
Bright spark in the meeting: Aren't we supposed to compete?
Boss: Yes but only if we are found out and then we can blame iCars for changing the sale method.
Bright spark protest: Surely it would be easier just to take a smaller margin and so undercut iCars like we do with everyone else?
Boss: Yes but this way we can stop iCars for intruding into our market at the same time if we can convince people they clouded to fix prices.
Bright spark: How, they did not say we had to charge the same as them.
Boss: You and I know that but thre government doesn't and unless they have us bugged I'm not going to tell them. We can just let then see what they want to see which is the largest company in the e commerce market discussing with their supplier about what price they would like to sell their cars at through iCars and let the government draw their own conclusions. They are so fixated with market forces they will forget other people sell cars and scream price fixing. After the dust settles we can sweep in and take over the market and then charge what we want. That's who's the smart people price fix legally and get rid of the competition.
Bight spark: oh I see. That's why your the boss. Are you sure this will work surely the government aren't that stupid.
Boss: no but their cash strapped, in a hole and desperate. That can colour your judgent some what. Why would we care anyway, if iCars take their business elsewhere no one hear will lose their jobs and its one less competitor. It's all good as far as I can see.
Sorry about the typos in my little story. Typing on an ipad one handed quickly does tend to leave a few in. It will give you a chuckle anyway. See how many you can spot!
I said this before, Apple should just get out of consumer ebooks. IF they really want to prove their point, I see no better way than to leave publishers, B&N and Amazon to their own cesspool. DOJ want to see how fast Amazon will kill publishing, this is the way to go!!! DOJ does not understand the complicity of publishing and businesses in general. Apple's iPad is a content device and most recent data shows not many actually read ebooks on their iPads anyway (thought I have seen plenty). Regardless, getting out is a good way to stick it to DOJ and watch them mob the floors after Amazon tanks publishing further.
Assuming (perhaps I am being kind here) you understand the basics of how the legal system works out here...
So... they need to be seen to be willing to negotiate an appropriate penalty for being found guilty even while they are appealing?
If they don't then they'll be treated as hostile and antagonistic and will get stiffed. And if they they lose their appeal, which seems at the very least plausible if not likely, then they look like morons.
Explain to me where my misunderstanding of the legal system "out there" lays.
Congratulations on being an average internet jerk. Do you actually think talking this impresses anyone? Are you 14 years old?
If you think someone doesn't understand then explain to them why they're wrong. Mocking them (or attempting to mock them) makes it seems like you don't have a clue and are just blowing smoke, or you're a internet bully who isn't tough or clever enough to be a bully in the real world. Pick one.
Congratulations on being an average internet jerk. Do you actually think talking this impresses anyone? Are you 14 years old?
If you think someone doesn't understand then explain to them why they're wrong. Mocking them (or attempting to mock them) makes it seems like you don't have a clue and are just blowing smoke, or you're a internet bully who isn't tough or clever enough to be a bully in the real world. Pick one.
Or maybe he just had better things to do than make up for your lack of education.
Comments
It wasn't a parable. It was plain English that even a 1st grader would understand.
A better analogy is Amazon sells a 50000 ford for 35000, undercutting every ford dealership thus obtaining a 90% market share. Apple said "hey Ford, we'll let you sell ford at 50000 as long as we get 30%. We also want to be able to match a competitor's price if you let them sell for less. " more dealerships begin to appear as now they can compete and make money.
It doesn't matter. There's a little legal terminology called 'hearsay'. Hearsay is normally not admissible unless it meets one of the exceptions (and I don't think this statement does).
It appears that the DOJ realized that it was inadmissible, too, and chose not to try to use it:
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/156322/notes-from-steve-jobs-biographer-will-not-be-used-in-doj-e-book-case-against-apple
They can still sell books using the agency model, I believe that the MFN clause has been tossed out for now.
It would've been hearsay if Mossberg claimed SJ said so and so without adequate substantiation, but we can hear the question asked and the answer given. We don't know for sure what SJ meant but what counts in a civil case is what he most likely meant.
Nope. It's still hearsay since he can't be cross-examined.
"Three tests are calculated to expose possible weaknesses in a statement:
Assertions must be taken under oath
Assertions must be made in front of the tribunal (judge or jury)
Assertions must be subject to cross-examination.
Assertions not subject to these three tests are (with some exceptions) prohibited insofar as they are offered testimonially (for the truth of what they assert)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay_in_United_States_law
So if a dying person tells a police officer who killed him/her that would be inadmissible because that person can't be cross examined on what he meant?
No. That's one of the exceptions. There are something like half a dozen major exceptions to the hearsay rule and deathbed statements are one of them.
The presumption is that in a situation like the one you've outlined that you're not likely to lie. Still, a jury or judge may give it less weight than a statement made under oath and where the person can be cross-examined.
The following lists the major hearsay exceptions:
http://www.courts.state.nh.us/rules/evid/evid-804.htm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
They can still sell books using the agency model, I believe that the MFN clause has been tossed out for now.
Well, moreover, Apple can just use the wholesale model. Then, if Amazon is selling a loss leading ebook, Apple could do the same. Not good news for the publishers or content providers, but for Apple I don't think that it's that big of deal to do that.
The anti-trust oversight over music, movies, other digital content, and the suspension of the agency fee for IAP for ebooks (and possibly over the other content since the DOJ is crossing the rubicon with ebooks) on the other hand, that's pretty devastating for Apple's platform. That will be going to the SCOTUS if the lower court approves of that.
Apple still has to go through it's appeals. Apple followed exactly what Amazon did to build it's book business. Only to be wrongly accused of starting some kind of fixing of prices which in reality it didn't do any of that and testimony was even put out there that proved that. But when the DOJ paid off the judge of course she already had her mind made up before the trial even began. Hopefully an appeals judge won't be tempted with bribes and will actually look at the facts this time.
As far as the DOJ with there penalty. They really stretch things way to far even as to monitor or intervene in Apple's music and video sales which has absolutely nothing to do with this books case. So draconian is an understatement in my opinion.
It is my understanding that this is Apple's official response, as posted on their website, and Tim Cook has been extremely upfront on his feelings in the matter.
Or has he?
Check out the first letter of each paragraph.
That's pretty awesome. Where'd you find it? My first thought was Scoopertino, but it wasn't them.
Although this is an official Apple statement (cough, cough), I cannot reveal its source, other than making the following statement:
I am the Batman.
Boss: We could charging $ 52000 as well and take a 30% cut. That gives us much more profit than our current method of cutting prices to the bone and it will put us in better favour with the car manufacturers who have started to complain we under sell their cars just to become the market leader.
Bright spark in the meeting: Aren't we supposed to compete?
Boss: Yes but only if we are found out and then we can blame iCars for changing the sale method.
Bright spark protest: Surely it would be easier just to take a smaller margin and so undercut iCars like we do with everyone else?
Boss: Yes but this way we can stop iCars for intruding into our market at the same time if we can convince people they clouded to fix prices.
Bright spark: How, they did not say we had to charge the same as them.
Boss: You and I know that but thre government doesn't and unless they have us bugged I'm not going to tell them. We can just let then see what they want to see which is the largest company in the e commerce market discussing with their supplier about what price they would like to sell their cars at through iCars and let the government draw their own conclusions. They are so fixated with market forces they will forget other people sell cars and scream price fixing. After the dust settles we can sweep in and take over the market and then charge what we want. That's who's the smart people price fix legally and get rid of the competition.
Bight spark: oh I see. That's why your the boss. Are you sure this will work surely the government aren't that stupid.
Boss: no but their cash strapped, in a hole and desperate. That can colour your judgent some what. Why would we care anyway, if iCars take their business elsewhere no one hear will lose their jobs and its one less competitor. It's all good as far as I can see.
I said this before, Apple should just get out of consumer ebooks. IF they really want to prove their point, I see no better way than to leave publishers, B&N and Amazon to their own cesspool. DOJ want to see how fast Amazon will kill publishing, this is the way to go!!! DOJ does not understand the complicity of publishing and businesses in general. Apple's iPad is a content device and most recent data shows not many actually read ebooks on their iPads anyway (thought I have seen plenty). Regardless, getting out is a good way to stick it to DOJ and watch them mob the floors after Amazon tanks publishing further.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
So what?
Assuming (perhaps I am being kind here) you understand the basics of how the legal system works out here...
So... they need to be seen to be willing to negotiate an appropriate penalty for being found guilty even while they are appealing?
If they don't then they'll be treated as hostile and antagonistic and will get stiffed. And if they they lose their appeal, which seems at the very least plausible if not likely, then they look like morons.
Explain to me where my misunderstanding of the legal system "out there" lays.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
You've made that clear a few times now.
You can stop at "I have no idea."
Congratulations on being an average internet jerk. Do you actually think talking this impresses anyone? Are you 14 years old?
If you think someone doesn't understand then explain to them why they're wrong. Mocking them (or attempting to mock them) makes it seems like you don't have a clue and are just blowing smoke, or you're a internet bully who isn't tough or clever enough to be a bully in the real world. Pick one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley
Congratulations on being an average internet jerk. Do you actually think talking this impresses anyone? Are you 14 years old?
If you think someone doesn't understand then explain to them why they're wrong. Mocking them (or attempting to mock them) makes it seems like you don't have a clue and are just blowing smoke, or you're a internet bully who isn't tough or clever enough to be a bully in the real world. Pick one.
Or maybe he just had better things to do than make up for your lack of education.
How's that for a choice?