Apple's bid to suspend ruling in e-books price fixing case denied by Judge [u]
A New York district court judge on Friday denied Apple's request to suspend a ruling that found the company guilty of e-book price fixing while it seeks an appeal.
Apple's closing slide in its e-book antitrust case. | Source: U.S. District Court
Presiding Judge Denise Cote refused Apple's request to temporarily stay her decision, which would have given the company time to seek an appeal of the penalties laid out by the U.S. Department of Justice, according to in-court reports from The Associated Press.
In July, Judge Cote found Apple guilty of colluding with HarperCollins, Hachette, Simon & Schuster, Penguin Group and Macmillan to fix the price of e-books sold through the iBookstore. The antitrust suit was leveled by the Justice Department, which focused on the company's "agency model" agreements that allow publishers to set their own e-book prices under most favored nations clauses.
Following the ruling, the DOJ submitted a proposed settlement, which would see Apple terminate existing contracts with the five publishing houses, as well as bar any further agency model deals for five years. In addition, the Justice Department wants to bar Apple from entering similar agency arrangements with providers of "music, movies, television shows or other content that are likely to increase the prices at which Apple's competitors may sell that content." This is seen by some as overreaching, as it would extend the proposal's scope beyond the iBookstore and into the iTunes Store.
In a court filing on Wednesday, the publishers, all of which settled before the trial started, challenged the DOJ's suggestion to discontinue existing agreements. They argued that such a clause would punish them more than it does Apple. The comments led the DOJ to issue a court filing on Friday, again accusing Apple of banding together with the cadre of book publishers.
Apple has called the proposal a "draconian and punitive intrusion" on its iBookstore and promised to appeal Judge Cote's ruling. That appeal could be in jeopardy with Friday's denial.
Update: Concluding Friday's hearing, Judge Cote proposed a new settlement plan that would stagger Apple's deals with the five book publishers to stymie another price fixing arrangement. According to The New York Times, the proposal is a less intensive version of the DOJ's sought guidelines.
The parties will meet to discuss Judge Cote's proposal in the coming weeks, while a another court hearing is expected to come later this month.
Apple's closing slide in its e-book antitrust case. | Source: U.S. District Court
Presiding Judge Denise Cote refused Apple's request to temporarily stay her decision, which would have given the company time to seek an appeal of the penalties laid out by the U.S. Department of Justice, according to in-court reports from The Associated Press.
In July, Judge Cote found Apple guilty of colluding with HarperCollins, Hachette, Simon & Schuster, Penguin Group and Macmillan to fix the price of e-books sold through the iBookstore. The antitrust suit was leveled by the Justice Department, which focused on the company's "agency model" agreements that allow publishers to set their own e-book prices under most favored nations clauses.
Following the ruling, the DOJ submitted a proposed settlement, which would see Apple terminate existing contracts with the five publishing houses, as well as bar any further agency model deals for five years. In addition, the Justice Department wants to bar Apple from entering similar agency arrangements with providers of "music, movies, television shows or other content that are likely to increase the prices at which Apple's competitors may sell that content." This is seen by some as overreaching, as it would extend the proposal's scope beyond the iBookstore and into the iTunes Store.
In a court filing on Wednesday, the publishers, all of which settled before the trial started, challenged the DOJ's suggestion to discontinue existing agreements. They argued that such a clause would punish them more than it does Apple. The comments led the DOJ to issue a court filing on Friday, again accusing Apple of banding together with the cadre of book publishers.
Apple has called the proposal a "draconian and punitive intrusion" on its iBookstore and promised to appeal Judge Cote's ruling. That appeal could be in jeopardy with Friday's denial.
Update: Concluding Friday's hearing, Judge Cote proposed a new settlement plan that would stagger Apple's deals with the five book publishers to stymie another price fixing arrangement. According to The New York Times, the proposal is a less intensive version of the DOJ's sought guidelines.
The parties will meet to discuss Judge Cote's proposal in the coming weeks, while a another court hearing is expected to come later this month.
Comments
No problem. This will simply allow Apple to submit an emergency request to the Appeals court to overturn the decision sooner.
This judge is in way over her head. Not only did she prejudge the case, but Apple's request is pretty standard and should have been granted. The issues here are so complex that expecting them to implement the changes immediately even without a decision from the appeals court is ridiculous.
Judges seem to be over their heads more and more these days where technology is concerned. Perhaps their education, and especially their continuing education, need a serious reevaluation.
That's an excellent point. If a judge is going to preside over a tech-based case, they should be up to speed on the major nuances. Continuing education should be mandatory for the people who have so much power over the judicial fate of companies.
While that's clearly the case in many patent trials, I don't think it's the issue here. This judge publicly announced that she thought the DOJ won before the case even started. That has nothing to do with technical issues. Then, she made an absolutely absurd decision with unreasonable demands - and that again has nothing to do with technology. She's just incompetent at the judge part, not the technology part.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
A New York district court judge on Friday denied Apple's request to suspend a ruling that found the company guilty of e-book price fixing while it seeks an appeal.
No problem. This will simply allow Apple to submit an emergency request to the Appeals court to overturn the decision sooner.
This judge is in way over her head. Not only did she prejudge the case, but Apple's request is pretty standard and should have been granted. The issues here are so complex that expecting them to implement the changes immediately even without a decision from the appeals court is ridiculous.
It's more than ridiculous. It's frivolous.
It'll be interesting to see how long she lasts, and what she does next.
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/stop-doj-and-save-consumer-choice-ebooks/GF68xsB7
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
While that's clearly the case in many patent trials, I don't think it's the issue here. This judge publicly announced that she thought the DOJ won before the case even started. That has nothing to do with technical issues. Then, she made an absolutely absurd decision with unreasonable demands - and that again has nothing to do with technology. She's just incompetent at the judge part, not the technology part.
She also dismissed offhand every argument Apple or witnesses supporting Apple's case made throughout the trial.
They may as well not even have showed up as far as this moronic judge with an agenda is concerned.
Wha…?
Does it not strike anyone as kind of ridiculous that the same judge who issued the ruling also gets to decide whether or not it should be suspended? Of course she won't suspend it. She agrees with the ruling full stop.
Apple is appealing. Isn't it rather standard to delay a ruling until appeals are settled? What's the point of continuing if it is possible to be overturned later? Wasteful use of taxpayer dollars IMO...
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
No problem. This will simply allow Apple to submit an emergency request to the Appeals court to overturn the decision sooner.
This judge is in way over her head. Not only did she prejudge the case, but Apple's request is pretty standard and should have been granted. The issues here are so complex that expecting them to implement the changes immediately even without a decision from the appeals court is ridiculous.
My sentiments exactly…
I just wanted to say, you are becoming one of my "go to" posters here. I wanted to thank you for your consistently level headed, clear and knowledgeable posts. It's great to have your insights to chew on. I learn a great deal (or have a great deal reinforced) by them. So thank you!
Carry on! :thumbsup:
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips
Judges seem to be over their heads more and more these days where technology is concerned. Perhaps their education, and especially their continuing education, need a serious reevaluation.
That and our laws regarding these new paradigms. Unfortunately, we're more dependent on Congress than judges to initiate those and.. holy crap, you do see what we're dependent on, right? If you think judges are behind the curve. I present to you the likes of… John McCain and the rest of Congress!
People scoff at Al Gore's role in the Senate with regard to the Internet, but at least he had a clue and some vision. We desperately need more people like that involved in crafting new legislation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MistyChandra
I think we should support this petition on We the People to get it more into the public's eye. I imagine if this could get to 100,000 signatures it would force the president to consider what departments need a closer inspection.
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/stop-doj-and-save-consumer-choice-ebooks/GF68xsB7
done!
Quote:
Originally Posted by MistyChandra
They are continuing it in the hopes Apple will back off and pay up. We don't know for sure what the appeals court would do, but I hope my country's justice system will look at all the facts in the case, not just the ones they want to believe in. I found the evidence that Barnes and Noble was pursuing the exact same deals before Apple got the ebook idea to be very indicative of an industry wide shift away from Amazon's practices to a newer, more robust version in the agency model.
It really does feel like the publishing industry was "conferencing" to try and find alternate models to the "Amazon Lowball Conundrum", and who could blame them?
I see no crime in gathering together and forging a new approach to sales amidst the arrival of the new digital media paradigm. Unlike the Music industry and the News/Magazine industries who waited too long, the book publishers saw the writing on the wall and were clearly looking for ways to make ebooks continue as a profitable model, and be more the 'masters of their own fates'.
Apple introduced that possibility with their Agency Model proposals.
Again, it sure feels like the DOJ is saying that "getting together and creating a new collaborative market approach IS by its nature CONSPIRACY." Of course that makes almost every industry trade group and multi-company deal that ends up affecting market prices a "conspiracy" too, right?
It's a fine and treacherous line the DOJ and this judge are treading on.
I don't know it about it getting the whole thing overturned quicker but hopefully you are correct that it would get them an answer about whether they will be granted an appeal hearing quicker. One would think if a higher court agreed to hear the appeal they would then agree to stay any decisions of penalty etc made by the lower court rather quick
And yes it does seem like she's just giving Apple more fuel to claim she prejudged etc
That's exactly what it means. If the DOJ just forced the dissolution of the contracts then Amazon etc can't sell the items until new contracts are signed. And the publishers can just refuse to do so unless they get pricing control, agency or wholesale payment model used.