Apple moves to suspend 'inquisitorial' antitrust monitoring, DoJ comes to monitor's defense

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 43
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post





    I have to admit to not understanding your post.

     

    Sorry, this should've been in a different thread.

  • Reply 22 of 43
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,680member
    Not wanting to get political for one second but it's a fact Apple as a company, and it's CEOs in particular, have always been firmly in the democratic / liberal mind set if not camp, you know, believing in science, supporting the arts, caring about the planet ... and all that good stuff. This seems to be a really weird situation and I suspect individuals not governments are behind the seemingly anti Apple attitude here.

    Not to get political, there are many conservatives who believe in science, the arts, the planet. They happen to not fit the MSM definition. In addition why should the govt pay for the creation of art?
    Besides money talks and Washington wants its share.
  • Reply 23 of 43
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,989member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DancesWithLysol View Post

     

    Their lawyers probably looked at the evidence and told the respective CEOs "dude, you broke the law - if this goes to trial you're going to get spanked".


     

    So why was this a civil rather than a criminal case?

     

    Apple is innocent of any wrongdoing as will be shown on appeal where the judges will be more impartial.

  • Reply 24 of 43
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post





    Not wanting to get political for one second but it's a fact Apple as a company, and it's CEOs in particular, have always been firmly in the democratic / liberal mind set if not camp, you know, believing in science, supporting the arts, caring about the planet ... and all that good stuff. This seems to be a really weird situation and I suspect individuals not governments are behind the seemingly anti Apple attitude here.

    You really think they care about all that?!  Naive.  They care about any cause they can stand up for that allows them to create more government jobs & further lock in their elite rule over this country.  

     

    Also, they don't give handouts because they care, they give them because it buys votes.  People rarely vote away their government handouts.  Even when they disagree with someone politically the will to survive is stronger than conscience & so they vote to keep the government assistance they've come to depend on.

  • Reply 25 of 43
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,989member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hezetation View Post

     

    You really think they care about all that?!  Naive.  They care about any cause they can stand up for that allows them to create more government jobs & further lock in their elite rule over this country.  

     

    Also, they don't give handouts because they care, they give them because it buys votes.  People rarely vote away their government handouts.  Even when they disagree with someone politically the will to survive is stronger than conscience & so they vote to keep the government assistance they've come to depend on.


     

    I live in a country, Australia, where I don’t mind if the tax I pay looks after me when I get sick, rather than bailing out bankers who are leeches on society.

     

    American’s should hang their heads in shame that they allow people who can’t afford healthcare to die on the streets like it’s some third world country.

  • Reply 26 of 43
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 4,527member

    Boy this discussion went south fast, how did this turned into a US Heath Care issue (by the way, no where does it say in the US Constitution that it is the responsibility of the government to take care of you). To the person who talked about taxes, I too pay them and lots of them and I do not mind in the least bit as long as it goes to things which benefit everyone such as roads, infrastructure and the such, but not to paying someone's else bills, which do not benefit me or you.

     

    However, back to the subject, and again some people are missing the point. Apple is not above any company and I do think they ever said that, like some other companies implied. The issue is the fact this guy has taken upon himself to investigate everything and ever agreement they have every done looking for some sort of wrong doing. In the US no investigator can go on a fishing trip, they have to know of the wrong doing and specifically say what they are looking for, this guy appears to be asking question and not allowing the people to have legal council involved so they are giving up their right not to incriminate. Apple's point is correct, the judicial branch of the government does not have the authority to investigate neither doe the DOJ, only the police have the authority in this country to open an investigation. This is done to avoid a conflict of interest. Honest I think school need to do a better job of civic so people understand how things work in the country. 

     

    I like the DOJ reason for tossing The claim, "Apple has not provide any argument on how they would be successful," really because he thinks they have not presented a winnable argument that is the reason to drop their claim. I wonder if the DOJ ever thought Apple's lawyers maybe smarter than him and know the law better than him and it is not like the DOJ have not lost meritless cases themselves. Plus a good defense lawyer would not tell the DOJ how they plan to win a case.

  • Reply 27 of 43
    tzeshantzeshan Posts: 1,945member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by DancesWithLysol View Post

     

    Yes, it's completely inappropriate for DOJ to go after Apple.  Going after big companies like Microsoft is fine, but not Apple!

    </sarcasm>

     

    While Apple is a great innovator, I do think the evidence points to Apple colluding with the book publishers to raise ebook prices.  So, unless you disagree with anti-trust laws in general I think you should agree that Apple deserved at least a slap on the wrist.  In principle I think the prices of ebooks should be much less expensive than what they actually are today.  At the post-Apple collusion rates the ebooks were within spitting distance to buying the same book in dead-tree format at Amazon or Wal-Mart.  I think prices should be able to be much lower because distribution of bytes is almost free compared to paper.

     

    You may think that it's a publisher's right to charge whatever they want for their products, and it is.  It's just not their right for them to collude together and agree on a artificially set price, which is what obviously happened.  If the publishers felt they were right and price collusion never happened, I doubt they would have settled with the DOJ right from the start.  Their lawyers probably looked at the evidence and told the respective CEOs "dude, you broke the law - if this goes to trial you're going to get spanked".




    Can you explain this to me?  Book prices varied from one to the other.  How do Apple and publishers collude together and agree on a artificially set price?  Do you or DOJ mean every book on iBook store is sold at one price? 

  • Reply 28 of 43
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jungmark View Post



    why should the govt pay for the creation of art?

     

    they pay too much for killing of innocents....

     

    I'd much rather see it spent on the arts. it's my tax money...

  • Reply 29 of 43
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by DancesWithLysol View Post

     

    Yes, it's completely inappropriate for DOJ to go after Apple.  Going after big companies like Microsoft is fine, but not Apple!

    </sarcasm>

     

     


     

    As a person from a Native background I find your username highly offensive. You're a fucking racist POS.

     

    Probably going to get a ban for it, but at this point I don't care.

  • Reply 30 of 43
    MacProMacPro Posts: 18,166member
    hezetation wrote: »
    You really think they care about all that?!  Naive.  They care about any cause they can stand up for that allows them to create more government jobs & further lock in their elite rule over this country.  

    Also, they don't give handouts because they care, they give them because it buys votes.  People rarely vote away their government handouts.  Even when they disagree with someone politically the will to survive is stronger than conscience & so they vote to keep the government assistance they've come to depend on.

    I was talking about Apple, what on earth are you talking about?
  • Reply 31 of 43
    MacProMacPro Posts: 18,166member
    hill60 wrote: »
    I live in a country, Australia, where I don’t mind if the tax I pay looks after me when I get sick, rather than bailing out bankers who are leeches on society.
    <p style="min-height:14px;"> </p>

    American’s should hang their heads in shame that they allow people who can’t afford healthcare to die on the streets like it’s some third world country.

    We no longer do after 2014. America joined the first world. :)
  • Reply 32 of 43
    adamcadamc Posts: 569member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DancesWithLysol View Post

     

    Yes, it's completely inappropriate for DOJ to go after Apple.  Going after big companies like Microsoft is fine, but not Apple!

    </sarcasm>

     

    While Apple is a great innovator, I do think the evidence points to Apple colluding with the book publishers to raise ebook prices.  So, unless you disagree with anti-trust laws in general I think you should agree that Apple deserved at least a slap on the wrist.  In principle I think the prices of ebooks should be much less expensive than what they actually are today.  At the post-Apple collusion rates the ebooks were within spitting distance to buying the same book in dead-tree format at Amazon or Wal-Mart.  I think prices should be able to be much lower because distribution of bytes is almost free compared to paper.

     

    You may think that it's a publisher's right to charge whatever they want for their products, and it is.  It's just not their right for them to collude together and agree on a artificially set price, which is what obviously happened.  If the publishers felt they were right and price collusion never happened, I doubt they would have settled with the DOJ right from the start.  Their lawyers probably looked at the evidence and told the respective CEOs "dude, you broke the law - if this goes to trial you're going to get spanked".


     

    If you have a shop can you not charge what you want to charge your customer.

     

    Is a loss leader price the true price of a good?

  • Reply 33 of 43
    rgh71rgh71 Posts: 108member
    gtr wrote: »
    Fixed that for you.

    You were trying to make a stupid statement, right?

    I think he had a valid point J-odf
  • Reply 34 of 43
    rgh71rgh71 Posts: 108member
    hill60 wrote: »
    I live in a country, Australia, where I don’t mind if the tax I pay looks after me when I get sick, rather than bailing out bankers who are leeches on society.
    <p style="min-height:14px;"> </p>

    American’s should hang their heads in shame that they allow people who can’t afford healthcare to die on the streets like it’s some third world country.

    We are 3rd world these days! Embarrassing
  • Reply 35 of 43
    rgh71rgh71 Posts: 108member
    maestro64 wrote: »
    Boy this discussion went south fast, how did this turned into a US Heath Care issue (by the way, no where does it say in the US Constitution that it is the responsibility of the government to take care of you). To the person who talked about taxes, I too pay them and lots of them and I do not mind in the least bit as long as it goes to things which benefit everyone such as roads, infrastructure and the such, but not to paying someone's else bills, which do not benefit me or you.

    However, back to the subject, and again some people are missing the point. Apple is not above any company and I do think they ever said that, like some other companies implied. The issue is the fact this guy has taken upon himself to investigate everything and ever agreement they have every done looking for some sort of wrong doing. In the US no investigator can go on a fishing trip, they have to know of the wrong doing and specifically say what they are looking for, this guy appears to be asking question and not allowing the people to have legal council involved so they are giving up their right not to incriminate. Apple's point is correct, the judicial branch of the government does not have the authority to investigate neither doe the DOJ, only the police have the authority in this country to open an investigation. This is done to avoid a conflict of interest. Honest I think school need to do a better job of civic so people understand how things work in the country. 

    I like the DOJ reason for tossing The claim, "Apple has not provide any argument on how they would be successful," really because he thinks they have not presented a winnable argument that is the reason to drop their claim. I wonder if the DOJ ever thought Apple's lawyers maybe smarter than him and know the law better than him and it is not like the DOJ have not lost meritless cases themselves. Plus a good defense lawyer would not tell the DOJ how they plan to win a case.

    You're taking it further south. Stay away from the Big C because without subsidized help I doubt you'll afford the treatment
  • Reply 36 of 43
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by rgh71 View Post



    I think he had a valid point J-odf

    What is this -- Stupid Day?

  • Reply 37 of 43
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,680member
    vaporland wrote: »
    they pay too much for killing of innocents....

    I'd much rather see it spent on the arts. it's my tax money...
    It's also mine too. I rather they don't spend it all.
  • Reply 38 of 43
    jony0jony0 Posts: 269member
    Meanwhile, taking it back north to the original DOJ inquisition article, here's the likely thread up the chain of command :
    Bromwich to Cote : [I]What do we do now ?[/I]
    Cote to DOJ : [I]What do you want us to do now ?[/I]
    DOJ to Bezos : [I]How must we proceed now, master ?[/I]
  • Reply 39 of 43
    I wonder if, once Cote says no, they will be able to take it to the Supreme Court. Since they are saying its unconstitutional. I rather hope so.

    There is zero reason for him to be talking to folks outside of the group that does the negotiations. And zero reason Apple should have to pay for anyone other than him. Plus the whole denying folks a lawyer. Not cool
  • Reply 40 of 43
    charlituna wrote: »
    I wonder if, once Cote says no, they will be able to take it to the Supreme Court. Since they are saying its unconstitutional. I rather hope so.


    There is zero reason for him to be talking to folks outside of the group that does the negotiations. And zero reason Apple should have to pay for anyone other than him. Plus the whole denying folks a lawyer. Not cool

    Tim should bring it up as he enjoys tea with the prez and...Eric Schmidt. Gee, the White House is really clueless inviting both of them at the same time.
Sign In or Register to comment.