Judge explains denial of request to remove e-book antitrust monitor in lengthy court filing

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 40
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,926member
    malax wrote: »
    This is the interesting/relevant part of the opinion: "In addition, Apple has access to a dispute resolution mechanism which has and will be in place to ensure that the Monitor does not exceed the bounds of the Injunction."

    I wonder what that mechanism is and why Apple hasn't used it.
    The Mechanism is bribery. :).
  • Reply 22 of 40
    64-page document. My first reaction was that a lie takes considerable time to explain, the truth is usually much more succinct.
  • Reply 23 of 40

    private jets good for the environment??? :\

  • Reply 24 of 40

    Sorry I replied on wrong thread

  • Reply 25 of 40
    Did Microsoft ever have a monitor they paid an exorbitant amount to during their Internet Explorer debacle? I doubt it.
  • Reply 26 of 40
    mac95mac95 Posts: 26member
    ... 'Judge Cote, everything you say can and will be used against you.'
  • Reply 27 of 40
    gtr wrote: »
    She forgot to mention that 'the monitor' is also a personal friend of hers that she has a history of looking after.

    1000

    Wanted to thumbs up you, but 'I'm over my limit for rating content. Please try again later.'
  • Reply 28 of 40
    Has anyone looked to see if they can buy Judge Cote through Amazon?
  • Reply 29 of 40
    mknoppmknopp Posts: 257member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by bloggerblog View Post

     

    Um, I am a member of the "American public" and I don't find this to be in my interest in any way whatsoever.


     

    I am right there with you on this one. It is disgusting that our government acted in a way that strengthened a monopoly by Amazon.

     

    The Salon recently did a very good article on this at http://www.salon.com/2014/01/12/amazons_bogus_anti_apple_crusade/

     

    The most interesting thing in the article was the data presented by the "Library & Book Trade Almanac".

     

    Quote:


    It[sic] 2008, when Amazon had a lock on the market, it reported that the average price of an adult fiction e-book in the U.S. in was $8.71. In 2009, as more people self-published books, the average dropped to $8.21. In 2010, when Apple introduced its agency model for e-books, the price dropped 14 percent to $7.06. And when publishers were up and running against Amazon in 2011, the average price of an e-book sank by an astonishing 32 percent — to $4.83.


     

    So, despite all of the anecdotal accounts of book prices increasing, which I don't doubt that some book prices did increase, the average price of e-books dropped when Apple opened the iBookStore. This is also in stark contrast to the, apparently, cherry picked data presented by the DOJ.

     

    This isn't just against the best interest of the American people, but a travesty of justice. If the DOJ and courts were really interested in helping the American people they would have been looking at Amazon's predatory practices and monopoly of the e-book market.

  • Reply 30 of 40
    revenant wrote: »
    What i wonder is how is this:
    So many people hate Apple. These people typically love Google. Google has tonnes of money and their hands in many pies. How are they not continually in trouble with the u.s. government?

    Google did want to scan every book and make it free, but the US government is such a buzzkill. Something about copyrights and IP and such. Personally, I can't wait to read Pride and Prejudice with ads for dating sites in the margin.
  • Reply 31 of 40
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,742member
    Google did want to scan every book and make it free, but the US government is such a buzzkill. Something about copyrights and IP and such. Personally, I can't wait to read Pride and Prejudice with ads for dating sites in the margin.

    No, the scanning project was not about Google making every book free. :rolleyes: There's probably a reason others repeating the same story never attach any citations to it. If you're really interested "Google limits how much book text you can view online ... it doesn’t display ads on pages describing books it does not have rights to"
    http://www.wired.com/business/2013/11/google-2/
    http://www.ala.org/news/node/9704
    http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/11/18/google-books-lawsuit-dismissed-all-society-benefits-says-judge-chin/
  • Reply 32 of 40
    rob55rob55 Posts: 1,291member

    The events that have transpired (and continue to transpire) over the course of this "e-book scandal" are just mind boggling. I've followed the whole thing fairly closely and the thing that continues to be painfully obvious is that the judge and the handling of the case by the Feds has been anything but fair and impartial. Unbelievable. :no:

  • Reply 33 of 40
    b9botb9bot Posts: 238member
    This judge is a puppet for the DOJ and her buddy is her slave who doesn't even know what he's doing. I don't know how she can be a judge when she does not adhere to what a judge is supposed to be which is impartial or neutral. She convicted Apple way before the trial began and tosses anything Apple puts in front of her including live witnesses with her dribble. Apple easily proved Amazon got in the book business exactly the way Apple was doing. And when Apple entered the book market book prices fell to as low as $4.35 for a book. The only monopoly is this judge, the DOJ and Amazon who must have paid a pretty penny for this charade to keep its monopoly itself which is also interesting. Accusing Apple of a monopoly when Amazon is actually the monopoly holder in this case. Go figure.
    Can't wait for the Appeals court for which I hope they actually have an impartial judge that will look at both sides not just Amazon's and the DOJ.
  • Reply 34 of 40

    I got to say, the frothing at the mouth fanboism on this site never gets old...

    Even more funny, if one realizes that most of the fan"bois" here are middle aged men...

    LOL

    Keep it going Apple-tards!

    Who needs The Onion when one has Apple Insider?

  • Reply 35 of 40
    tzeshantzeshan Posts: 2,351member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Idiot View Post

     

    I got to say, the frothing at the mouth fanboism on this site never gets old...

    Even more funny, if one realizes that most of the fan"bois" here are middle aged men...

    LOL

    Keep it going Apple-tards!

    Who needs The Onion when one has Apple Insider?




    Apple may be guilty of raising eBook prices.  But installing such a monitor is witch hunt.  You know witch hunt is wrong with modern day standards. 

  • Reply 36 of 40
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 6,056member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Idiot View Post

     

    <whine><wanting mommy>


     

    Someone forget to change your diapers?

  • Reply 37 of 40
    gtrgtr Posts: 3,231member
    I got to say, the frothing at the mouth fanboism on this site never gets old...

    You haven't seen fanboism until you've seen someone go to the trouble of actually completing the process of registering an account on a forum with a name that's a pretty silly attempt to ridicule somebody who's obviously on their mind quite a lot.

    Now THAT'S fanboism!

    ;)
  • Reply 38 of 40
    Where is Microsoft's monitor?
  • Reply 39 of 40

    Is this thread still live? Testing.

  • Reply 40 of 40
    philboogiephilboogie Posts: 7,675member
    TS wrote: "Is this thread still live? Testing."

    Looks like it, TS.
Sign In or Register to comment.