Apple will appeal ruling allowing external compliance monitor to continue in e-books case

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 29
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,288member
    hill60 wrote: »
    From your link:-

    "Although trade ebooks were only $100 million or so at that time,.."

    So the entire eBook market was worth $100 million, of that only a certain percentage were "best sellers" and based on the price of those "best sellers" only anything above $9.99 was apparently "ripped off" from consumers.

    Of that Apple made 30%.

    How the f*ck can a civil suit by 33 states seek a cool $Billion in damages?

    I kinda agree Hill, tho I don't recall anything about the states wanting a $Billion in damages. Even if the 33 States were successful in convincing the court trebling of the damages was appropriate it wouldn't reach half that figure according to what I've read. Nevertheless the eBook market was and is growing pretty darn fast which is why Apple wanted in on it,.

    But with that put aside the Tidbits write-up explained things much more clearly for you didn't it? I recall discussions on some of the same points in earlier threads. I thought it was quite well done, with no obvious bias or factual errors. All in all probably the best summation I've read. Thanks for the link Just Me.

    For those that don't read back more than a post or two here it is again.
    http://tidbits.com/article/13912
  • Reply 22 of 29

    Ok so I managed to post this without finishing it thanks to ctrl + enter, please ignore. I'll finish it and re-post shortly.

  • Reply 23 of 29
    Quote:

    I don't think what Apple did was wrong in their negotiated agreements - but whatever - they lost the case and the court ordered a compliance monitor. Fair enough I guess.

    The real injustices are that;





    Here goes a second attempt at replying to this post with inline quotes. I'm very new to this editor so I made stupid mistakes like not realising ctrl + enter will submit my post without warning. It's a shame this can't be a little more intuitive, it seems impossible to delete quote blocks so I have to copy and paste all your text to reply to it instead of interjecting mine. Ah well. My point in replying is that I think you get a few things wrong here and I'd like to start a discussion on them.

     

    Quote:


    1. The judge appointed a friend as the monitor.




    The only evidence I've seen for this is that the Judge may have written him an endorsement 19 years ago. I don't really think that's any evidence of a conflict of interest. In fact a Judge would surely be more likely to appoint someone if they had previously endorsed them for excellent work or skill.

     

    Quote:


    2. The friend is completely unqualified to do the job he was appointed to do




    Bromwich may not be an antitrust expert, but from his biog it seems that he has completed several monitorships at extremely high levels and so seems actually to be well qualified. Apple doesn't seem to have raised much in the way of objections pre-assignment so I'm not sure what option was available here.

     

    Quote:


    3. The friend is investigating things which are completely irrelevant to the issues he was appointed to monitor




    Is he? He has only requested materials related to Apple's antitrust compliance and I've seen absolutely no evidence of him doing anything but investigating this. Apple may claim he has made voluminous requests but his requests have been submitted in evidence and they are perfectly reasonable.

     

    Quote:


    4. The friend is allowed to bill any amount he wants and has chosen to bill an exorbitant amount of money for himself

    5. Due to the friend's vast incompetence, he has had to hire a team of professionals who apparently *do* have experience and competence in this area of law and instead of paying them out of his salary, he is submitting their fees to Apple for additional reimbursement.


      The difference between Apple's proposed rate and Bromwich's proposed rate is $300/hour. This is really not a massive concern for Apple who already retain a massive legal team. Apple has been found guilty and so the costs involved with the judicial decision are not something they can reasonably complain about when it's such a drop in the ocean.

     

    Quote:


    I don't think that Apple is completely against their punishment of having a monitor - but the monitor should:

    1. Be someone who does not have a personal relationship with the judge who is presiding over the case and ordering the monitoring. 




    This seems rather silly. It is the Prosecutor he should not have a relationship with. The Judge is perfectly fine. You would hardly expect her to appoint someone she's never met and doesn't know from Adam for reasons of impartiality.

     

    Quote:


     2. Be someone who has the necessary experience, skillset and competence to do the job they are being appointed to do




    In this case it appears Bromwich does. It's not unusual to hire assistants and when investigating one of the most powerful companies in the western world it seems reasonable enough to me.

     

    Quote:


     3. Be compensated at fair market value for the type of work they are doing and the time it takes them to do that work


      Agreed, but if you read Judge Cote's filing you'll find out that Apple decided to completely ignore the dispute resolution process put in place by her original ruling. They tried to bypass it all and go straight to the Court to settle their matters. This forms part of her reasoning. Apple has a method to dispute these fees already, but refuses to use it.

     

    Quote:


     4. Have a very clear and limited scope for their investigation


      This is the case, and Apple have provided no evidence he's stepped outside this. In fact they've resorted to significant hyperbole, saying that 1 hour meetings with senior staff would irreparably harm Apple and prevent them from manufacturing new and innovative products. The Judge gave that argument basically 0 weight and that seems reasonable to me.

     

    You go on to call this arrangement crooked but I have read as much as possible on both sides and to me it seems like Apple is throwing their toys out of their pram. They didn't get their way and so they have immediately filed the most ridiculous hyperbolic requests they have had to immediately abandon.

     

    For example. If you read only the opinions on this site, you'll believe that Bromwich was allowed to have secret communications with the Judge to make a plan to ruin Apple, wheras in reality


    1. That order was never passed

    2. Apple's lawyers did not understand what ex-parte meant

    3. Apple thoroughly abandoned that line of argument (along with almost all others) as soon as they understood it

     

    I believe your opinions are held in earnest, but the facts underlying them appear to be wrong. Still I don't want to come across as demanding I am right and you are wrong, but I would encourage you to read over the actual filings in the case rather than media reporting as every site seems to be applying their own bias to the story.

  • Reply 24 of 29
    jessijessi Posts: 302member

    This may be a teachable moment for apple.  Maybe Apple will start to realize that the USA is not a place friendly to business, and possibly consider moving more and more of its operations overseas.  I'm sure there's a jurisdiction that's more beneficial to have one's headquarters in than california. 

     

    Thy will always be subject to the rule of US tyrants (cause "rule of law" is a dishonest phrase these days) but they should support them less and less.

     

    Plus, Apple should endow some organization maybe a pac or lobbying organization with $1B to get anti-trust laws overturned. 

  • Reply 25 of 29
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Jessi View Post

     

    This may be a teachable moment for apple.  Maybe Apple will start to realize that the USA is not a place friendly to business, and possibly consider moving more and more of its operations overseas.  I'm sure there's a jurisdiction that's more beneficial to have one's headquarters in than california. 

     

    Thy will always be subject to the rule of US tyrants (cause "rule of law" is a dishonest phrase these days) but they should support them less and less.

     

    Plus, Apple should endow some organization maybe a pac or lobbying organization with $1B to get anti-trust laws overturned. 


     

    Anti-trust laws should certainly not be overturned. Just because a ruling goes against a company you like doesn't mean the laws are bad.

     

    Besides. Apple was literally protected from international rulings by the President of the USA. That's a pretty high up position that's protecting Apple. They've been able to make themselves one of the richest companies in the world so I think saying the USA is bad for business is hyperbole to a pretty large degree.

     

    Just my opinion of course, but how can you say something is bad for business when Apple is doing so amazingly well?

  • Reply 26 of 29
    jessi wrote: »
    This may be a teachable moment for apple.  Maybe Apple will start to realize that the USA is not a place friendly to business, and possibly consider moving more and more of its operations overseas.  I'm sure there's a jurisdiction that's more beneficial to have one's headquarters in than california. 

    Thy will always be subject to the rule of US tyrants (cause "rule of law" is a dishonest phrase these days) but they should support them less and less.

    Plus, Apple should endow some organization maybe a pac or lobbying organization with $1B to get anti-trust laws overturned. 

    Wanted to thumbs up you, but 'I'm over my limit for rating content. Please try again later.'
  • Reply 27 of 29
    tenlytenly Posts: 707member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post

     

    I believe your opinions are held in earnest, but the facts underlying them appear to be wrong. Still I don't want to come across as demanding I am right and you are wrong, but I would encourage you to read over the actual filings in the case rather than media reporting as every site seems to be applying their own bias to the story.


     

    Thank you for your polite reply and for all of the corrections.  You nailed it when you implied that I may not have read any of the actual filings.  I arrived at my conclusions based on what was described (consistently) in several articles and their comment threads.


    But, if I arrived at all of those conclusions, I expect that many others did as well - so I'm glad that you took the time to publicly counter each point that I made and to correct not only my misunderstanding but possibly a broader misunderstanding held by many.


    I still can't shake the feeling that there is something improper going on here, but it no longer seems to be as blatant or clear cut as I had initially thought.
  • Reply 28 of 29

    There certainly could be some improper behaviour going on. I'm British and no US courts expert but I believe people are so willing to believe Apple is innocent and cannot do any wrong they will ignore reality. The fact is that Apple is really pushing the court in a negative manner by ignoring procedure and making outrageous claims. The emails from Apple employees discuss the anger internally and I suspect that is fuelling the Lawyers being put in an impossible position.

  • Reply 29 of 29
    I like the "Knit picking" comment with the jibe about not checking one's post before posting it. I've never heard a version that pertains to knitting.
Sign In or Register to comment.