Yes it's called 'asking for evidence'. The only evidence anyone has presented to me is that she endorsed him 19 years ago.
Now, I'm sorry if I am a distant friend, but I can't think of anyone I would consider a good friend that I endorsed nearly 2 decades ago and did nothing else since.
He has the skills and experience as a monitor, that doesn't mean he's an antitrust lawyer. Should Apple only have a single legal representative as they should be able to deal with the whole trial themselves? I fail to see how a team is somehow this incredibly objectionable thing.
They worked together for years at the US Attornies Office (do your own Internet search). They are friends. You don't see Bromwhich or the Judge refuting that when major US papers like the WallStreet Journal report it. They could claim defamation if not true.
Sure, he has experience as a monitor, but no experience with anti-trust. If you had a problem concerning anti-trust, wouldn't you go see an anti-trust lawyer? Being a monitor is easy. One reads Apple's anti-trust policies and contracts and determines if they violate anti-trust law. The Judge appointing her long term friend, somebody who has no anti-trust experience, when there are plenty of lawyer who do have such experience available to take the job, is questionable.
Aren't you the guy from the UK who defended Cote so vociferously last year?
First, having a lawyer is fine. No problem there. When a written testimony is provided to the prosecution with your signature, I would expect the written testimony to have at least been read just for a bit of self-ass covering. The DOJ placed the written testimony as evidence against Apple. When Apple's lawyers questioned the witness about the written testimony, the witness said written testimony had been written by company lawyers. The witness could not testify to the content of the written document containing the witness' signature! So, why was the Google employee there for the DOJ against Apple? To represent Google's interests through lawyers.
I love Steve Jobs but I don't have to be thrilled that he told content holders to use an agency model, which means don't sell your stuff for less anywhere. I remember searching online, why are ebook prices so high, and seeing many other people asked the same thing in forums and question answer sites. Unfortunately, this probably has a lot to do with it.
You're confusing the agency model with the 'most favored nation' clause.
I love Steve Jobsbut I don't have to be thrilled that he told content holders to use an agency model, which means don't sell your stuff for less anywhere. I remember searching online, why are ebook prices so high, and seeing many other people asked the same thing in forums and question answer sites. Unfortunately, this probably has a lot to do with it.
Jobs didn't force publishers to go to an agency model. Apple had no power and could not force the publishers to do anything. The publishers hate Amazon, and they were already talking to Barnes and Noble about going to an agency model. Apple was willing to go along with the agency model. Apple, however, didn't want to be undercut in price on new releases, so it insisted on a most favored nations clause for new releases. That simply meant that publishers could not set the retail price lower at stores others then Apple. So, if a book was offered to Amazon's customers at $9.99, it had to be offered to Apple's customers at $9.99. Companies like Amazon could get around the most favored nations clause by buy purchasing the exclusive rights for a works, which was often the case.
The publishers hate Amazon because Amazon uses its monopoly powers to force them to release e-books at the same time as traditional books, undercutting their tiered publishing model. Amazon then under cuts the price on the traditional books often selling the books at or below cost, which in turn undercuts sells of traditional books. That is anti-competitive because Amazon is forcing competitors to allow it to dominate one market (ebooks) by threatening publishers to use its power in another market (traditional online book sales).
The reality is consumers had more choices with the agency model and on a whole it brought e-book prices down.
do understand that, from a strict (and narrow) point of view, a model that lower the price for consumers may be seen positive. However, is it the role of justice to decide what is better: a model that "protects" consumers or a model that "protects" the companies (editors) that produce the goods (books)?
The law does not seek to protect producers or consumers directly. Instead, it seeks to protect free markets. It is thought that such a strategy will protect both businesses and customers.
And pricing levels have no direct bearing on decisions. It is assumed that in a competative market, market prices will prevail.
Oh. My god. Enough. You lost. Get over it. You can't control everything, Tim.
I almost have to agree, but the brief points out an interesting piece of information. We all know that Amazon and its Kindle did in fact control the large share of ebook market. That was fact at the time. what Apple is saying is the judges decision set a precedent which tells other company if a player has a dominate low price position in the market do not attempt to enter the market since you will be hit with an antitrust case for attempting to upset the status quote. I said this before books are not a commodity, thus books from different authors and plublisher are not inter changeable, like gas, milk, grain, memory parts and the list goes on.
Also, we know Amazon sold books below cost, that is also illegal, it is call predatory pricing practices, but the government chose to turn a blind eye to this. Since Amazon in fact does pricing this way, there was nothing in the apple agreement to bar Amazon from doing this going forward. The issue was the bookseller were attempting to get Amazon off the wholesale model which would bar them for their loss leader pricing model. But if Amaizon refuse to change and it was their right, they could continue to buy under the wholesale model and keep selling books at a loss.
If you think this through, and the DOJ did not go after apple and the bookseller, and Amazon continue to sell books at a loss, then Apple and other company could have gone after Amazon for predatory pricing practice, If you were Amazon what would you do, file a complain with the DOJ now so not to have to fight your own case later. It is just a theory but it kind of fits.
The bullies at the DOJ made a giant blunder when they took on Apple. They hoped for a quick settlement, with happy little book purchasers, all properly bought off, pulling the lever for Obama in 2012. The big publishers folded quickly. Even they can't afford to take on the feds. But Apple, with pockets $160 billion deep, can fight them until doomsday and shows every indication of doing just that.
Now what's the DOJ to do? Their lawyers, in proper Chicago-machine style, would love join the IRS and use any pretext, however shallow, to go after anyone or any business showing even the slightest inclination to resist the will of Obama.
That's particularly true of the imposition of Obamacare mandates. They're already proposed rule changes that let them go after small business, forcing those businesses to spend huge sums in legal fees if, while displaying good business sense, they take Obamacare in account when they make hiring and expansion decisions.
So, whatever we feel about the merits of this particular case, it's good to see Apple fighting on, making demands on a DOJ that might otherwise playing havoc with our democracy.
The good news is that liberals are waking up and concluding that 2016 isn't that far off. If the Democrats can get away this when they're on power, then so can the Republicans. Turn about, as any kid will tell you, is fair play.
So fight on Apple. There's more involved here than just a fuss over the price of ebooks.
For the first time ever in this nation's history, the United States Department of Justice sued to restore a monopoly position that was torn down by a new entrant. This is a dangerous precedent which I lay squarely on the feet of Eric Holder who seemed to be too stupid to realize that he was turning the DoJ into the private law firm of a predatory monopolist. A more enlightened DoJ would have used prosecutorial discretion and looked beyond the narrow view of prices, focusing more on long term competition in the eBooks industry.
1. The pre-trial opinion was solicited, not spontaneous. If a Judge is not allowed to have an opinion before a case then you will find no judge suitable
2. Please provide evidence that Bromwich was a 'well known friend' and why this would be a bad thing for the Judge to appoint someone she knows is talented.
1. You serious? A judge cannot have bias prior to hearing the evidence. A judge can have an opinion after hearing all the evidence. that is called a verdict.
2. Answered by others.
Good for Apple. Independent on my feelings about Apple, I believe that this was a gross misuse of government and that justice was not served, and even perverted. I think others here have made the case that just because e-book prices became higher, does not mean that there was some monopolistic action occurring or that customers were harmed in any way.
I believe that to say Apple colluded to raise prices is false. Apple merely brought their agency model to the publishing industry and the publishers had the chance to get out from under the thumb of the Amazon monopoly, a monopoly which has been and continues to diminish the value of content in order to sell hardware and further extend their monopoly.
What the DOJ has failed to realize is that monopolies can (and do) exist who lower prices to the detriment of the consumer. Take a look at Walmart. While they promise and deliver "low prices everyday", they do so at the detriment of whole small town economies and the national economy as well. People in these communities have become slaves to a mega-corporation that acts with impugnity. They are a total monopoly but are not charged with this just because they promise low prices and hometown values.
This judge walked into this case with prejudice that Apple was already guilty which should alone make it a mistrial. Let's call a spade a spade... Apple doesn't want to pay more tax than they require, the government is out of money and THEY are colluding with the establishment of justice to wring cash out of a corporation for their own benefit. That my friends, is corruption at the highest level.
Good for Apple. Independent on my feelings about Apple, I believe that this was a gross misuse of government and that justice was not served, and even perverted. I think others here have made the case that just because e-book prices became higher, does not mean that there was some monopolistic action occurring or that customers were harmed in any way.
I believe that to say Apple colluded to raise prices is false. Apple merely brought their agency model to the publishing industry and the publishers had the chance to get out from under the thumb of the Amazon monopoly, a monopoly which has been and continues to diminish the value of content in order to sell hardware and further extend their monopoly.
What the DOJ has failed to realize is that monopolies can (and do) exist who lower prices to the detriment of the consumer. Take a look at Walmart. While they promise and deliver "low prices everyday", they do so at the detriment of whole small town economies and the national economy as well. People in these communities have become slaves to a mega-corporation that acts with impugnity. They are a total monopoly but are not charged with this just because they promise low prices and hometown values.
This judge walked into this case with prejudice that Apple was already guilty which should alone make it a mistrial. Let's call a spade a spade... Apple doesn't want to pay more tax than they require, the government is out of money and THEY are colluding with the establishment of justice to wring cash out of a corporation for their own benefit. That my friends, is corruption at the highest level.
Regulations and narrowly applied laws are what create monopolies, not a free market.
Comments
Yes it's called 'asking for evidence'. The only evidence anyone has presented to me is that she endorsed him 19 years ago.
Now, I'm sorry if I am a distant friend, but I can't think of anyone I would consider a good friend that I endorsed nearly 2 decades ago and did nothing else since.
He has the skills and experience as a monitor, that doesn't mean he's an antitrust lawyer. Should Apple only have a single legal representative as they should be able to deal with the whole trial themselves? I fail to see how a team is somehow this incredibly objectionable thing.
They worked together for years at the US Attornies Office (do your own Internet search). They are friends. You don't see Bromwhich or the Judge refuting that when major US papers like the WallStreet Journal report it. They could claim defamation if not true.
Sure, he has experience as a monitor, but no experience with anti-trust. If you had a problem concerning anti-trust, wouldn't you go see an anti-trust lawyer? Being a monitor is easy. One reads Apple's anti-trust policies and contracts and determines if they violate anti-trust law. The Judge appointing her long term friend, somebody who has no anti-trust experience, when there are plenty of lawyer who do have such experience available to take the job, is questionable.
Aren't you the guy from the UK who defended Cote so vociferously last year?
First, having a lawyer is fine. No problem there. When a written testimony is provided to the prosecution with your signature, I would expect the written testimony to have at least been read just for a bit of self-ass covering. The DOJ placed the written testimony as evidence against Apple. When Apple's lawyers questioned the witness about the written testimony, the witness said written testimony had been written by company lawyers. The witness could not testify to the content of the written document containing the witness' signature! So, why was the Google employee there for the DOJ against Apple? To represent Google's interests through lawyers.
That was really shady.
You're confusing the agency model with the 'most favored nation' clause.
I love Steve Jobs but I don't have to be thrilled that he told content holders to use an agency model, which means don't sell your stuff for less anywhere. I remember searching online, why are ebook prices so high, and seeing many other people asked the same thing in forums and question answer sites. Unfortunately, this probably has a lot to do with it.
Jobs didn't force publishers to go to an agency model. Apple had no power and could not force the publishers to do anything. The publishers hate Amazon, and they were already talking to Barnes and Noble about going to an agency model. Apple was willing to go along with the agency model. Apple, however, didn't want to be undercut in price on new releases, so it insisted on a most favored nations clause for new releases. That simply meant that publishers could not set the retail price lower at stores others then Apple. So, if a book was offered to Amazon's customers at $9.99, it had to be offered to Apple's customers at $9.99. Companies like Amazon could get around the most favored nations clause by buy purchasing the exclusive rights for a works, which was often the case.
The publishers hate Amazon because Amazon uses its monopoly powers to force them to release e-books at the same time as traditional books, undercutting their tiered publishing model. Amazon then under cuts the price on the traditional books often selling the books at or below cost, which in turn undercuts sells of traditional books. That is anti-competitive because Amazon is forcing competitors to allow it to dominate one market (ebooks) by threatening publishers to use its power in another market (traditional online book sales).
The reality is consumers had more choices with the agency model and on a whole it brought e-book prices down.
Can you point to such an Apple witness who behaved in this manner?
That's for the higher courts to decide.
The law does not seek to protect producers or consumers directly. Instead, it seeks to protect free markets. It is thought that such a strategy will protect both businesses and customers.
And pricing levels have no direct bearing on decisions. It is assumed that in a competative market, market prices will prevail.
Oh. My god. Enough. You lost. Get over it. You can't control everything, Tim.
I almost have to agree, but the brief points out an interesting piece of information. We all know that Amazon and its Kindle did in fact control the large share of ebook market. That was fact at the time. what Apple is saying is the judges decision set a precedent which tells other company if a player has a dominate low price position in the market do not attempt to enter the market since you will be hit with an antitrust case for attempting to upset the status quote. I said this before books are not a commodity, thus books from different authors and plublisher are not inter changeable, like gas, milk, grain, memory parts and the list goes on.
Also, we know Amazon sold books below cost, that is also illegal, it is call predatory pricing practices, but the government chose to turn a blind eye to this. Since Amazon in fact does pricing this way, there was nothing in the apple agreement to bar Amazon from doing this going forward. The issue was the bookseller were attempting to get Amazon off the wholesale model which would bar them for their loss leader pricing model. But if Amaizon refuse to change and it was their right, they could continue to buy under the wholesale model and keep selling books at a loss.
If you think this through, and the DOJ did not go after apple and the bookseller, and Amazon continue to sell books at a loss, then Apple and other company could have gone after Amazon for predatory pricing practice, If you were Amazon what would you do, file a complain with the DOJ now so not to have to fight your own case later. It is just a theory but it kind of fits.
Now what's the DOJ to do? Their lawyers, in proper Chicago-machine style, would love join the IRS and use any pretext, however shallow, to go after anyone or any business showing even the slightest inclination to resist the will of Obama.
That's particularly true of the imposition of Obamacare mandates. They're already proposed rule changes that let them go after small business, forcing those businesses to spend huge sums in legal fees if, while displaying good business sense, they take Obamacare in account when they make hiring and expansion decisions.
So, whatever we feel about the merits of this particular case, it's good to see Apple fighting on, making demands on a DOJ that might otherwise playing havoc with our democracy.
The good news is that liberals are waking up and concluding that 2016 isn't that far off. If the Democrats can get away this when they're on power, then so can the Republicans. Turn about, as any kid will tell you, is fair play.
So fight on Apple. There's more involved here than just a fuss over the price of ebooks.
Can you point to such an Apple witness who behaved in this manner?
Don't hold your breath.
The bottom line on this case is this:
For the first time ever in this nation's history, the United States Department of Justice sued to restore a monopoly position that was torn down by a new entrant. This is a dangerous precedent which I lay squarely on the feet of Eric Holder who seemed to be too stupid to realize that he was turning the DoJ into the private law firm of a predatory monopolist. A more enlightened DoJ would have used prosecutorial discretion and looked beyond the narrow view of prices, focusing more on long term competition in the eBooks industry.
1. You serious? A judge cannot have bias prior to hearing the evidence. A judge can have an opinion after hearing all the evidence. that is called a verdict.
2. Answered by others.
Is it April 1 today?
Don't hold your breath.
I was not planning on doing that but thanks!
Good for Apple. Independent on my feelings about Apple, I believe that this was a gross misuse of government and that justice was not served, and even perverted. I think others here have made the case that just because e-book prices became higher, does not mean that there was some monopolistic action occurring or that customers were harmed in any way.
I believe that to say Apple colluded to raise prices is false. Apple merely brought their agency model to the publishing industry and the publishers had the chance to get out from under the thumb of the Amazon monopoly, a monopoly which has been and continues to diminish the value of content in order to sell hardware and further extend their monopoly.
What the DOJ has failed to realize is that monopolies can (and do) exist who lower prices to the detriment of the consumer. Take a look at Walmart. While they promise and deliver "low prices everyday", they do so at the detriment of whole small town economies and the national economy as well. People in these communities have become slaves to a mega-corporation that acts with impugnity. They are a total monopoly but are not charged with this just because they promise low prices and hometown values.
This judge walked into this case with prejudice that Apple was already guilty which should alone make it a mistrial. Let's call a spade a spade... Apple doesn't want to pay more tax than they require, the government is out of money and THEY are colluding with the establishment of justice to wring cash out of a corporation for their own benefit. That my friends, is corruption at the highest level.
Emails that were written are evidence.
Uh…
Sure they are…
What does that imply; that the appeal is ununappealableble?
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
“Appeal with prejudice” should either allow you to take it STRAIGHT to the Supreme Court or change who the defendant is. In this case, Amazon.
Regulations and narrowly applied laws are what create monopolies, not a free market.
FWIW, I have boycotted AMAZON and not missing anything ....