Apple officially appeals e-books antitrust ruling, asks for dismissal or retrial

135

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 98
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post

     
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by leavingthebigG View Post





    Adding to your list...

    3) Not allowing a competitor witness to sit on the witness stand for the prosecution to state his company lawyers wrote the response for him then using the response as credible evidence.

    4) Reading multiple emails containing a man's working thought processes concerning possible paths to take then choosing to condemn him for having the thoughts even he chose not to take those paths.

     

    Why should either of these happen? Emails that were written are evidence. Witnesses are allowed to take legal advice too you know.


     

    It was an unsent draft. The version he ended up sending was lawful. There is an enormous difference. 

  • Reply 42 of 98
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by daveinpublic View Post

     
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Russell View Post



    "The brief clarified that the district court's decision "did not find that 'Apple itself desired higher e-book prices than those offered at Amazon." (emphasis in original) Instead, the court found the iPad to have "encouraged innovation and competition."



    Oh really? Trying to rewrite history are we?





    "...records of Apple saying it "cannot tolerate a market where the product is sold significantly more cheaply elsewhere." And some of the most damning statements, Cote said, came all the way from the top of Apple.



    "Compelling evidence of Apple's participation in the conspiracy came from the words uttered by Steve Jobs, Apple's founder, CEO, and visionary. Apple has struggled mightily to reinterpret Jobs's statements in a way that will eliminate their bite. Its efforts have proven fruitless." In one statement, Jobs told James Murdoch that Amazon's $9.99 sales were "eroding the value perception" of its products, and that Apple would be trying higher price points. This was confirmed at launch. "Jobs's purchase of an e-book for $14.99 at the Launch, and his explanation to a reporter that day that Amazon's $9.99 price for the same book would be irrelevant because soon all prices will "be the same" is further evidence that Apple understood and intended that Amazon's ability to set retail prices would soon be eliminated."



    Jobs' statements, Cote said, "remain powerful evidence of conspiratorial knowledge and intent."



    http://www.theverge.com/2013/7/10/4510338/apple-found-guilty-of-ebook-price-fixing




    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.

     

    The publishers set the price. You can blame Steve for not wanting to compete on price, but you need to blame the publishers for the actual price. ;)

  • Reply 43 of 98
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tundraboy View Post

     

    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.


    Well stated, also they took action prior to any proof that the activities was actually anti-competitive, they took a preemptive position, verse coming in after there was evidence that this activities drove up pricing.

     

    If they is their view then why not sure the US patent system since it assures they the owner of IP could charge the highest price and keep competitors out. Just look at the Drug Manufactures have been doing for the last 30 yrs.

  • Reply 44 of 98
    disturbia wrote: »
    FWIW, I have boycotted AMAZON and not missing anything ....

    Because of the eBooks issue?

    I think Apple was wronged here, mostly by the kangaroo* court system, but I still love the convenience of Amazon.



    * Is this an offensive term to Australians?
  • Reply 45 of 98
    solipsismx wrote: »
    I think Apple was wronged here, mostly by the kangaroo* court system, but I still love the convenience of Amazon.



    * Is this an offensive term to Australians?

    Why should it be offensive to Australians?

    Kangaroos, on the other hand....

    PS: I don't do Amazon either, and have never missed it (my wife is an avid Amazon purchaser, so I know about the convenience factor).
  • Reply 46 of 98
    Good, they should continue pursuing all of the paths available to them to attempt to change this ruling. I think they should fight regardless of the truth, it's never good to regret not trying everything you can with something.
  • Reply 47 of 98
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post





    Regulations and narrowly applied laws are what create monopolies, not a free market.

     

    Wrong.  Wrong, wrong, wrong.  If you have a totally free market, as in no regulation at all, you will end up with one big monopoly because all the companies know that if they merge to form one big monopoly then total industry profits will be higher.

  • Reply 48 of 98
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post





    Because of the eBooks issue?



    I think Apple was wronged here, mostly by the kangaroo* court system, but I still love the convenience of Amazon.







    * Is this an offensive term to Australians?

     

    LOL.  Only when you asked because by asking, you seemed to equate Australians with kangaroos.

  • Reply 49 of 98
    flaneurflaneur Posts: 4,510member
    cash907 wrote: »
    Oh. My god. Enough. You lost. Get over it. You can't control everything, Tim.

    Note to usher in the gallery: Give this kid an extra bag of peanuts.
  • Reply 50 of 98
    tundraboy wrote: »
    LOL.  Only when you asked because by asking, you seemed to equate Australians with kangaroos.

    I'm pretty sure kangaroos are their main form of transportation. Too many cartoons as a child.

    flaneur wrote: »
    Note to usher in the gallery: Give this kid an extra bag of peanuts.

    I think he has enough nuts already.
  • Reply 51 of 98
    It was an unsent draft. The version he ended up sending was lawful. There is an enormous difference. 
    Further, since Jobs is gone he can't be brought in to clarify anything he said or wrote. This is why I was surprised his e-mails would even be allowed since nobody knows for sure EXACTLY what his thought process was or what he meant. To take this even further, there's nothing illegal about discussing ALL possible scenarios in order to come up with a final agreement that's legal (even though some ideas discussed might not have been).
  • Reply 52 of 98
    newbeenewbee Posts: 2,055member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SudoNym View Post

     

     ...... And pricing levels have no direct bearing on decisions.  It is assumed that in a competative  market, market prices will prevail.  


    It's called 'Predatory Pricing' and it is illegal under anti-trust laws, as it makes markets more vulnerable to a monopoly. One cannot "assume," with any degree of accuracy, anything in most marketplaces. Thus the irrationality of the stock market.

  • Reply 53 of 98

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post

     

     

    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.


    Don't you get tired of pre-chewed baloney?

     

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tundraboy View Post

     

    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.




    There is a bigger battle going on and this case is just the latest expression of it. The conflict is between two opposing theories of economics and antitrust regulation, and partly explains why the DoJ chose perversely to go after Apple rather than Amazon. There is the old school represented by Cote and the DoJ, the States' AGs, and the academics and traditionalists on their side who are staunchly against MFNs and minimum resale price agreements. These are the theoretical formalists, they shape reality to their theory that minimum resale price agreements are always evil simply because there have been cases in the past where such agreements were evil, and after all, until 2009, they always _were_ illegal. Then there is the new school, best represented by businesses and academics who have long contended that certain kinds of price-fixing can actually be good for an efficient market. Their arguments finally persuaded the Supreme Court in Leegin v PSKS to overturn a 100 year old precedent, and demand that all cases involving vertical agreements, a rigorous analysis of the whole market both before and after any price-fixing, has to be done to measure both harms and benefits _before_ determining whether anything illegal took place. US antitrust law is much better for it saying you can't just _assume_ that price-fixing is always bad. Even though Leegin was a close 5-4 decision, ultimately its underlying principles will prevail, even if the judges on the 2nd Circuit hearing this appeal are of Judge Cote and the DoJ's more formalistic persuasion. 
  • Reply 54 of 98
    newbeenewbee Posts: 2,055member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tundraboy View Post

     

    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.


    Finally! A shining beacon of understanding amongst the masses of dark misunderstanding.  

  • Reply 55 of 98
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tundraboy View Post

     

     

    Wrong.  Wrong, wrong, wrong.  If you have a totally free market, as in no regulation at all, you will end up with one big monopoly because all the companies know that if they merge to form one big monopoly then total industry profits will be higher.


     

    I'm not wrong. Look into all of history's biggest monopolies. They enjoyed legal and/or military protections which enabled them to squash competition.

  • Reply 56 of 98
    tundraboytundraboy Posts: 1,617member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

     

     

    I'm not wrong. Look into all of history's biggest monopolies. They enjoyed legal and/or military protections which enabled them to squash competition.


    Yes, you still are wrong.  There would be even bigger monopolies if there were no regulation at all.  Take a course or two in economics first before you start expounding on monopoly, will ya?

  • Reply 57 of 98
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tundraboy View Post

     

    Yes, you still are wrong.  There would be even bigger monopolies if there were no regulation at all.  Take a course or two in economics first before you start expounding on monopoly, will ya?


     

    That's rich...LOL! I recommend you read this.

     

    "The Misplaced Fear of Monopoly"

  • Reply 58 of 98
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,705member
    solipsismx wrote: »
    I'm pretty sure kangaroos are their main form of transportation.
    I was thinking they would be the Aussies version of self-storage. Those marsupial pockets hold a lot of things.
  • Reply 59 of 98
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by TBell View Post

     

     

     

    Hey, here is an idea. Perhaps, Apple, like myself, actually thinks it didn't do anything wrong? Perhaps, it wants to exercise its rights under the Constitution to have an Appeal Court hear its case. 


    I think the problem here is that Apple never thinks it has done anything wrong.   Well aside from the map thing.     Apple will deny, deny, deny until they are finally beaten into the ground despite the obvious staring them in the face.  

     

    Sometimes, it's good to just give in when you have been caught with your hand in the cookie jar and stop trying to use lawyers to get off on technicalities.   Of course that is not how our society and court systems work so they will continue to waste DOJ time/resources when common sense and the evidence tells you that they are guilty.  No company is perfect and that includes Apple.   The funny part is that in the eyes of the general public, they will always be guilty for what they did, no matter the outcome of this trial. 

  • Reply 60 of 98
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by zippy2shoes View Post

     

    I think the problem here is that Apple never thinks it has done anything wrong.   Well aside from the map thing.     Apple will deny, deny, deny until they are finally beaten into the ground despite the obvious staring them in the face.  

     

    Sometimes, it's good to just give in when you have been caught with your hand in the cookie jar and stop trying to use lawyers to get off on technicalities.   Of course that is not how our society and court systems work so they will continue to waste DOJ time/resources when common sense and the evidence tells you that they are guilty.  No company is perfect and that includes Apple.   The funny part is that in the eyes of the general public, they will always be guilty for what they did, no matter the outcome of this trial. 


     

    Nonsense... and you are blocked.

Sign In or Register to comment.