Oh please, the amount that each consumer would miss out on is minuscule compared to the amount the lawyers would miss out on. And why would a judge care about lawyers--it's almost as if she was one . . . Oh wait . . .
Actually, it's the states' Attorneys General who are suing, so the states get the legal fees, not individual lawyers. That's why the proposed settlement gives a much higher percentage to consumers than most settlements (89% to consumers). Still, the amount to each consumer won't be very much.
Don't worry people. Cotes is a true upstanding political judge. I even heard she is thinking of retiring soon. After all, I am pretty sure that she has been told that she has a job as an Amazon lobbiest making ten times what she is making now.
Apple has so much money, this judge thinks Apple should pay a fine even if Apple is proven not guilty! Is this what the USA has been reduced to? You are guilty even if you are proven not guilty. And, paying interest on money you do not have to pay? Really???
Earlier tonight I decided unsubscribe from all Democratic emails due to all the political games beng played in Washington, DC. Now reading yet another asinine game continuing to be played has me feeling even more disgusted about the USA legal system. And, to think THE Obama ADMINISTRATION is writing guidelines for drone surveillance in the USA.
Okay, I moved off topic, but it all is crashing in on the same day.
Apple has so much money, this judge thinks Apple should pay a fine even if Apple is proven not guilty! Is this what the USA has been reduced to? You are guilty even if you are proven not guilty. And, paying interest on money you do not have to pay? Really???
Earlier tonight I decided unsubscribe from all Democratic emails due to all the political games beng played in Washington, DC. Now reading yet another asinine game continuing to be played has me feeling even more disgusted about the USA legal system. And, to think THE Obama ADMINISTRATION is writing guidelines for drone surveillance in the USA.
Okay, I moved off topic, but it all is crashing in on the same day.
Great I always wanted to have a war with Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Russia, Syria, Egypt, and Libya all at the same time. Lets show the world our military might and pound our chests as Republicans would like. I don't agree with everything Democrats/Obama Admin does but lets be clear the options are never going to be ideal between the available options in the US. You are always in a pick the best of the worst type of situation.
Don't worry people. Cotes is a true upstanding political judge. I even heard she is thinking of retiring soon. After all, I am pretty sure that she has been told that she has a job as an Amazon lobbiest making ten times what she is making now.
Amazon needs to start making money. It's been 15 years already. One can't sell everything at cost and make money.
As I understand it the appeal could have 3 results: Cote was right, Cote was wrong, or the trial was botched and we need a new one.
In that last case Apple settles for just 70m, which Cote thinks is not enough.
Another nice touch is wanting Apple to pay interest while she stalls the appeal.
How they were found guilty is a bit of a mystery for me too. It seems to me that any similarity in the publishers actions is adequately explained by the shared experience of Amazon having them by the balls, and squeezing. No collusion required.
It has been mentioned that Apple is being punished for not playing along in the political circus, spending too little on lobbyists and such.
There are two separate trials. Apple lost the federal anti-trust case and is appealing that case. Most of the judgment there was for monitoring of Apples behavior. The (State Attorneys General) AsG sued as well and that is what is being settled. Apple said, fine we can skip a trial and we will pay X amount of money to the AsG and consumers. if we lose our appeal in the other case there is no chance to win this case anyway. They put in the big however, if the other case gets overturned and we are eventually found not liable in the federal case no money for the AsG. The objection seems to be to a partial settlement, if the original trial gets overturned on appeal but Apple still loses in the end. In either case it will be years and years before the appeals are finished and it can be decided if Apple owes any money to anybody.
All the more reason to overturn the whole decision on appeal.
This is the judge who said there were unusual mitigating circumstances but would not let those moderate her verdict because, well, (and I paraphrase) not willing to suggest existing law needs to be further qualified.
She is certainly turning the screws here.
Let's not forget that she's also the judge that said, before looking at any of the evidence, that the DOJ was going to have no issue proving their case.
There are two separate trials. Apple lost the federal anti-trust case and is appealing that case. Most of the judgment there was for monitoring of Apples behavior. The (State Attorneys General) AsG sued as well and that is what is being settled. Apple said, fine we can skip a trial and we will pay X amount of money to the AsG and consumers. if we lose our appeal in the other case there is no chance to win this case anyway. They put in the big however, if the other case gets overturned and we are eventually found not liable in the federal case no money for the AsG. The objection seems to be to a partial settlement, if the original trial gets overturned on appeal but Apple still loses in the end. In either case it will be years and years before the appeals are finished and it can be decided if Apple owes any money to anybody.
In a way it makes sense. Federal court decisions generally set precedent for state courts. So if the state case goes to trial with a federal lose, the judge is more likely to find against Apple based on precedent.
HOWEVER, if the appeal goes In Apple's favor then the precedent sets up that Apple is not guilty and therefore should pay nothing because they owe nothing.
The reduced business is likely the amount they would 'lose' if they were to refund any costs over $9.99 on any books purchased during the applicable period ($9.99 being Amazon's typical price and the DOJs 'correct' price for an Ebook). There are also likely clauses excluding textbooks, any title they can prove Amazon sold for higher or was only sold by the publishers directly and it was a higher price, or any book that was 'published' directly by the author via Apple and thus never part of any 'collusion'.
Let's not forget that she's also the judge that said, before looking at any of the evidence, that the DOJ was going to have no issue proving their case.
IIRC she had seen the prosecution's evidence in advance of the trial, and before she made that comment. It was standard procedures, and she was simply stating `her opinion of the evidence going into the case, which is fine.
EDIT: It wasn't just the prosecution's evidence, both sides filed lengthy documents. Here are the pretrial memos that Judge Cote was basing her self described "tentative view" on:
Every time this comes up I recall all the checks for pennies or under $10 that came to me after the class action suites that ensued after the 1999 stock market bubble burst. Also, this judge seems to have decided that this particular case is where she wants to put a stamp on her legacy. Yeah, I know: Legacy of #$*T?
Don't worry people. Cotes is a true upstanding political judge. I even heard she is thinking of retiring soon. After all, I am pretty sure that she has been told that she has a job as an Amazon lobbiest making ten times what she is making now.
Amazon needs to start making money. It's been 15 years already. One can't sell everything at cost and make money.
Comments
i thought only surgeons got "god complexes" - i guess judges do too.
Oh please, the amount that each consumer would miss out on is minuscule compared to the amount the lawyers would miss out on. And why would a judge care about lawyers--it's almost as if she was one . . . Oh wait . . .
Actually, it's the states' Attorneys General who are suing, so the states get the legal fees, not individual lawyers. That's why the proposed settlement gives a much higher percentage to consumers than most settlements (89% to consumers). Still, the amount to each consumer won't be very much.
Apple has so much money, this judge thinks Apple should pay a fine even if Apple is proven not guilty! Is this what the USA has been reduced to? You are guilty even if you are proven not guilty. And, paying interest on money you do not have to pay? Really???
Earlier tonight I decided unsubscribe from all Democratic emails due to all the political games beng played in Washington, DC. Now reading yet another asinine game continuing to be played has me feeling even more disgusted about the USA legal system. And, to think THE Obama ADMINISTRATION is writing guidelines for drone surveillance in the USA.
Okay, I moved off topic, but it all is crashing in on the same day.
Ask OJ.
Apple has so much money, this judge thinks Apple should pay a fine even if Apple is proven not guilty! Is this what the USA has been reduced to? You are guilty even if you are proven not guilty. And, paying interest on money you do not have to pay? Really???
Earlier tonight I decided unsubscribe from all Democratic emails due to all the political games beng played in Washington, DC. Now reading yet another asinine game continuing to be played has me feeling even more disgusted about the USA legal system. And, to think THE Obama ADMINISTRATION is writing guidelines for drone surveillance in the USA.
Okay, I moved off topic, but it all is crashing in on the same day.
Great I always wanted to have a war with Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Russia, Syria, Egypt, and Libya all at the same time. Lets show the world our military might and pound our chests as Republicans would like. I don't agree with everything Democrats/Obama Admin does but lets be clear the options are never going to be ideal between the available options in the US. You are always in a pick the best of the worst type of situation.
Don't worry people. Cotes is a true upstanding political judge. I even heard she is thinking of retiring soon. After all, I am pretty sure that she has been told that she has a job as an Amazon lobbiest making ten times what she is making now.
Amazon needs to start making money. It's been 15 years already. One can't sell everything at cost and make money.
As I understand it the appeal could have 3 results: Cote was right, Cote was wrong, or the trial was botched and we need a new one.
In that last case Apple settles for just 70m, which Cote thinks is not enough.
Another nice touch is wanting Apple to pay interest while she stalls the appeal.
How they were found guilty is a bit of a mystery for me too. It seems to me that any similarity in the publishers actions is adequately explained by the shared experience of Amazon having them by the balls, and squeezing. No collusion required.
It has been mentioned that Apple is being punished for not playing along in the political circus, spending too little on lobbyists and such.
There are two separate trials. Apple lost the federal anti-trust case and is appealing that case. Most of the judgment there was for monitoring of Apples behavior. The (State Attorneys General) AsG sued as well and that is what is being settled. Apple said, fine we can skip a trial and we will pay X amount of money to the AsG and consumers. if we lose our appeal in the other case there is no chance to win this case anyway. They put in the big however, if the other case gets overturned and we are eventually found not liable in the federal case no money for the AsG. The objection seems to be to a partial settlement, if the original trial gets overturned on appeal but Apple still loses in the end. In either case it will be years and years before the appeals are finished and it can be decided if Apple owes any money to anybody.
Finding Apple guilty makes as much sense as wanting Apple to pay even if they are innocent.
The only way to understand it is to realize that the judge is on a power trip and probably doing her best to line the pockets of her friends.
no she was given a goal to bring in so my fine revenue for the government this year and she is not going to reach her goal.
Because communism’s in vogue these days.
Models dressed in drab olive green will be prominently on display during fashion week.
Let's not forget that she's also the judge that said, before looking at any of the evidence, that the DOJ was going to have no issue proving their case.
In a way it makes sense. Federal court decisions generally set precedent for state courts. So if the state case goes to trial with a federal lose, the judge is more likely to find against Apple based on precedent.
HOWEVER, if the appeal goes In Apple's favor then the precedent sets up that Apple is not guilty and therefore should pay nothing because they owe nothing.
The reduced business is likely the amount they would 'lose' if they were to refund any costs over $9.99 on any books purchased during the applicable period ($9.99 being Amazon's typical price and the DOJs 'correct' price for an Ebook). There are also likely clauses excluding textbooks, any title they can prove Amazon sold for higher or was only sold by the publishers directly and it was a higher price, or any book that was 'published' directly by the author via Apple and thus never part of any 'collusion'.
Let's not forget that she's also the judge that said, before looking at any of the evidence, that the DOJ was going to have no issue proving their case.
IIRC she had seen the prosecution's evidence in advance of the trial, and before she made that comment. It was standard procedures, and she was simply stating `her opinion of the evidence going into the case, which is fine.
EDIT: It wasn't just the prosecution's evidence, both sides filed lengthy documents. Here are the pretrial memos that Judge Cote was basing her self described "tentative view" on:
http://www.litigationandtrial.com/files/2014/05/Apple-DOJ-Pretrial.pdf
http://www.litigationandtrial.com/files/2014/05/Apple-Apple-Pretrial.pdf
Every time this comes up I recall all the checks for pennies or under $10 that came to me after the class action suites that ensued after the 1999 stock market bubble burst. Also, this judge seems to have decided that this particular case is where she wants to put a stamp on her legacy. Yeah, I know: Legacy of #$*T?
Don't worry people. Cotes is a true upstanding political judge. I even heard she is thinking of retiring soon. After all, I am pretty sure that she has been told that she has a job as an Amazon lobbiest making ten times what she is making now.
Amazon needs to start making money. It's been 15 years already. One can't sell everything at cost and make money.
Try twenty years.
Because communism’s in vogue these days.
Models dressed in drab olive green will be prominently on display during fashion week.
What's Popeye got to do with it?
Popeye was a commie?
I was referring to Olive.
I don't understand, Judge Cote; why can't you just let the FREE MARKET decide if they want to buy "overpriced" e-books?
Because copyright isn't at issue in this trial.
And there will NEVER be a free market in books so long as copyright exists. A government sanctioned monopoly on the text won't allow it.