<div class="quote-container" data-huddler-embed="/t/185814/apples-feud-with-antitrust-monitor-continues-company-accused-of-not-cooperating-in-ibooks-oversight#post_2711043" data-huddler-embed-placeholder="false"><span style="line-height:1.4em">Quote:</span></div><div class="quote-container" data-huddler-embed="/t/185814/apples-feud-with-antitrust-monitor-continues-company-accused-of-not-cooperating-in-ibooks-oversight#post_2711020" data-huddler-embed-placeholder="false"><div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>anantksundaram</strong> <a href="/t/185814/apples-feud-with-antitrust-monitor-continues-company-accused-of-not-cooperating-in-ibooks-oversight#post_2711020"><img alt="View Post" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" /></a><br /> <p>Apple should simply shut down iBook.</p><p> </p><p>It's not worth the hassle, and the DoJ and its lackeys can have/stuff it.</p></div></div><p> </p><p>That would be the same as if Apple just raised the white flag, admitted guilt, and allowed a corrupt judge and two-bit schister to win. They need to fight this all the way to the bitter end on principle!</p><div class="quote-container" data-huddler-embed="/t/185814/apples-feud-with-antitrust-monitor-continues-company-accused-of-not-cooperating-in-ibooks-oversight#post_2711149" data-huddler-embed-placeholder="false">Quote:<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>mac_dog</strong> <a href="/t/185814/apples-feud-with-antitrust-monitor-continues-company-accused-of-not-cooperating-in-ibooks-oversight#post_2711149"><img alt="View Post" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" /></a><br /><br />gift him with the cheapest android watch.</div></div><p> </p><p>Probably a Galaxy Gear then :D</p>
Strange they settled really quickly in the EU but continue to claim innocence in the US or were they more worried about the 10% of global revenue they could be fined if found guilty in the EU?
That would be the same as if Apple just raised the white flag, admitted guilt, and allowed a corrupt judge and two-bit schister to win. They need to fight this all the way to the bitter end on principle!
Not at all. The opposite in fact.
Apart form poking Cote et. al in the eye, it will be a strategic move since the DoJ will have to go after Amazon as a monopoly soon enough (since any possible entrants would be scared off by Apple's experience as well).
Strange they settled really quickly in the EU but continue to claim innocence in the US or were they more worried about the 10% of global revenue they could be fined if found guilty in the EU?
Nice to see that singularity has a secretary on this Forum. " src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
Here's what the first the first para of your link says: "The Commission had concerns that these companies may have contrived to limit retail price competition for e-books in the European Economic Area (EEA), in breach of EU antitrust rules. To address these concerns, the companies offered in particular to terminate on-going agency agreements and to exclude certain clauses in their agency agreements during the next five years. The publishers have also offered to give retailers freedom to discount e-books, subject to certain conditions, during a two-year period. After a market test (see IP/12/986), the Commission is satisfied that the final commitments remedy the identified competition concerns it had identified (see also MEMO/12/983)."
Seems like an incredibly sensible, adult resolution to forestall a problem. What does this have to do with Cote/Bromwich/DoJ approaches to solving the problem? Or to my suggestion that Apple get out of the e-book business? And most importantly (since you are acting as his proxy I am sure you can explain), how does singularity come to a conclusion that the Commission's "concerns" will result in a formal suit, will result in a victory for the Commission, will result in a fine equal to 10% of revenue?
Nice to see that singularity has a secretary on this Forum.
Here's what the first the first para of your link says: "The Commission had concerns that these companies may have contrived to limit retail price competition for e-books in the European Economic Area (EEA), in breach of EU antitrust rules. To address these concerns, the companies offered in particular to terminate on-going agency agreements and to exclude certain clauses in their agency agreements during the next five years. The publishers have also offered to give retailers freedom to discount e-books, subject to certain conditions, during a two-year period. After a market test (see <a href="http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-12-986_en.htm" style="color:rgb(85,26,139);margin:0px;padding:0px;text-align:justify;" target="_blank"><span style="border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;padding:0px;">IP/12/986</span>
</a> ), the Commission is satisfied that the final commitments remedy the identified competition concerns it had identified (see also <a href="http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-12-983_en.htm" style="color:rgb(85,26,139);margin:0px;padding:0px;text-align:justify;" target="_blank"><span style="border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;padding:0px;">MEMO/12/983</span>
</a> )."
Seems like an incredibly sensible, adult resolution to forestall a problem.
Yup, seemed like the sensical approach to me too. It's tough to deal with the EU.
BTW, in the last paragraph the EU Commission notes that if one of the companies were to " break commitments made binding on them, the Commission can impose a fine of up to 10% of its annual worldwide turnover, without having to find an infringement of the antitrust rules." They do seem to like their 10% threats don't they?
A part of me completely agrees with you. All else not changing, Apple should shut it down, and boot Bromwich out the door before the ink is dry.
The other part thinks Apple should pursue every avenue to removing Bromwich, and "somehow" sanctioning the judge that (imho) obviously had a back-end deal with Bromwich. This whole episode just stinks of abuse.
This case all along has been a conflict of interest. For starters, Bromwich should have never been chosen. He has no experience at all. He had to hire others to help him and charged Apple. Bromwich also met with the judge on many occasions off the record to report about the case. That doesn't seem legal to me. Easy solution would be to shut down iBooks, but I don't think Apple should do that. This whole case is not right and they should continue to fight it.
Nice to see that singularity has a secretary on this Forum.
Here's what the first the first para of your link says: "The Commission had concerns that these companies may have contrived to limit retail price competition for e-books in the European Economic Area (EEA), in breach of EU antitrust rules. To address these concerns, the companies offered in particular to terminate on-going agency agreements and to exclude certain clauses in their agency agreements during the next five years. The publishers have also offered to give retailers freedom to discount e-books, subject to certain conditions, during a two-year period. After a market test (see <a href="http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-12-986_en.htm" style="color:rgb(85,26,139);margin:0px;padding:0px;text-align:justify;" target="_blank"><span style="border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;padding:0px;">IP/12/986</span>
</a> ), the Commission is satisfied that the final commitments remedy the identified competition concerns it had identified (see also <a href="http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-12-983_en.htm" style="color:rgb(85,26,139);margin:0px;padding:0px;text-align:justify;" target="_blank"><span style="border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;padding:0px;">MEMO/12/983</span>
</a> )."
Seems like an incredibly sensible, adult resolution to forestall a problem.
Yup, seemed like the sensical approach to me too. It's tough to deal with the EU.
BTW, in the last paragraph the EU Commission notes that if one of the companies were to " break commitments made binding on them, the Commission can impose a fine of up to 10% of its annual worldwide turnover, without having to find an infringement of the antitrust rules." They do seem to like their 10% threats don't they?
Glad to see that you added the second para, which was really the substantive thrust of my post.
So, continuing with your being the proxy for singularity -- hopefully he'll chip in with his answer to his original premise at some point -- can you find any examples of a company being fined the 10% by the EU without having been found to infringe any rules?
Was there a point to your quoting the last para then, or was it a (usual) non sequitur?
Why did you think it was important to quote? Because you think singularity would have thought that (based on the same document that you gave us to back up what he said, and assumed he had read it)?
Was there a point to your quoting the last para then, or was it a (usual) non sequitur?
Why did you think it was important to quote? Because you think singularity would have thought that (based on the same document that you gave us to back up what he said, and assumed he had read it)?
Talk about "??"....
???
Are you perhaps trying to say Apple didn't settle any antitrust charges in Europe? The Commission statements would disagree with you if that's your position. I initially thought you might be unaware of it but perhaps there's some other point you're attempting to make.
Was there a point to your quoting the last para then, or was it a (usual) non sequitur?
Why did you think it was important to quote? Because you think singularity would have thought that (based on the same document that you gave us to back up what he said, and assumed he had read it)?
Talk about "??"....
???
That captures the sentiments that you often evoke here.
That captures the sentiments that you often evoke here.
I'm getting more confused with each of your posts. What exactly are you arguing about? That there was not an active anti-trust investigation when Apple settled so they were never in danger of a 10% fine? If that's not it perhaps you could clue me in. If you're going to insult me at least tell me what for. As it is you've lost me sir.
I'm getting more confused with each of your posts. What exactly are you arguing about? That there was not an active anti-trust investigation when Apple settled so they were never in danger of a 10% fine? If that's not it perhaps you could clue me in. If you're going to insult me at least tell me what for. As it is you've lost me sir.
Does anyone know if there is a timeframe for the appeals court to rule on the case? It seems like it's been months since that hearing. If they would just rule in Apple's favor this whole thing could disappear tomorrow, though it's unlikely that they could recoup any of the money already paid to Bromwich.
The appeal of the DOJ case was heard on December 15 - they said at the time that a ruling could take "up to six months."
Apple's case to get Bromwich removed was heard in March - I don't know how long that ruling is expected to take.
I'm getting more confused with each of your posts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by idrey
Yeah he lost me too! Now I am curious ????
Sure, happy to oblige! (Although, I am a bit surprised that GG could not deconstruct something that was quite so easy!).
1) singularity made some vague statement about '10%' and how Apple caved to the EU (I am paraphrasing). He was basically implying that Apple decided to fight in the US and cave in the EU.
2) I said, 'what, what?' No reply from singularity.
3) GG, as usual, jumped in and provided a link with no explanation or context. Also, because he loves to do that whenever he gets the chance to make an anti-Apple or pro-Google poin). I read it. It said that Apple and EU, along with the with book publishers, settled it with the EU in an adult way. And nothing at all about whether/how Apple caved or anything meaningful about the 10% that singularity alluded to.
4) I asked GG what this had to do with Bromwich or the reference to 10%.
5) GG (again, replying on behalf of singularity), pointed to the last para of the link which said something irrelevant about 10%. But apparently, it was relevant to GG only because it said "10%".
Sure, happy to oblige! (Although, I am a bit surprised that GG could not deconstruct something that was quite so easy!).
So you got the answer to "who settled what in the EU" and don't actually disagree with anything I wrote, much less with the statement that Apple made the right choice to settle to avoid a potential 10% fine.(and a point I thought you too were making). Your issue must be with something Singularity said or didn't say.
So you got the answer to "who settled what in the EU" and don't actually disagree with anything I wrote, much less with the statement that Apple made the right choice to settle to avoid a potential 10% fine.(and a point I thought you too were making). Your issue must be with something Singularity said or didn't say.
Sure, happy to oblige! (Although, I am a bit surprised that GG could not deconstruct something that was quite so easy!).
1) singularity made some vague statement about '10%' and how Apple caved to the EU (I am paraphrasing). He was basically implying that Apple decided to fight in the US and cave in the EU.
2) I said, 'what, what?' No reply from singularity.
3) GG, as usual, jumped in and provided a link with no explanation or context. Also, because he loves to do that whenever he gets the chance to make an anti-Apple or pro-Google poin). <span style="line-height:1.4em;">I read it. It said that Apple and EU, along with the with book publishers, settled it with </span>
the<span style="line-height:1.4em;"> EU in an adult way. And nothing at all about whether/how Apple caved </span>
or anything meaningful about the 10% that singularity alluded to.
4) I asked GG what this had to do with Bromwich or the reference to 10%.
5) GG (again, replying on behalf of singularity), pointed to the last para of the link which said something irrelevant about 10%. But apparently, it was relevant to GG only because it said "10%".
6) I said I was completely confused.
7) GG said he was completely confused.
Got it? :)
From what I can tell, GG's link (from your reference 3) was meant to show that Apple caved (ie "settled") in the EU even while they fought on in the US (which was singularity's position from your reference 1). As we all know, Apple hasn't settled shit here, and I think it's OK to speculate about the (significant) differences in antitrust remedies of the US vis-a-vis the EU.
In other words, it seems clear to me that 3 was a response to 1, but then you both got dense for the next handful of posts because you are far more interested in beating one another in a debate than truly understanding one another.
Comments
That would be the same as if Apple just raised the white flag, admitted guilt, and allowed a corrupt judge and two-bit schister to win. They need to fight this all the way to the bitter end on principle!
Not at all. The opposite in fact.
Apart form poking Cote et. al in the eye, it will be a strategic move since the DoJ will have to go after Amazon as a monopoly soon enough (since any possible entrants would be scared off by Apple's experience as well).
Strange they settled really quickly in the EU but continue to claim innocence in the US or were they more worried about the 10% of global revenue they could be fined if found guilty in the EU?
Could you elaborate? Who settled what in the EU?
Could you elaborate? Who settled what in the EU?
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-12-1367_en.htm
Nice to see that singularity has a secretary on this Forum.
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
Here's what the first the first para of your link says: "The Commission had concerns that these companies may have contrived to limit retail price competition for e-books in the European Economic Area (EEA), in breach of EU antitrust rules. To address these concerns, the companies offered in particular to terminate on-going agency agreements and to exclude certain clauses in their agency agreements during the next five years. The publishers have also offered to give retailers freedom to discount e-books, subject to certain conditions, during a two-year period. After a market test (see IP/12/986), the Commission is satisfied that the final commitments remedy the identified competition concerns it had identified (see also MEMO/12/983)."
Seems like an incredibly sensible, adult resolution to forestall a problem. What does this have to do with Cote/Bromwich/DoJ approaches to solving the problem? Or to my suggestion that Apple get out of the e-book business? And most importantly (since you are acting as his proxy I am sure you can explain), how does singularity come to a conclusion that the Commission's "concerns" will result in a formal suit, will result in a victory for the Commission, will result in a fine equal to 10% of revenue?
BTW, in the last paragraph the EU Commission notes that if one of the companies were to " break commitments made binding on them, the Commission can impose a fine of up to 10% of its annual worldwide turnover, without having to find an infringement of the antitrust rules." They do seem to like their 10% threats don't they?
A part of me completely agrees with you. All else not changing, Apple should shut it down, and boot Bromwich out the door before the ink is dry.
The other part thinks Apple should pursue every avenue to removing Bromwich, and "somehow" sanctioning the judge that (imho) obviously had a back-end deal with Bromwich. This whole episode just stinks of abuse.
This case all along has been a conflict of interest. For starters, Bromwich should have never been chosen. He has no experience at all. He had to hire others to help him and charged Apple. Bromwich also met with the judge on many occasions off the record to report about the case. That doesn't seem legal to me. Easy solution would be to shut down iBooks, but I don't think Apple should do that. This whole case is not right and they should continue to fight it.
Glad to see that you added the second para, which was really the substantive thrust of my post.
So, continuing with your being the proxy for singularity -- hopefully he'll chip in with his answer to his original premise at some point -- can you find any examples of a company being fined the 10% by the EU without having been found to infringe any rules?
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-11-1509_en.htm?locale=en
You and I both agree the right move was to settle as it's really not worth chancing. I've no idea what Singularity's thought's on it are.
Here's how fines are determined for Competition Law breaches.
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/cartels/overview/factsheet_fines_en.pdf
Was there a point to your quoting the last para then, or was it a (usual) non sequitur?
Why did you think it was important to quote? Because you think singularity would have thought that (based on the same document that you gave us to back up what he said, and assumed he had read it)?
Talk about "??"....
???
Are you perhaps trying to say Apple didn't settle any antitrust charges in Europe? The Commission statements would disagree with you if that's your position. I initially thought you might be unaware of it but perhaps there's some other point you're attempting to make.
That captures the sentiments that you often evoke here.
Yeah he lost me too! Now I am curious ????
Does anyone know if there is a timeframe for the appeals court to rule on the case? It seems like it's been months since that hearing. If they would just rule in Apple's favor this whole thing could disappear tomorrow, though it's unlikely that they could recoup any of the money already paid to Bromwich.
The appeal of the DOJ case was heard on December 15 - they said at the time that a ruling could take "up to six months."
Apple's case to get Bromwich removed was heard in March - I don't know how long that ruling is expected to take.
I'm getting more confused with each of your posts.
Yeah he lost me too! Now I am curious ????
Sure, happy to oblige! (Although, I am a bit surprised that GG could not deconstruct something that was quite so easy!).
1) singularity made some vague statement about '10%' and how Apple caved to the EU (I am paraphrasing). He was basically implying that Apple decided to fight in the US and cave in the EU.
2) I said, 'what, what?' No reply from singularity.
3) GG, as usual, jumped in and provided a link with no explanation or context. Also, because he loves to do that whenever he gets the chance to make an anti-Apple or pro-Google poin). I read it. It said that Apple and EU, along with the with book publishers, settled it with the EU in an adult way. And nothing at all about whether/how Apple caved or anything meaningful about the 10% that singularity alluded to.
4) I asked GG what this had to do with Bromwich or the reference to 10%.
5) GG (again, replying on behalf of singularity), pointed to the last para of the link which said something irrelevant about 10%. But apparently, it was relevant to GG only because it said "10%".
6) I said I was completely confused.
7) GG said he was completely confused.
Got it?
Well that took awhile.
So you got the answer to "who settled what in the EU" and don't actually disagree with anything I wrote, much less with the statement that Apple made the right choice to settle to avoid a potential 10% fine.(and a point I thought you too were making). Your issue must be with something Singularity said or didn't say.
Well that took awhile.
??
From what I can tell, GG's link (from your reference 3) was meant to show that Apple caved (ie "settled") in the EU even while they fought on in the US (which was singularity's position from your reference 1). As we all know, Apple hasn't settled shit here, and I think it's OK to speculate about the (significant) differences in antitrust remedies of the US vis-a-vis the EU.
In other words, it seems clear to me that 3 was a response to 1, but then you both got dense for the next handful of posts because you are far more interested in beating one another in a debate than truly understanding one another.