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? :)
I think I got it! Singularity is MIA like to see has to say ????
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).
This is all I was trying to say. Apple 'caving' fit with GG's anti-Apple meme, and I was pointing that out.
As to (the absent) singularity, I am still puzzled about his "10%" reference. Perhaps you can explain?
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.
If I were into conspiracies I'd wonder if both Cote and Bromwich were on the NSAs payroll.
Am I the only one who found this article almost unreadable due to the completely crap grammar?
Seriously, does **anyone** perform any editing before articles get published on this site?
Many of us long-time 'regulars' here have complained mightily about the embarrassing quality of writing/editing (DED being a huge exception) over the years, but finally threw in the towel.
We come here primarily to read and respond to comments! Most of the time, we don't even really read the story.....
This is all I was trying to say. Apple 'caving' fit with GG's anti-Apple meme, and I was pointing that out.
As to (the absent) singularity, I am still puzzled about his "10%" reference. Perhaps you can explain?
The 10% reference apparently comes from a common practice of the EU, which is famously heavy-handed. In antitrust cases, they often set 10% of all global revenue as the fine that would be owed the EU. Apparently, this was common knowledge to "singularity" but not to you, me, or most of us.
You can actually do a Google search for "EU antitrust remedies 10% global" and come up with various different cases in which this is mentioned, including the very article that was linked to earlier by GG. (Although in that case, the 10% reference was listed as a punishment if the terms of the agreement were breached and that the EU wouldn't even have to prove an actual antitrust violation.)
I guess this is why all companies, great and small, really don't like to f*** with the EU. So I think that singularity, even in his strange absence, was most likely right in his speculation.
The 10% reference apparently comes from a common practice of the EU, which is famously heavy-handed. In antitrust cases, they often set 10% of all global revenue as the fine that would be owed the EU. Apparently, this was common knowledge to "singularity" but not to you, me, or most of us.
You can actually do a Google search for "EU antitrust remedies 10% global" and come up with various different cases in which this is mentioned, including the very article that was linked to earlier by GG. (Although in that case, the 10% reference was listed as a punishment if the terms of the agreement were breached and that the EU wouldn't even have to prove an actual antitrust violation.)
I guess this is why all companies, great and small, really don't like to f*** with the EU. So I think that singularity, even in his strange absence, was most likely right in his speculation.
Of course I knew about the 10%. That is quite well-known. In the US, for example, we have the concept of treble damages.
You say (and singularity seemed to imply) it is "common practice."
Can you point to some instances -- especially with non-EU companies -- where the EU has imposed a fine like that without going to through the investigative and judicial process and actually finding a violation? Or a fine like that when/if a violation was found and the company (in this case, Apple and the publishers) complied with the terms of conduct arising from the violation?
If the answer is no, why is the reference to a hypothetical 10% even relevant to Apple (especially in this case where there was no major investigation, let alone a trial)?
Also, what do you mean by the EU being 'heavy-handed'? Are they any more so than the US?
Of course I knew about the 10%. That is quite well-known. In the US, for example, we have the concept of treble damages.
You say (and singularity seemed to imply) it is "common practice."
Can you point to some instances -- especially with non-EU companies -- where the EU has imposed a fine like that without going to through the investigative and judicial process and actually finding a violation? Or a fine like that when/if a violation was found and the company (in this case, Apple and the publishers) complied with the terms of conduct arising from the violation?
If the answer is no, why is the reference to a hypothetical 10% even relevant to Apple?
Also, what do you mean by the EU being 'heavy-handed'? Are they any more so than the US?
You did know that there was an active anti-trust case against the publishers and Apple in the EU, which is almost certainly why Apple chose to settle rather than face a potential 10% fine, right? If you weren't aware of it then it explains your odd question.
"The European Commission has opened formal antitrust proceedings to investigate whether international publishers Hachette Livre (Lagardère Publishing, France), Harper Collins (News Corp., USA), Simon & Schuster (CBS Corp., USA), Penguin (Pearson Group, United Kingdom) and Verlagsgruppe Georg von Holzbrinck (owner of inter alia Macmillan, Germany) have, possibly with the help of Apple, engaged in anti-competitive practices affecting the sale of e-books in the European Economic Area (EEA)1, in breach of EU antitrust rules"
Article 101 of the TFEU prohibits agreements and concerted practices which may affect trade and prevent or restrict competition. The implementation of this provision is defined in the Antitrust Regulation (Council Regulation No 1/2003) which can be applied by the Commission and by the national competition authorities of EU Member States.
The legal base for the Commission's opening of formal proceedings is Article 11(6) of the Antitrust Regulation (Council Regulation No 1/2003)...
The Commission has informed the companies and the competition authorities of the Member States that it has opened proceedings in this case."
So 12 months later you got: "Antitrust: Commission accepts legally binding commitments from Simon & Schuster, Harper Collins, Hachette, Holtzbrinck and Apple for sale of e-books".
I'm now thinking you didn't know about the anti-trust proceedings which lead to the publishers and Apple making the smart move to settle.
You did know that there was an active anti-trust case against the publishers and Apple in the EU, which is almost certainly why Apple chose to settle rather than face a potential 10% fine, right? If you weren't aware of it then it explains you odd question.
Do you think there was no danger of Apple being dinged 10% if they didn't settle, and if so on what basis? I really don 't get the questions you're asking since the EU felt there was enough evidence of a possible cartel and illegal business practices to open official proceedings.
The questions you're asking wouldn't appear to apply to an announced antitrust case.
Of course I knew about the 10%. That is quite well-known. In the US, for example, we have the concept of treble damages.
You say (and singularity seemed to imply) it is "common practice."
Can you point to some instances -- especially with non-EU companies -- where the EU has imposed a fine like that without going to through the investigative and judicial process and actually finding a violation? Or a fine like that when/if a violation was found and the company (in this case, Apple and the publishers) complied with the terms of conduct arising from the violation?
If the answer is no, why is the reference to a hypothetical 10% even relevant to Apple?
Also, what do you mean by the EU being 'heavy-handed'? Are they any more so than the US?
You did know that there was an active anti-trust case against the publishers and Apple in the EU, which is almost certainly why Apple chose to settle rather than face a potential 10% fine, right? If you weren't aware of it then it explains your odd question.
Here's the link to the EU's announcement of the anti-trust case, begun in Dec/2011 and a year before Apple decided not to fight it anymore.
"The European Commission has opened formal antitrust proceedings to investigate whether international publishers Hachette Livre (Lagardère Publishing, France), Harper Collins (News Corp., USA), Simon & Schuster (CBS Corp., USA), Penguin (Pearson Group, United Kingdom) and Verlagsgruppe Georg von Holzbrinck (owner of inter alia Macmillan, Germany) have, possibly with the help of Apple, engaged in anti-competitive practices affecting the sale of e-books in the European Economic Area (EEA)1, in breach of EU antitrust rules"
Article 101 of the TFEU prohibits agreements and concerted practices which may affect trade and prevent or restrict competition. The implementation of this provision is defined in the Antitrust Regulation (Council Regulation No 1/2003) which can be applied by the Commission and by the national competition authorities of EU Member States.
The legal base for the Commission's opening of formal proceedings is Article 11(6) of the Antitrust Regulation (Council Regulation No 1/2003)...
The Commission has informed the companies and the competition authorities of the Member States that it has opened proceedings in this case."
So 12 months later you got:
"Antitrust: Commission accepts legally binding commitments from Simon & Schuster, Harper Collins, Hachette, Holtzbrinck and Apple for sale of e-books".
I'm now thinking you didn't know about the anti-trust proceedings which lead to the publishers and Apple making the smart move to settle.
Ah, another one of your favored tactics: add to your original post after someone has replied to it.
Leaving that aside, did I miss something somewhere about what the outcome of the investigation was? And the role of the bogus "10%" you all keep mentioning here and there?
I am now thinking that you're just making it up as you go along.
Ah, another one of your favored tactics: add to your original post after someone has replied to it.
Leaving that aside, did I miss something somewhere about what the outcome of the investigation was?
Apparently you are missing something.... Apple and the publishers offered to settle the case after a year rather than let it run it's course and face a potential fine of quite likely 10% if the EU upheld their preliminary findings. . How are you not understanding that?
Do you think there was no danger of Apple being dinged 10% if they didn't settle, and if so on what basis? I really don 't get the questions you're asking since the EU felt there was enough evidence of a possible cartel and illegal business practices to open official proceedings.
Who said "there was no danger"? Don't make up stuff.
I asked you whether there was single instance in which a fine like that had been levied without finding of guilt in the courtroom, and I don't believe you (or the others) have been able to come up with a single instance.
If all that is required is "launch investigation" and "settle" why does the EU have courts? And why do some companies take the Commission to court?
Ah, another one of your favored tactics: add to your original post after someone has replied to it.
Leaving that aside, did I miss something somewhere about what the outcome of the investigation was?
Apparently you are missing something.... Apple and the publishers offered to settle the case after a year rather than let it run it's course and face a potential fine of quite likely 10% if the EU upheld their preliminary findings. . How are you not understanding that?
Who said "there was no danger"? Don't make up stuff.
I asked you whether there was single instance in which a file like that had been levied without finding of guilt in the courtroom, and I don't you (or the others) have been able to come up with a single instance.
If all that is required is "launch investigation" and "settle" why does the EU have courts? And why do some companies take the Commission to court?
What companies have taken the EU Commission to court over their finding of un-competitive business practices like you mention? Perhaps you should look into how the Commission operates. It's not like a traditional court.
I'm not able to find any instance of a company suing the EU Commission over an unfair competition finding but you seemingly know of them. Post 'em so we can comment accurately on them.
I really do not understand exactly what you're getting at. Apple was very obviously at risk of being found guilty along with the publishers of acting as a cartel and engaging in unfair business practices. The EU Commission themselves stated that. What makes you disbelieve what they said?
What companies have taken the EU Commission to court over their finding of un-competitive business practices like you mention? Perhaps you should look into how the Commission operates. It's not like a traditional court.
I'm not able to find any instance of a company suing the EU Commission over an unfair competition finding but you seemingly know of them. Post 'em so we can comment accurately on them.
I really do not understand exactly what you're getting at. Apple was very obviously at risk of being found guilty along with the publishers of acting as a cartel and engaging in unfair business practices. The EU Commission themselves stated that. What makes you disbelieve what they said?
Intel challenged (refused to go along with) the EU Commission on their investigation, and took them to court. And lost. And was asked to pay a fine only after they lost the court case. This is no different from how it happens in the US -- a regulatory authority investigates, tries to settle, if that does not work out, goes to court, and it it wins (after appeals), imposes a punishment.
(I have no idea if anything has actually been paid or not by Intel, or whether it has been settled, or whether it's been appealed. I have not followed it.)
It's rather weird that you guys think that a threat of a fine is a fine, or that things in the EU happen in some heavy-handed fashion that is different in principle from what happens in the US.
Incidentally, I don't have the time to continue this now, I have to run. I'll pick up on it later.
Comments
I think I got it! Singularity is MIA like to see has to say ????
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).
This is all I was trying to say. Apple 'caving' fit with GG's anti-Apple meme, and I was pointing that out.
As to (the absent) singularity, I am still puzzled about his "10%" reference. Perhaps you can explain?
If I were into conspiracies I'd wonder if both Cote and Bromwich were on the NSAs payroll.
Apparently you're not, yet the thought occurred to you..... hmmm.....
Yes...hmm indeed!
Am I the only one who found this article almost unreadable due to the completely crap grammar?
Seriously, does **anyone** perform any editing before articles get published on this site?
Nope. ????
Am I the only one who found this article almost unreadable due to the completely crap grammar?
Seriously, does **anyone** perform any editing before articles get published on this site?
Many of us long-time 'regulars' here have complained mightily about the embarrassing quality of writing/editing (DED being a huge exception) over the years, but finally threw in the towel.
We come here primarily to read and respond to comments! Most of the time, we don't even really read the story.....
This is all I was trying to say. Apple 'caving' fit with GG's anti-Apple meme, and I was pointing that out.
As to (the absent) singularity, I am still puzzled about his "10%" reference. Perhaps you can explain?
The 10% reference apparently comes from a common practice of the EU, which is famously heavy-handed. In antitrust cases, they often set 10% of all global revenue as the fine that would be owed the EU. Apparently, this was common knowledge to "singularity" but not to you, me, or most of us.
You can actually do a Google search for "EU antitrust remedies 10% global" and come up with various different cases in which this is mentioned, including the very article that was linked to earlier by GG. (Although in that case, the 10% reference was listed as a punishment if the terms of the agreement were breached and that the EU wouldn't even have to prove an actual antitrust violation.)
I guess this is why all companies, great and small, really don't like to f*** with the EU. So I think that singularity, even in his strange absence, was most likely right in his speculation.
The 10% reference apparently comes from a common practice of the EU, which is famously heavy-handed. In antitrust cases, they often set 10% of all global revenue as the fine that would be owed the EU. Apparently, this was common knowledge to "singularity" but not to you, me, or most of us.
You can actually do a Google search for "EU antitrust remedies 10% global" and come up with various different cases in which this is mentioned, including the very article that was linked to earlier by GG. (Although in that case, the 10% reference was listed as a punishment if the terms of the agreement were breached and that the EU wouldn't even have to prove an actual antitrust violation.)
I guess this is why all companies, great and small, really don't like to f*** with the EU. So I think that singularity, even in his strange absence, was most likely right in his speculation.
Of course I knew about the 10%. That is quite well-known. In the US, for example, we have the concept of treble damages.
You say (and singularity seemed to imply) it is "common practice."
Can you point to some instances -- especially with non-EU companies -- where the EU has imposed a fine like that without going to through the investigative and judicial process and actually finding a violation? Or a fine like that when/if a violation was found and the company (in this case, Apple and the publishers) complied with the terms of conduct arising from the violation?
If the answer is no, why is the reference to a hypothetical 10% even relevant to Apple (especially in this case where there was no major investigation, let alone a trial)?
Also, what do you mean by the EU being 'heavy-handed'? Are they any more so than the US?
Here's the link to the EU's announcement of the anti-trust case, begun in Dec/2011 and a year before Apple decided not to fight it anymore.
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-11-1509_en.htm?locale=en
"The European Commission has opened formal antitrust proceedings to investigate whether international publishers Hachette Livre (Lagardère Publishing, France), Harper Collins (News Corp., USA), Simon & Schuster (CBS Corp., USA), Penguin (Pearson Group, United Kingdom) and Verlagsgruppe Georg von Holzbrinck (owner of inter alia Macmillan, Germany) have, possibly with the help of Apple, engaged in anti-competitive practices affecting the sale of e-books in the European Economic Area (EEA)1, in breach of EU antitrust rules"
Article 101 of the TFEU prohibits agreements and concerted practices which may affect trade and prevent or restrict competition. The implementation of this provision is defined in the Antitrust Regulation (Council Regulation No 1/2003) which can be applied by the Commission and by the national competition authorities of EU Member States.
The legal base for the Commission's opening of formal proceedings is Article 11(6) of the Antitrust Regulation (Council Regulation No 1/2003)...
The Commission has informed the companies and the competition authorities of the Member States that it has opened proceedings in this case."
So 12 months later you got:
"Antitrust: Commission accepts legally binding commitments from Simon & Schuster, Harper Collins, Hachette, Holtzbrinck and Apple for sale of e-books".
I'm now thinking you didn't know about the anti-trust proceedings which lead to the publishers and Apple making the smart move to settle.
You did know that there was an active anti-trust case against the publishers and Apple in the EU, which is almost certainly why Apple chose to settle rather than face a potential 10% fine, right? If you weren't aware of it then it explains you odd question.
What was the "odd question?"
The questions you're asking wouldn't appear to apply to an announced antitrust case.
Of course I knew about the 10%. That is quite well-known. In the US, for example, we have the concept of treble damages.
You say (and singularity seemed to imply) it is "common practice."
Can you point to some instances -- especially with non-EU companies -- where the EU has imposed a fine like that without going to through the investigative and judicial process and actually finding a violation? Or a fine like that when/if a violation was found and the company (in this case, Apple and the publishers) complied with the terms of conduct arising from the violation?
If the answer is no, why is the reference to a hypothetical 10% even relevant to Apple?
Also, what do you mean by the EU being 'heavy-handed'? Are they any more so than the US?
You did know that there was an active anti-trust case against the publishers and Apple in the EU, which is almost certainly why Apple chose to settle rather than face a potential 10% fine, right? If you weren't aware of it then it explains your odd question.
Here's the link to the EU's announcement of the anti-trust case, begun in Dec/2011 and a year before Apple decided not to fight it anymore.
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-11-1509_en.htm?locale=en
"The European Commission has opened formal antitrust proceedings to investigate whether international publishers Hachette Livre (Lagardère Publishing, France), Harper Collins (News Corp., USA), Simon & Schuster (CBS Corp., USA), Penguin (Pearson Group, United Kingdom) and Verlagsgruppe Georg von Holzbrinck (owner of inter alia Macmillan, Germany) have, possibly with the help of Apple, engaged in anti-competitive practices affecting the sale of e-books in the European Economic Area (EEA)1, in breach of EU antitrust rules"
Article 101 of the TFEU prohibits agreements and concerted practices which may affect trade and prevent or restrict competition. The implementation of this provision is defined in the Antitrust Regulation (Council Regulation No 1/2003) which can be applied by the Commission and by the national competition authorities of EU Member States.
The legal base for the Commission's opening of formal proceedings is Article 11(6) of the Antitrust Regulation (Council Regulation No 1/2003)...
The Commission has informed the companies and the competition authorities of the Member States that it has opened proceedings in this case."
So 12 months later you got:
"Antitrust: Commission accepts legally binding commitments from Simon & Schuster, Harper Collins, Hachette, Holtzbrinck and Apple for sale of e-books".
I'm now thinking you didn't know about the anti-trust proceedings which lead to the publishers and Apple making the smart move to settle.
Ah, another one of your favored tactics: add to your original post after someone has replied to it.
Leaving that aside, did I miss something somewhere about what the outcome of the investigation was? And the role of the bogus "10%" you all keep mentioning here and there?
I am now thinking that you're just making it up as you go along.
Apparently you are missing something.... Apple and the publishers offered to settle the case after a year rather than let it run it's course and face a potential fine of quite likely 10% if the EU upheld their preliminary findings. . How are you not understanding that?
Do you think there was no danger of Apple being dinged 10% if they didn't settle, and if so on what basis? I really don 't get the questions you're asking since the EU felt there was enough evidence of a possible cartel and illegal business practices to open official proceedings.
Who said "there was no danger"? Don't make up stuff.
I asked you whether there was single instance in which a fine like that had been levied without finding of guilt in the courtroom, and I don't believe you (or the others) have been able to come up with a single instance.
If all that is required is "launch investigation" and "settle" why does the EU have courts? And why do some companies take the Commission to court?
Ah, another one of your favored tactics: add to your original post after someone has replied to it.
Leaving that aside, did I miss something somewhere about what the outcome of the investigation was?
Apparently you are missing something.... Apple and the publishers offered to settle the case after a year rather than let it run it's course and face a potential fine of quite likely 10% if the EU upheld their preliminary findings. . How are you not understanding that?
See my post above.
What companies have taken the EU Commission to court over their finding of un-competitive business practices like you mention? Perhaps you should look into how the Commission operates. It's not like a traditional court.
I'm not able to find any instance of a company suing the EU Commission over an unfair competition finding but you seemingly know of them. Post 'em so we can comment accurately on them.
I really do not understand exactly what you're getting at. Apple was very obviously at risk of being found guilty along with the publishers of acting as a cartel and engaging in unfair business practices. The EU Commission themselves stated that. What makes you disbelieve what they said?
What companies have taken the EU Commission to court over their finding of un-competitive business practices like you mention? Perhaps you should look into how the Commission operates. It's not like a traditional court.
I'm not able to find any instance of a company suing the EU Commission over an unfair competition finding but you seemingly know of them. Post 'em so we can comment accurately on them.
I really do not understand exactly what you're getting at. Apple was very obviously at risk of being found guilty along with the publishers of acting as a cartel and engaging in unfair business practices. The EU Commission themselves stated that. What makes you disbelieve what they said?
Intel challenged (refused to go along with) the EU Commission on their investigation, and took them to court. And lost. And was asked to pay a fine only after they lost the court case. This is no different from how it happens in the US -- a regulatory authority investigates, tries to settle, if that does not work out, goes to court, and it it wins (after appeals), imposes a punishment.
(I have no idea if anything has actually been paid or not by Intel, or whether it has been settled, or whether it's been appealed. I have not followed it.)
It's rather weird that you guys think that a threat of a fine is a fine, or that things in the EU happen in some heavy-handed fashion that is different in principle from what happens in the US.
Incidentally, I don't have the time to continue this now, I have to run. I'll pick up on it later.