- Last Active
gatorguy said:tmay said:There's the impression that what Steve Jobs did was illegal, yet many do not see that.
I certainly don't see that, but it is also true that the publishers did collude with each other.
Sewell would have almost certainly have been aware of Steve Job's email at that time, and not of the collusion between publishers.
Apple devised a Most Favored Nation (MFN) clause in its contracts with publishers which "guaranteed that the e-books in Apple’s e-bookstore would be sold for the lowest retail price available in the marketplace," Cote wrote. For the publishers to charge up to $14.99 for e-books on Apple's iBooks store, they had to raise prices on Amazon's Kindle store as well by collectively forcing Amazon to accept the agency model.
As Cue acknowledged at trial, “I just wanted to assure them that they weren’t going to be alone, so that I would take the fear away of the Amazon retribution that they were all afraid of.” By acting in concert, enabled by Apple being the coordinator between them, they removed Amazon as a problem.
I don't think Sewell would have signed off on it had he known all the communication details and he now suggests that's exactly what he would have done, recommended against it It doesn't make Apple the corporation "bad", more a rare error in judgement by executive management.
You are awfully confident for a guy who lacks understanding of the basic facts of the case.
1. "Apple was absolutely aware of the "collusion between publishers' as they were the ones keeping each of then apprised of what each of the others agreed to."
First you got the collusion bit wrong. The only collusion that occurred was between the publishers on their dealings with Amazon. Apple had nothing to do with it.
Apple sharing information with multiple publishers on it's own plan is neither illegal nor unethical. This is normal practice when dealing with business partners who are not direct competitors (To dumb it down for you - publishers are not 'direct competitors', because each one has exclusive rights to certain works. By definition, they cannot illegally collude to alter the market price of Tom Clancy's latest book, because only one publisher has the rights to it).
2. "Apple devised a Most Favored Nation (MFN) clause in its contracts with publishers which "guaranteed that the e-books in Apple’s e-bookstore would be sold for the lowest retail price available in the marketplace," Cote wrote. For the publishers to charge up to $14.99 for e-books on Apple's iBooks store, they had to raise prices on Amazon's Kindle store as well by collectively forcing Amazon to accept the agency model."
How clueless can one person be?!! Apple did not 'devise the MFN clause' - it has been in use for many decades in multiple industries, and has been found valid by many courts. Given that Amazon has been 'dumping' eBooks on the market (selling below cost to disrupt normal free-market forces and artificially lower their value) for many years, publishers 'banding' together to deal with Amazon was perfectly legal and ethical. The Justice Department's misreading of anti-trust law as 'anything goes if it lowers the cost to consumers' ignores the predictable and real danger of a monopoly (Amazon) raising costs once the competition is eliminated.
3. As for Coates, her pre-trial bias against Apple is a matter of public record. Her unilateral dismissal of Cue's testimony, and illogical interpretation of Job's email to fit her predetermined notions were extra-legal. The only reason her decisions was not overturned by an Appellate Court was our system's almost-religious belief in a Judge's autonomy and the absurdly technical standards for reversal. Her 'collusion' with her 'friend' the 'no-experience anti-trust lawyer' to defraud Apple out of millions was finally stopped by a superior court.
In short, you are full of it.
This article makes no sense whatsoever. Why is AI publishing a whole article on one analyst’s wild guess without making any effort to prove or disprove it. Are we to expect a new article from AI every time someone publishes their speculation?
QC has been found guilty of violating antitrust laws on two continents, with another adverse decision likely within a month, from the same judge who already ruled that QC must license it’s SEPs to competing chipmakers. There is no way Apple would acquiesce to all of QC’s demands or settle without getting something substantial in return. Anybody who believes that Apple agreed to such a terrible deal must also believe that Tim Cook just had a stroke, and was replaced by a look-alike dummy.
farstrider said:Lol whats funny is how many times apples online service has been hacked. Brings question into how secure their public web server is
All the iCloud account break-in’s were made possible by celebrities who used easily guessable passwords, not due to any failure in iCloud security. The hackers were able to access only the celeb’s information, and not that of other iCloud users.