Apple CEO Tim Cook 'May Testify' in E-Books Antitrust Lawsuit

[MacRumors]

Apple CEO Tim Cook may testify in the e-books antitrust lawsuit filed against Apple and book publishers by the United States Department of Justice, reports Bloomberg.

The lawsuit was originally filed in April of 2012, and has focused on the so-called 'agency model' for pricing ebooks that Apple attempted to negotiate with a number of publishers. Apple had pushed for the agency model in an attempt to dilute Amazon's power in the book market, where it had offered vast discounts, even sometimes selling books at a loss, in order to attract customers who would make other purchases through the site.

But the Department of Justice believes that the agency model as implemented by the publishers at Apple's behest amounts to collusion, with contracts between Apple and the publishers including language that prevented the publishers from offering lower pricing to competitors than they did to Apple. Contrary to the government's claims of an anti-competitive impact from the agency model, Apple and several of the publishers have argued that the move has fostered competitiveness by limiting Amazon's stranglehold on the book market.

The Department of Justice has settled with all of the book publishers initially accused, while Apple remains the main target of the suit.

Article Link: Apple CEO Tim Cook 'May Testify' in E-Books Antitrust Lawsuit

[iGrip]

Sure, Tim could testify, but they would have to reach out beyond the grave to interrogate the guy who masterminded the whole scheme.

Nobody knew how to turn a buck like Steve Jobs. Nobody.

[camnchar]

Go get em, Tim!

[Rocketman]

When a "regulator" has "settled" with "targeted persons" that means it invoked its unilateral power with support of the courts of "presumed correctness", and furthermore utilized the already excessive prosecutorial power of "plea bargain" and add the absolutely unconstitutional power of that standard of justice which even exceeds "innocent until found guilty" and "beyond a reasonable doubt", on the other end of the "negotiation".

This is a route with legal police powers against citizens, and what's worse, it's "legal" and fully supported by "starry decisis". But nevertheless unconstitutional, unfair, unlawful, and just not right.

Ironically even Apple, the largest market cap company ever, doesn't even have a basis to refute that amount of power, no matter how many lawyers they have! The executive branch has managed unilateral police powers to be at their command.

Rocketman

Off-topic proof:
http://www.v-serv.com/usr/ATFE-03-16-09.pdf

[lwapps]

Originally Posted by camnchar

Go get em, Tim!

I thought he would keep separate from the messy legal stuff. I guess he feels strongly about this issue!

[BaldiMac]

Originally Posted by Rocketman

When a "regulator" has "settled" with "targeted persons" that means it invoked its unilateral power with support of the courts of "presumed correctness", and furthermore utilized the already excessive prosecutorial power of "plea bargain" and add the absolutely unconstitutional power of that standard of justice which even exceeds "innocent until found guilty" and "beyond a reasonable doubt", on the other end of the "negotiation".

This is a route with legal police powers against citizens, and what's worse, it's "legal" and fully supported by "starry decisis". But nevertheless unconstitutional, unfair, unlawful, and just not right.

Ironically even Apple, the largest market cap company ever, doesn't even have a basis to refute that amount of power, no matter how many lawyers they have! The executive branch has managed unilateral police powers to be at their command.

Rocketman

Off-topic proof:
http://www.v-serv.com/usr/ATFE-03-16-09.pdf

This case actually takes your point even further. The Justice Department actually forced Apple to modify its contracts with the publishers as part of the publishers' settlement without any due process or settlement with Apple.

[Plutonius]

Originally Posted by Rocketman

When a "regulator" has "settled" with "targeted persons" that means it invoked its unilateral power with support of the courts of "presumed correctness", and furthermore utilized the already excessive prosecutorial power of "plea bargain" and add the absolutely unconstitutional power of that standard of justice which even exceeds "innocent until found guilty" and "beyond a reasonable doubt", on the other end of the "negotiation".

This is a route with legal police powers against citizens, and what's worse, it's "legal" and fully supported by "starry decisis". But nevertheless unconstitutional, unfair, unlawful, and just not right.

Ironically even Apple, the largest market cap company ever, doesn't even have a basis to refute that amount of power, no matter how many lawyers they have! The executive branch has managed unilateral police powers to be at their command.

Rocketman

Off-topic proof:
http://www.v-serv.com/usr/ATFE-03-16-09.pdf

If Apple doesn't settle, I think they have a good shot at winning this. The others were forced to settle because of the amount of money it would cost to fight it.

[iGrip]

Originally Posted by Rocketman

Ironically even Apple, the largest market cap company ever, doesn't even have a basis to refute that amount of power, no matter how many lawyers they have!

Thank God that corporations do not have the power to defy governments. Not yet anyways.

Power has shifted over the centuries from the church to government. And now it is shifting again, towards the corporation.

If corporations become more powerful than governments, we will regret not having prevented it.

[Squilly]

Looks like the DoJ wants a small pot of gold themselves.

[Rocketman]

Originally Posted by iGrip

Thank God that corporations do not have the power to defy governments.

Corporations (legal persons) and natural persons have exactly the same amount of access to fight (defy) "government regulators" which have not yet been first PROVEN to be "arbitrary and capricious". NONE.

The cases are decided in "administrative court" with a standard of justice of "regulator presumed correct". No, I am not kidding. ALL regulators. ALL regulations. Heard of any new regulations lately?

Originally Posted by Squilly

Looks like the DoJ wants a small pot of gold themselves.

Just look at the list of the top 40 fines issued by regulators for the past 4.5 years. You would be shocked!

I would love it if Apple would publish a verified list. It might tilt the politics.

Rocketman

[rlhamil]

Originally Posted by iGrip

Thank God that corporations do not have the power to defy governments. Not yet anyways.

Power has shifted over the centuries from the church to government. And now it is shifting again, towards the corporation.

If corporations become more powerful than governments, we will regret not having prevented it.

I trust honest money-grubbing infinitely more than I trust those desiring the power to regulate it...because sooner or later, they'll regulate you right into slavery.

[Rocketman]

Originally Posted by rlhamil

I trust honest money-grubbing infinitely more than I trust those desiring the power to regulate it...because sooner or later, they'll regulate you right into slavery.

Sooner. Now.

BTW the Constitution agrees with you.

[chriscrk]

Tim Cook is so cute. I hope the gay rumours are true, then he could be my sugar daddy and get me all the latest devices.

[Laird Knox]

It is a matter of semantics: Was the contract "you can't give anybody else a better deal than we get" or was it "you must give us as good a deal as you give anybody else?"

[b0r1s]

Being a UK citizen I'm not that well versed in US law, but I'm surprised how much Amazon's own self interests have been overlooked in this case.

Yes, Apple are in no way innocent, but Amazon using a monopoly strategy in the e-book market to further their own interests should be top of any law suit.

[ymmit]

Originally Posted by Laird Knox

It is a matter of semantics: Was the contract "you can't give anybody else a better deal than we get" or was it "you must give us as good a deal as you give anybody else?"

Never thought about it that way.

[japanime]

When will Amazon come under scrutiny for advertising "free wireless delivery via Whispernet" when in fact it isn't actually free at all?

[Rocketman]

Amazon's "price dumping" strategy is allegedly clearly unlawful and unenforced.

[japanime]

Originally Posted by Rocketman

Amazon's "price dumping" strategy is allegedly clearly unlawful and unenforced.

I'm not sure if you are trying to be sarcastic when you say "allegedly clearly." However, if you truly mean that this practice is wrong, I certainly agree with you.

Amazon doesn't earn less when it lowers the prices — it simply pays the publishers less. And the publishers can't do a thing about it.

[Rocketman]

Originally Posted by japanime

Amazon doesn't earn less when it lowers the prices — it simply pays the publishers less. And the publishers can't do a thing about it.

I publish books. I have a hard minimum wholesale price. That's my right. If Amazon unilaterally violates that it is "theft or conversion". Fact. No alleged.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally Posted by Plutonius

If Apple doesn't settle, I think they have a good shot at winning this. The others were forced to settle because of the amount of money it would cost to fight it.

I think their chances of winning are practically zero. The argument that it's good for our business and bad for our competitors is going to cut no ice. In the end it's likely that it won't go to trial anyway. Almost none of them do, and the companies that do go to trial almost always regret it.

[tongxinshe]

The term should have been something like “Party B agrees to set iTunes’ book price within 1 hour after a lower price is offered to other parties, to match or beat that lower price”. The catch point is the current term missed “within xxx time frame”, making it impossible to be fair to any other parties.

[Rocketman]

Originally Posted by IJ Reilly

I think their chances of winning are practically zero. The argument that it's good for our business and bad for our competitors is going to cut no ice. In the end it's likely that it won't go to trial anyway. Almost none of them do, and the companies that do go to trial almost always regret it.

I 100% agree and have already stated why with details.

[Fatalbert]

Oh gee, price collusion. Why not target the biggest price colluders, the cell companies, for their organized price-gouging of SMS? It's the biggest ripoff I've ever seen.

----------

Originally Posted by japanime

When will Amazon come under scrutiny for advertising "free wireless delivery via Whispernet" when in fact it isn't actually free at all?

Same thing with HP wireless printers. They work maybe once over wifi if you're lucky.

[Krazy Bill]

Apple and several of the publishers have argued that the move has fostered competitiveness by limiting Amazon's stranglehold on the book market.

So... to circumvent strong-arm tactics initiated by another company you adopt strong-arm tactics yourself...

I see...