Go Back   MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Aug 2, 2013, 02:35 PM   #1
MacRumors
macrumors bot
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Apple Files Brief Calling Department of Justice Remedy 'Draconian' and 'Punitive'




Following the Department of Justice's release of a proposed remedy to address Apple's e-book price fixing, Apple has filed its own brief (via The Next Web) that calls the plan a "draconian and punitive intrusion into Apple's business, wildly out of proportion to any adjudicated wrongdoing or potential harm."
Quote:
Plaintiffs propose a sweeping and unprecedented injunction as a tool to empower the Government to regulate Apple's businesses and potentially affect Apple's business relationships with thousands of partners across several markets.

Plaintiffs' overreaching proposal would establish a vague new compliance regime--applicable only to Apple--with intrusive oversight lasting for ten years, going far beyond the legal issues in this case, injuring competition and consumers, and violating basic principles of fairness and due process. The resulting cost of this relief--not only in dollars but also lost opportunities for American businesses and consumers--would be vast.
The DOJ's remedy would require Apple to terminate its existing agreements with the five major publishers that the company is accused of conspiring with in addition to allowing its e-book rivals like Amazon and Barnes and Noble to offer links to their own bookstores within their apps.

It would also require Apple to allow a third party to monitor its continued adherence to internal antitrust compliance policies and prevent the company from entering into agreements with music, movie, TV show, and book providers that could increase prices for rival retailers.

The App Store section of the proposal is particularly troubling for Apple, as it would potentially allow major e-book retailers like Amazon and Barnes and Noble to link to outside bookstores and sell e-books without being subject to Apple's 30% in-app purchase fee. According to Apple, its App Store is outside of the scope of the case and unconnected to evidence that was presented at trial.
Quote:
There was no evidence admitted at trial, and certainly no finding by this Court, that Apple's general policy requiring e-book retailers to pay a commission on in-app digital sales was part of the conspiracy that this Court found. Likewise, there is no evidence that Apple conspired to restrain the distribution of e-book apps or to impose less favorable terms on such apps.
In addition to calling the remedy punitive and draconian, Apple argues that the DoJ's terms are "absurdly broad" and that the proposed compliance monitorship would be "unprecedented and unwarranted."

Apple asks the court to reject the proposed injunction entirely, or greatly narrow its scope. A hearing to discuss the proposal is set for August 9.


Article Link: Apple Files Brief Calling Department of Justice Remedy 'Draconian' and 'Punitive'
MacRumors is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 2, 2013, 02:42 PM   #2
samcraig
macrumors G5
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

But seriously - I do think there are things that are over-reaching or harsh about the judgement in total. Hopefully there's wiggle room or it can be adjusted accordingly.
samcraig is offline   17 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 2, 2013, 02:43 PM   #3
Gus Van Der Mee
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Sucks but that's life.
Gus Van Der Mee is offline   5 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 2, 2013, 02:44 PM   #4
ggamecrazy
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
So from the gist of it, us (the consumer) have nothing but to gain from this decision.

Of course the Apple stockholder can't say that.
__________________
2011 27' iMac | 2012 15' rMacBook Pro | OG iPad | iPhone |
ggamecrazy is offline   14 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 2, 2013, 02:47 PM   #5
Bonte
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Bruges, Belgium
Quote:
Originally Posted by ggamecrazy View Post
So from the gist of it, us (the consumer) have nothing but to gain from this decision.

Of course the Apple stockholder can't say that.
Do you really think this will lower media prices?

Yeah, i'm a stock holder. :/
__________________
Canterbury Tales comic
Bonte is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 2, 2013, 02:47 PM   #6
samcraig
macrumors G5
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonte View Post
Do you really think this will lower media prices?

Yeah, i'm a stock holder. :/
it already has?
samcraig is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 2, 2013, 02:47 PM   #7
Rogifan
macrumors G3
 
Rogifan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by ggamecrazy View Post
So from the gist of it, us (the consumer) have nothing but to gain from this decision.

Of course the Apple stockholder can't say that.
That's why their stock is up over $5 today?
__________________
"I have a very optimistic view of individuals. As individuals, people are inherently good. I have a somewhat more pessimistic view of people in groups." -- Steve Jobs , Wired interview
Rogifan is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 2, 2013, 02:48 PM   #8
myamid
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Montreal, QC
oh for @$#$ sake...

Come on, I'm tired of seeing this tirade about how unfair this is.

Did Apple sign contracts with MFN clauses in them? Yes
Did these clauses force prices to go up? Yes
Are higher prices a benefit to consumers? No
Did Apple knowingly do this with the cooperation of publishers to increase the prices? Yes
Did all these publishers settle and essentially admit guilt? Yes

So over all, it's pretty clear Apple did engage in a form of price fixing, and they were cough in the act. Wanting to get into a new market is all good, but the way they did it was wrong, and they should get punitive damages for it.

Come into a new market with an innovative product or with better prices and the customers will come. Try to force your way into it by forcing existing players to price higher because you took part in a mafia-like agreement to ensure other players can't price below you? That's dishonest, period.
__________________
15.4 MacBook Pro 2.4Ghz, 2GB ram, NV9600 GT/9400m
20" Core Duo iMac 2Ghz, 2GB Ram, x1600
Murphy's Law sucks!
myamid is offline   34 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 2, 2013, 02:49 PM   #9
WhoDaKat
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: May 2006
I think the whole thing is bunk. The agency model doesn't say you can't sell your books cheaper it just says you have to offer Apple the same price you'd give to your competitors. I guess the DOJ likes to see small business bookstores going under because they can't compete with Amazon who sells things at a loss. Way to go America. Great job.
WhoDaKat is offline   27 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 2, 2013, 02:52 PM   #10
Kwill
macrumors 68000
 
Kwill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
It's called negotiation: Give us everything. I'll give you nothing. OK, we'll take half.
__________________
o ::::: • • ::::::::

@ClinicalPosters
Kwill is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 2, 2013, 02:52 PM   #11
eldervovichka
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Queen Creek, AZ
There is already a White House Petition to help bring the DOJ actions under review. It just started today.

http://wh.gov/lr8uW

I normally don't get involved in this type of thing, but I saw this link in another thread, so I decided to post it here.

Have a wonderful day!

Jeff
eldervovichka is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 2, 2013, 02:53 PM   #12
gibbz
macrumors 68030
 
gibbz's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: National Weather Center
Send a message via AIM to gibbz
I agree with this statement from Apple.

Quote:
Apple is under no duty to allow other retailers to offer apps on the iPad in the first place, much less on terms that subsidize their operations
__________________
64GB SG iPad Air 32GB Black iPhone 5
MP 8x2.8/16GB MP 8x2.93/32GB/2x24" MBA 1.7/8GB/256GB 2013 rMBP 16GB/512GB
Jeremy Gibbs | Gibbz
gibbz is offline   30 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 2, 2013, 02:55 PM   #13
samcraig
macrumors G5
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhoDaKat View Post
I think the whole thing is bunk. The agency model doesn't say you can't sell your books cheaper it just says you have to offer Apple the same price you'd give to your competitors. I guess the DOJ likes to see small business bookstores going under because they can't compete with Amazon who sells things at a loss. Way to go America. Great job.
Huh?

The whole point was that all resellers needed to price their books the same.
samcraig is offline   6 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 2, 2013, 02:58 PM   #14
WhoDaKat
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: May 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by myamid View Post
Come on, I'm tired of seeing this tirade about how unfair this is.

Did Apple sign contracts with MFN clauses in them? Yes
Did these clauses force prices to go up? Yes
Are higher prices a benefit to consumers? No
Did Apple knowingly do this with the cooperation of publishers to increase the prices? Yes
Did all these publishers settle and essentially admit guilt? Yes

So over all, it's pretty clear Apple did engage in a form of price fixing, and they were cough in the act. Wanting to get into a new market is all good, but the way they did it was wrong, and they should get punitive damages for it.

Come into a new market with an innovative product or with better prices and the customers will come. Try to force your way into it by forcing existing players to price higher because you took part in a mafia-like agreement to ensure other players can't price below you? That's dishonest, period.
MFN clauses make it seem like only Apple is getting something. Apple, and other small book stores, heck even the big brick and mortar stores can't compete with or don't want to compete with someone who buys 5 billion of something and then sells them at a loss to steal customers. Apple isn't saying only we get this price, they are saying if X gets this price, we want it to. Whats wrong with that?

The clauses themselves didn't make prices go up, the publishers raised the price on the product they were selling. Check the prices of milk, gas, etc. Prices go up!

Higher prices are not a benefit to consumers, but again prices go up every day, that isn't anti-trust.

Knowingly do what exactly? Sell books at the prices the publishers set?

Mafia like? Thats laughable. Nobody forced the publishers to do anything. They saw an opportunity to make more money and took it. Thats why they settled.
WhoDaKat is offline   11 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 2, 2013, 02:58 PM   #15
Mak47
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Harrisburg, PA
This is absurd. Publishers are not going to go back to the old model. You can't simply revert an industry back by 3+ years with the stroke of a pen.

But this is what happens when bureaucrats, with no idea how the real world functions, make and enforce laws.
Mak47 is offline   8 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 2, 2013, 03:01 PM   #16
Oletros
macrumors 603
 
Oletros's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Premià de Mar
Surprising /s
__________________
There are four kinds of lies: Lies, damned lies, statistics, and analyst projections.
Oletros is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 2, 2013, 03:02 PM   #17
samcraig
macrumors G5
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhoDaKat View Post
MFN clauses make it seem like only Apple is getting something. Apple, and other small book stores, heck even the big brick and mortar stores can't compete with or don't want to compete with someone who buys 5 billion of something and then sells them at a loss to steal customers. Apple isn't saying only we get this price, they are saying if X gets this price, we want it to. Whats wrong with that?

The clauses themselves didn't make prices go up, the publishers raised the price on the product they were selling. Check the prices of milk, gas, etc. Prices go up!

Higher prices are not a benefit to consumers, but again prices go up every day, that isn't anti-trust.

Knowingly do what exactly? Sell books at the prices the publishers set?

Mafia like? Thats laughable. Nobody forced the publishers to do anything. They saw an opportunity to make more money and took it. Thats why they settled.
eBooks aren't "bought" in bulk. This is about eBooks. Not books. Do you understand the case? I ask because this is now the second time you're posting something that doesn't make sense.

The clauses most definitely made prices go up. Again - I think you're misinformed.

And the publishers actually made less (they stated so) most of the time with the new deal in place. They did it (most likely) for other reasons which I posted in another thread - which deals with saving the printed book market.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mak47 View Post
This is absurd. Publishers are not going to go back to the old model. You can't simply revert an industry back by 3+ years with the stroke of a pen.

But this is what happens when bureaucrats, with no idea how the real world functions, make and enforce laws.
They already have?
samcraig is offline   10 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 2, 2013, 03:02 PM   #18
WhoDaKat
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: May 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by samcraig View Post
Huh?

The whole point was that all resellers needed to price their books the same.
Huh?

Apple, and other small business bookstores, don't want to sell books at a loss like Amazon. They can't, well Apple could, but its not their business model. And you shouldn't be forced to lose money in order to do business. That seems more anti-trust to me, but hey I'm not a lawyer.
WhoDaKat is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 2, 2013, 03:02 PM   #19
agsystems
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Exactly

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kwill View Post
It's called negotiation: Give us everything. I'll give you nothing. OK, we'll take half.
Ask for the moon and then rollback - nothing weird about that strategy
agsystems is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 2, 2013, 03:02 PM   #20
Xytal
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mak47 View Post
This is absurd. Publishers are not going to go back to the old model. You can't simply revert an industry back by 3+ years with the stroke of a pen.

But this is what happens when bureaucrats, with no idea how the real world functions, make and enforce laws.
God, ain't that the truth. I really wish the Government would get their heads out of their rears and actually use some common sense...

I know, I'm asking for a lot there.
Xytal is offline   5 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 2, 2013, 03:02 PM   #21
samcraig
macrumors G5
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhoDaKat View Post
Huh?

Apple, and other small business bookstores, don't want to sell books at a loss like Amazon. They can't, well Apple could, but its not their business model. And you shouldn't be forced to lose money in order to do business. That seems more anti-trust to me, but hey I'm not a lawyer.
Probably a good thing. Especially since you have no idea about the facts of this case.

But by all means - keep ranting.
samcraig is offline   7 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 2, 2013, 03:03 PM   #22
Oletros
macrumors 603
 
Oletros's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Premià de Mar
Quote:
Originally Posted by gibbz View Post
I agree with this statement from Apple.
Where is Apple subsidizing anything?
__________________
There are four kinds of lies: Lies, damned lies, statistics, and analyst projections.
Oletros is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 2, 2013, 03:04 PM   #23
burjeffton
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by eldervovichka View Post
There is already a White House Petition to help bring the DOJ actions under review. It just started today.
Have you been paying any attention to this DOJ and administration? If the WH isn't going to do anything about benghazi, fast & furious, AP wire tapping, IRS scandal, journalist tapping etc, I don't think they're gonna give 2 jits about what the DOJ is doing with Apple.
burjeffton is offline   11 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 2, 2013, 03:04 PM   #24
Gasu E.
macrumors 68030
 
Gasu E.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Not far from Boston, MA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by samcraig View Post
Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

But seriously - I do think there are things that are over-reaching or harsh about the judgement in total. Hopefully there's wiggle room or it can be adjusted accordingly.
No; there are two separate issues-- guilt, and the actual punishment. It would have been totally appropriate for the DOJ to assess monetary damages based on the economic cost. It is totally wrong for the DOJ to force Apple into specific business policies that have nothing to do with repairing the original infraction. Moreover, they cannot even argue that they are forcing Apple to behave appropriately, since they are not requiring Amazon to behave in the same way. As Apple says, this is entirely punitive. DOJ cannot just make up a punishment out of thin air.
__________________
Please stop boring me.
Gasu E. is offline   11 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 2, 2013, 03:05 PM   #25
hayesk
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: May 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by myamid View Post
Come on, I'm tired of seeing this tirade about how unfair this is.

Did Apple sign contracts with MFN clauses in them? Yes
Did these clauses force prices to go up? Yes
Are higher prices a benefit to consumers? No
Did Apple knowingly do this with the cooperation of publishers to increase the prices? Yes
Did all these publishers settle and essentially admit guilt? Yes
Or was it because it was financially advantageous to settle rather than fight it out?

And you didn't ask the question of whether higher prices were a benefit to the authors and the industry as a whole.

I'd also like you to comment if you believe the settlement would simply hand the monopoly to Amazon where they are free to raise the prices to Apple-levels and keep the profits for themselves rather than pay more to the authors, resulting in a healthier industry.

Quote:

So over all, it's pretty clear Apple did engage in a form of price fixing, and they were cough in the act. Wanting to get into a new market is all good, but the way they did it was wrong, and they should get punitive damages for it.

Come into a new market with an innovative product or with better prices and the customers will come. Try to force your way into it by forcing existing players to price higher because you took part in a mafia-like agreement to ensure other players can't price below you? That's dishonest, period.
Maybe, but that doesn't mean the settlement is fair. It's not like you can just say "Apple was guilty - punish them however you please."
hayesk is offline   2 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Justice Department Presents Opening Arguments Against Apple in E-Book Price Fixing Trial MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 233 Jun 27, 2014 04:55 AM
Justice Department Skeptical About Sprint Acquisition of T-Mobile MacRumors iOS Blog Discussion 64 Feb 8, 2014 03:49 AM
U.S. Justice Department funded Anti-Zimmerman rallies gsugolfer Politics, Religion, Social Issues 21 Jul 19, 2013 06:53 AM
Google Executive's Testimony Weakens Justice Department's Case Against Apple in E-Book Price Fixing Trial MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 122 Jun 10, 2013 09:53 AM
AP says Justice Department spied on reporters' phone calls MacNut Politics, Religion, Social Issues 41 May 15, 2013 12:28 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:06 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC