Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Mar 8, 2013, 04:22 PM   #1
MacRumors
macrumors bot
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Apple CEO Tim Cook 'May Testify' in E-Books Antitrust Lawsuit




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
MacRumors is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 8, 2013, 04:25 PM   #2
iGrip
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Send a message via ICQ to iGrip Send a message via AIM to iGrip Send a message via MSN to iGrip Send a message via Yahoo to iGrip Send a message via Skype™ to 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.
iGrip is offline   5 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 8, 2013, 04:45 PM   #3
camnchar
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: SLC, Utah
Send a message via AIM to camnchar
Go get em, Tim!
__________________
Apple //c, 1 MHz, 128k RAM, 5.25" floppy drive, 1-button mouse
camnchar is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 8, 2013, 04:58 PM   #4
Rocketman
macrumors 603
 
Rocketman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Claremont, CA
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
__________________
Think Different-ly!
All R House jobs bills die in D Senate. Buy a model rocket here: http://v-serv.com/usr/instaship-visual.htm Thanks.
Rocketman is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 8, 2013, 05:11 PM   #5
lwapps
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by camnchar View Post
Go get em, Tim!
I thought he would keep separate from the messy legal stuff. I guess he feels strongly about this issue!
__________________
LW Apps iPhone iOS Applications
LW Apps Twitter
Best iPhone Apps: Studious Diary/Planner: bit.ly/PqTzyw Are You Normal?: m.lwapps.com/15HN0it Phys Pad: bit.ly/Pj86Oa
lwapps is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 8, 2013, 05:14 PM   #6
BaldiMac
macrumors 604
 
BaldiMac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocketman View Post
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.
BaldiMac is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 8, 2013, 05:14 PM   #7
Plutonius
macrumors 68040
 
Plutonius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: New Hampshire
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocketman View Post
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.
Plutonius is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 8, 2013, 05:22 PM   #8
iGrip
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Send a message via ICQ to iGrip Send a message via AIM to iGrip Send a message via MSN to iGrip Send a message via Yahoo to iGrip Send a message via Skype™ to iGrip
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocketman View Post

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.
iGrip is offline   10 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 8, 2013, 05:26 PM   #9
Squilly
macrumors 68020
 
Squilly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: PA
Looks like the DoJ wants a small pot of gold themselves.
__________________
iPhone 5s 16gb Space Gray Sprint
Squilly is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 8, 2013, 05:27 PM   #10
Rocketman
macrumors 603
 
Rocketman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Claremont, CA
Quote:
Originally Posted by iGrip View Post
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Squilly View Post
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
__________________
Think Different-ly!
All R House jobs bills die in D Senate. Buy a model rocket here: http://v-serv.com/usr/instaship-visual.htm Thanks.

Last edited by Rocketman; Mar 8, 2013 at 05:43 PM.
Rocketman is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 8, 2013, 05:31 PM   #11
rlhamil
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by iGrip View Post
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.
rlhamil is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 8, 2013, 05:44 PM   #12
Rocketman
macrumors 603
 
Rocketman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Claremont, CA
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlhamil View Post
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.
__________________
Think Different-ly!
All R House jobs bills die in D Senate. Buy a model rocket here: http://v-serv.com/usr/instaship-visual.htm Thanks.
Rocketman is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 8, 2013, 05:46 PM   #13
chriscrk
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
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.

chriscrk is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 8, 2013, 05:47 PM   #14
Laird Knox
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
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?"
Laird Knox is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 8, 2013, 06:03 PM   #15
b0r1s
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Staffordshire
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.
b0r1s is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 8, 2013, 06:04 PM   #16
ymmit
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Lenexa, KS
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laird Knox View Post
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.
__________________
2010 13" MacBook Pro, The New iPad 4G, iPhone 5
ymmit is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 8, 2013, 06:12 PM   #17
japanime
macrumors 65816
 
japanime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Japan
When will Amazon come under scrutiny for advertising "free wireless delivery via Whispernet" when in fact it isn't actually free at all?
__________________
Put Manga University in your pocket — get our free iPhone app!
japanime is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 8, 2013, 06:12 PM   #18
Rocketman
macrumors 603
 
Rocketman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Claremont, CA
Amazon's "price dumping" strategy is allegedly clearly unlawful and unenforced.
__________________
Think Different-ly!
All R House jobs bills die in D Senate. Buy a model rocket here: http://v-serv.com/usr/instaship-visual.htm Thanks.
Rocketman is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 8, 2013, 06:17 PM   #19
japanime
macrumors 65816
 
japanime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Japan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocketman View Post
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.
__________________
Put Manga University in your pocket — get our free iPhone app!
japanime is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 8, 2013, 06:27 PM   #20
Rocketman
macrumors 603
 
Rocketman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Claremont, CA
Quote:
Originally Posted by japanime View Post
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.
__________________
Think Different-ly!
All R House jobs bills die in D Senate. Buy a model rocket here: http://v-serv.com/usr/instaship-visual.htm Thanks.
Rocketman is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 8, 2013, 06:40 PM   #21
IJ Reilly
macrumors P6
 
IJ Reilly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Palookaville
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plutonius View Post
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.
__________________
*The season starts too early and finishes too late and there are too many games in between.
Bill Veeck
IJ Reilly is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 8, 2013, 07:01 PM   #22
tongxinshe
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
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.
tongxinshe is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 8, 2013, 07:06 PM   #23
Rocketman
macrumors 603
 
Rocketman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Claremont, CA
Quote:
Originally Posted by IJ Reilly View Post
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.
__________________
Think Different-ly!
All R House jobs bills die in D Senate. Buy a model rocket here: http://v-serv.com/usr/instaship-visual.htm Thanks.
Rocketman is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 8, 2013, 07:20 PM   #24
Fatalbert
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
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.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by japanime View Post
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.
Fatalbert is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 8, 2013, 07:33 PM   #25
Krazy Bill
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Quote:
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...
Krazy Bill is offline   0 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
Apple Blames Book Publishers in E-Books Antitrust Lawsuit MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 88 Jun 3, 2013 08:33 AM
Apple CEO Tim Cook and CFO Peter Oppenheimer Testify In Front of Senate Committee on Tax Strategies [Hearing Over] MacRumors Politics, Religion, Social Issues 547 May 28, 2013 07:33 PM
Tim Cook to Testify In Front of Senate Committee Over Apple's Tax Practices MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 205 May 21, 2013 12:15 PM
Apple CEO Tim Cook Ordered to Testify in E-Books Antitrust Lawsuit MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 28 Mar 17, 2013 01:26 PM
Is Tim Cook a good CEO for Apple? raptorstv Apple, Industry and Internet Discussion 4 Jan 16, 2013 12:26 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:46 AM.

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

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