Go Back   MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > Mac Blog Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Mar 28, 2014, 06:23 PM   #1
MacRumors
macrumors bot
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Federal Judge Grants Class Action Status to E-Book Pricing Lawsuit




A federal judge has granted class action status to a group of plaintiffs suing Apple over its antitrust collusion with publishers to increase the price of e-books, reports Reuters. The judge, Denise Cote, is the same judge who oversaw the antitrust case against Apple by the U.S. Department of Justice.

Judge Cote has been accused by Apple of overstepping her judicial authority by giving a court-appointed monitor wide authority at Apple to interview and make changes at the company. Apple requested that the lawyer chosen to serve as the monitor be disqualified, saying he had over-stepped his bounds by asking for lawyer-less meetings with key Apple executives and board members. That request was denied at appeal.
Quote:
U.S. District Judge Denise Cote said the plaintiffs had "more than met their burden" to allow them to sue as a group. She rejected Apple's contentions that the claims were too different from each other, or that some plaintiffs were not harmed because some e-book prices fell.
Some have estimated that Apple could owe as much as $500 million after being found guilty in the Federal antitrust case, with more judgements possible in this class-action suit if the plaintiffs are successful.

This class action suit applies only to consumer plaintiffs in the states where the governments have not already sued Apple. Previously, 33 states and territories sued Apple on behalf of their consumers, seeking more than $800 million in damages.

Article Link: Federal Judge Grants Class Action Status to E-Book Pricing Lawsuit
MacRumors is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 28, 2014, 06:43 PM   #2
theheadguy
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: california
Send a message via AIM to theheadguy
Oh boy. Get ready for the upset people frothing at the mouths because Apple is getting sued.

Now, if the news was reversed, and the judge declined class action status, this would have been on the front page and not the sidebar.
theheadguy is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 28, 2014, 07:03 PM   #3
Ms6boost
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Ms6boost is offline   7 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 28, 2014, 07:11 PM   #4
MikhailT
macrumors 68040
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Serious question, why isn't there a different judge deciding this instead of Cote?

Logically, she should be the last option on the list of federal judges to be selected on this case considering that she just issued a judgment against Apple in the same case. To make it fair and just, a different judge should determine this, not Cote.

I'm not familiar with how the judges are picked but does anybody here know?
MikhailT is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 28, 2014, 07:12 PM   #5
Macyourdayy
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Someone other than amazon dares to sell e books at higher price. Anti monopoly commission sacked. Pictures @ eleven.
Macyourdayy is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 28, 2014, 07:23 PM   #6
cylack
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Eliminate class action lawsuits completely. Only the scummy lawyers make money. I get invites to be part of class action lawsuits all the time. Just got notice in the mail the other day that after being sued for 7 years, a company which I used to own shares in settled for $60 million, 33% of which will go to the lawyers. Class action lawsuits just make the price of all products go up. Plaintiffs get a few dollars, maybe a $100 if they are lucky, while scummy lawyers get millions and some even get in the hundreds of millions in jackpot class action lawsuits like tobacco. Lawyers are lower than the lowest form of parasite.
cylack is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 28, 2014, 07:34 PM   #7
xlii
macrumors 68000
 
xlii's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Millis, Massachusetts
I just got my settlement email last night. iTunes redeem code. Go to iTunes store... type in the code... 73 cents credited to my iTunes account... go lawyers!
xlii is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 28, 2014, 07:37 PM   #8
Jessica Lares
macrumors 604
 
Jessica Lares's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Near Dallas, Texas, USA
Enjoy your free books everyone.

Really, you agreed to the price when you bought the books to begin with, absolutely no point why consumers should be getting a refund. It should be a slap on the wrist for Apple, Amazon, and the others, nothing more.

I was surprised that I even got one. Bought four books with it.
__________________
Have You Hugged Your Mac Today?
Daily Expressions | iMac G4 | Late 2011 13" MacBook Pro | iPod Nano (7G) | iPad Mini | iPod Touch (5G) | iPhone 5S
Jessica Lares is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 28, 2014, 07:59 PM   #9
John.B
macrumors 68040
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Flyover Country
Ah, yes, the bizzaro world of Judge Denise Cote, where the Sherman Act is used to grant an ebook monopoly to Amazon.
__________________
Apple develops an improved programming language. Google copied Java. Everything you need to know, right there.
MD388LL/A MG632LL/A ME344LL/A MD199LL/A MC572LL/A MD481LL/A FB463LL/A FC060LL/A
John.B is offline   5 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 28, 2014, 08:08 PM   #10
MikhailT
macrumors 68040
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessica Lares View Post
Enjoy your free books everyone.

Really, you agreed to the price when you bought the books to begin with, absolutely no point why consumers should be getting a refund. It should be a slap on the wrist for Apple, Amazon, and the others, nothing more.

I was surprised that I even got one. Bought four books with it.
I'm not sure why you're blaming the customers because that's what it sounds like to me.

If the government is saying that those major publishers intentionally bumped up the price illegally, and the affected customers paid too much, then those customers definitely should've gotten some credits. Why should those companies have the extra money they don't deserve?

A slap on the wrist means nothing to these companies, they shouldn't have those cash in the first place. A slap on the wrist also means they'd do it again if it cost them nothing.

Also, I don't know why you're including Amazon here, Amazon isn't guilty of anything here. The only guilty party is Apple, nobody else and the credit isn't from Apple either. Apple's passing on the credits from those publishers because you bought the books on the iBooks store.
MikhailT is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 28, 2014, 09:57 PM   #11
CReimer
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Silicon Valley
This case continues to boggle the mind. Apple and the publishers tries to pre-empt the Amazon monopoly. The federal government sues to preserve the Amazon monopoly. And now everyone is getting free credits as compensation for someone daring to break the Amazon monopoly.

I wouldn't be surprised if IBM wanted their monopoly back.
CReimer is offline   5 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 28, 2014, 11:29 PM   #12
samcraig
macrumors G5
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by CReimer View Post
This case continues to boggle the mind. Apple and the publishers tries to pre-empt the Amazon monopoly. The federal government sues to preserve the Amazon monopoly. And now everyone is getting free credits as compensation for someone daring to break the Amazon monopoly.

I wouldn't be surprised if IBM wanted their monopoly back.
So it should be legal for companies to collude?
samcraig is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 29, 2014, 02:21 AM   #13
CReimer
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Silicon Valley
Quote:
Originally Posted by samcraig View Post
So it should be legal for companies to collude?
Should it be illegal for companies to break up a monopoly by providing MORE COMPETITION in the market place?

Remember that Amazon had 90% of the ebook market by FORCING the publishers to sell their $15 bestsellers at a LOST for $10. Ninety percent of anything is a monopoly.

Apple and the publishers changed the rule of the game. Amazon now has ~60% of ebook market due to COMPETITION with Apple, Barnes & Noble and many smaller ebook retailers. Publishers can set whatever prices they want for their ebooks.

As a writer and ebook publisher, MORE COMPETITION is a good thing.
CReimer is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 29, 2014, 03:07 AM   #14
JoEw
macrumors 6502a
 
JoEw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
This lawsuit boggles my mind.. Someone explain why Apple is getting the hammer? Because people would rather pay a premiun for books on the iBook store instead of the amazon ecosystem? Maybe we want to keep book prices stable so publishers and writers continue to make a fair margin and profit off their books? apple never stopped me from buying my book on kindle and there is even a kindle ipad app, apple approved..

This is not in my opinion a fanboy view, if people want to pay for ebooks on ibook app (which doesnt even come preinstalled on apple devices) whats wrong with that?
JoEw is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 29, 2014, 03:26 AM   #15
dumastudetto
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
This is without merit. I think Apple will leave the US if there's not a change in the anti-business sentiment in 2016.
dumastudetto is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 29, 2014, 05:03 AM   #16
wikiverse
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by CReimer View Post
Should it be illegal for companies to break up a monopoly by providing MORE COMPETITION in the market place?

Remember that Amazon had 90% of the ebook market by FORCING the publishers to sell their $15 bestsellers at a LOST for $10. Ninety percent of anything is a monopoly.

Apple and the publishers changed the rule of the game. Amazon now has ~60% of ebook market due to COMPETITION with Apple, Barnes & Noble and many smaller ebook retailers. Publishers can set whatever prices they want for their ebooks.

As a writer and ebook publisher, MORE COMPETITION is a good thing.
Does Microsoft have a monopoly on computer operating systems? They have around 95% market share. There are more computers running windows today than every macOS and iOS device ever sold.
wikiverse is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 29, 2014, 05:20 AM   #17
bsolar
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by CReimer View Post
Should it be illegal for companies to break up a monopoly by providing MORE COMPETITION in the market place?
If they do that through illegal means of course it's illegal, no matter the end result. If you want more competition you have to find a legal business strategy to get it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CReimer View Post
Remember that Amazon had 90% of the ebook market by FORCING the publishers to sell their $15 bestsellers at a LOST for $10. Ninety percent of anything is a monopoly.

Apple and the publishers changed the rule of the game. Amazon now has ~60% of ebook market due to COMPETITION with Apple, Barnes & Noble and many smaller ebook retailers. Publishers can set whatever prices they want for their ebooks.
With wholesale the publishers are not involved in the consumer's price: the publisher sells to Amazon for a fixed price and then Amazon sells it at the end consumer at whatever price it wants. Amazon selling an ebook at loss means that Amazon loses money, but the publisher's cut for that sale is not affected at all.

Amazon might have a monopoly but this is not per-se illegal: if the publishers believe that Amazon got its monopoly through illegal means or believe that it's abusing his strong position they should sue for the relevant illegal acts.

The publishers allegedly abused the ability to set consumer's prices: that's what got them in trouble in the first place.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CReimer View Post
As a writer and ebook publisher, MORE COMPETITION is a good thing.
This doesn't mean you can break the law to get it.
bsolar is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 29, 2014, 05:22 AM   #18
jav6454
macrumors G5
 
jav6454's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: 1 Geostationary Tower Plaza
Quote:
Originally Posted by wikiverse View Post
Does Microsoft have a monopoly on computer operating systems? They have around 95% market share. There are more computers running windows today than every macOS and iOS device ever sold.
They do and that's why they got hammered hard in United States v. Microsoft case.
__________________
Al MacBook 2.4GHz Late '08 | 5 S⃣ | Macross Click Me
jav6454 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 29, 2014, 06:04 AM   #19
danckwerts
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Greed

In the UK we've had a massive increase in supposed whiplash cases (and insurance premiums) since the ambulance-chasers started advertising on television. In the US, it's class actions against Apple and any other company which looks as though it has a lot of spare cash. It's great for lawyers but pretty much everyone else loses. Just as Nigerian scammers lure their victims by appealing to their greed and dishonesty, so do unscrupulous lawyers. The courts are clogged up, companies spend time and money defending themselves, profits and dividends decline. Eventually, many people will decide it's not worth investing in US companies.

I'd like to see a return (here in the UK) to the days when solicitors' advertising was restricted to little more than an entry in the Yellow Pages specifying what sort of work they specialised in.
danckwerts is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 29, 2014, 06:14 AM   #20
bsolar
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by jav6454 View Post
They do and that's why they got hammered hard in United States v. Microsoft case.
The issue was not Microsoft having a monopoly in the first place of the way they got it: they got hammered because they illegally abused their monopoly at the expense of competitors. The main topic was their tying of IE with Microsoft Windows at the expense of competing browsers.
bsolar is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 29, 2014, 06:48 AM   #21
silentmajority
macrumors member
 
Join Date: May 2013
I got my $54 back from Barnes and Noble, which I am not complaining about. However, I think this class action lawsuit is BS. I paid for the ebook what I thought it was worth at the POS. If I thought ebooks were too expensive I wouldn't have paid for it and neither would anyone else.
silentmajority is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 29, 2014, 07:10 AM   #22
samcraig
macrumors G5
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsolar View Post
If they do that through illegal means of course it's illegal, no matter the end result. If you want more competition you have to find a legal business strategy to get it.



With wholesale the publishers are not involved in the consumer's price: the publisher sells to Amazon for a fixed price and then Amazon sells it at the end consumer at whatever price it wants. Amazon selling an ebook at loss means that Amazon loses money, but the publisher's cut for that sale is not affected at all.

Amazon might have a monopoly but this is not per-se illegal: if the publishers believe that Amazon got its monopoly through illegal means or believe that it's abusing his strong position they should sue for the relevant illegal acts.

The publishers allegedly abused the ability to set consumer's prices: that's what got them in trouble in the first place.



This doesn't mean you can break the law to get it.
Further, Apple did not HAVE to insist on a 30 percent take on book sales. Just because that's how they modeled their app store didn't mean they were forced to do the same for books.
samcraig is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 29, 2014, 08:29 AM   #23
gnasher729
macrumors G5
 
gnasher729's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by theheadguy View Post
Oh boy. Get ready for the upset people frothing at the mouths because Apple is getting sued.
Moderators apparently didn't agree with me, but it is a disgusting strategy to preemptively insult everyone who dares having a different point of view than you have.
gnasher729 is offline   5 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 29, 2014, 09:41 AM   #24
Cuban Missles
macrumors 6502a
 
Cuban Missles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: East Coast, USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikhailT View Post
I'm not sure why you're blaming the customers because that's what it sounds like to me.

If the government is saying that those major publishers intentionally bumped up the price illegally, and the affected customers paid too much, then those customers definitely should've gotten some credits. Why should those companies have the extra money they don't deserve?

A slap on the wrist means nothing to these companies, they shouldn't have those cash in the first place. A slap on the wrist also means they'd do it again if it cost them nothing.

Also, I don't know why you're including Amazon here, Amazon isn't guilty of anything here. The only guilty party is Apple, nobody else and the credit isn't from Apple either. Apple's passing on the credits from those publishers because you bought the books on the iBooks store.
As I understand it the publishers got together around a table and agreed on the price fixing -- clearly illegal and so they should indeed get slapped around. Apple was not at the table, but they did approach the publishers and essentially say, "hey, in the app business we let you set the price, but we take a 30% commission for selling and distributing the book through our channel." In my mind there is nothing illegal here. Otherwise thy would have already been shut down in their app store. Yet the court basically says, "well, it's okay in the app store, but it's not okay in the book store." This to me makes not sense.

I agree with you that Amazon has no place here. Apple did not want to follow Amazon's model and they went with a model that had worked for them. The customers were not affected by either model because they could choose where to buy the book. The only issue is if the publisher refused to sell through Amazon in order to sell at a higher price through Apple.

However, in all of this I see nothing that Apple did wrong. My biggest concern is that if this ends up going through all the way to the supreme court, at some point someone will say, "based on the precedence set by the book store, the app store is wrong too. Oh and then lets talk about the music store, and the moving store, etc." Essentially this could completely derail the model that Apple is using across all it channels. This could be very bad for all of us.
__________________
I have a collection of Apple stickers from all my Apple product purchases - they are white (the stickers not the products)
Cuban Missles is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 29, 2014, 09:48 AM   #25
Plutonius
macrumors 601
 
Plutonius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: New Hampshire
Quote:
Originally Posted by theheadguy View Post
Oh boy. Get ready for the upset people frothing at the mouths because Apple is getting sued.

Now, if the news was reversed, and the judge declined class action status, this would have been on the front page and not the sidebar.
Not really but this is putting the cart before the horse. I believe they should go through the upcoming appeals process before green lighting people to sue. As it is now, Apple is stuck paying the large monitor cost even if they win the appeal.
Plutonius is offline   2 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > Mac Blog Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Apple, Google Settle Class-Action Anti-Poaching Lawsuit MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 49 Apr 28, 2014 04:59 PM
Rand Paul Is Filing a Class-Action Lawsuit Against the NSA MacNut Politics, Religion, Social Issues 51 Feb 13, 2014 06:01 PM
Apple Hit With Class-Action Lawsuit Over Failing 27" iMac Displays MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 454 Feb 10, 2014 10:29 AM
iPad: IPad class action lawsuit. mellofello iPad 6 Oct 31, 2013 04:41 AM
Class Action Lawsuit for rMBP w/ Image Retention Macdude2010 MacBook Pro 22 Mar 15, 2013 10:58 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:02 AM.

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

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