Apple Ordered to Stagger E-Book Contract Negotiations, Refrain From 'Most Favored Nation' Clauses

[bsolar]

Sure they can sue. What's your point?

(We've already established that it's notoriously difficult to prove a predatory pricing claim in court.)

As far as I understand the "traditional" test for predatory pricing is not defined in the law, it's merely how the courts decided to evaluate the cases sofar. It might be that the courts never encountered a case similar to Amazon's.

My point is that if Amazon is tested the "traditional" way, in my opinion there is little chance for the predatory pricing claim to stand. But Apple could try to convince the courts that (as you argued) the test needs to be done differently because it does not cover the practices Amazon is using. If successfull it could mean a completely different scenario.

I still think the courts would use the "traditional" test and not find Amazon guilty of predatory pricing, but with these matters you never know and I don't see much to lose from Apple's side compared to what would be at stake for Amazon, that's why I said that to me it should be a no-brainer.

 

[IJ Reilly]

So? What does that have to do with your previous comment?

I"m struggling to understand the relevance of your comment that settlement does not always imply guilt, when Apple has already lost on the guilt part. And yes, I know that you were referring to the publishers, but at the same time you are overlooking the fact that this was all part of an effort that Apple was leading.

 

[BaldiMac]

I"m struggling to understand the relevance of your comment that settlement does not always imply guilt, when Apple has already lost on the guilt part. And yes, I know that you were referring to the publishers, but at the same time you are overlooking the fact that this was all part of an effort that Apple was leading.

Settlements don't imply guilt. And Apple was not found guilty. They were found liable.

 

[giantfan1224]

I"m struggling to understand the relevance of your comment that settlement does not always imply guilt, when Apple has already lost on the guilt part. And yes, I know that you were referring to the publishers, but at the same time you are overlooking the fact that this was all part of an effort that Apple was leading.

I'm disputing the idea that Apple must be guilty because a judge said so and because publishers settled before going to trial. They will appeal, and are afforded the right to appeal, because the legal system is not as cut and dry and as reliable as you make it out to be.

----------

Hrmm let me see, on one hand we have the DOJ and an established judge and on the other hand we have a bunch of thread posters in a Apple forum who think Apple did nothing wrong...who will I trust??

lol thats a tough for sure!

By the way, while I was thinking about this I was putting my finger to the bottom of the chin while looking up to give the realistic impression of actually considering this for more than half a millisecond I guess you had to be there but it was quite convincing!!

I invite you to step outside of MacRumors for some opposing views. They're not hard to find. Or you could stay right here and follow the links to differing views available throughout this very thread. But then again, what's the point since your mind's all made up.

 

[fredaroony]

But then again, what's the point since your mind's all made up.

You nailed it!

 

[IJ Reilly]

Settlements don't imply guilt. And Apple was not found guilty. They were found liable.

They were found guilty of violating antitrust laws. Sorry.

----------

I'm disputing the idea that Apple must be guilty because a judge said so and because publishers settled before going to trial. They will appeal, and are afforded the right to appeal, because the legal system is not as cut and dry and as reliable as you make it out to be.

So you are disputing the entire legal system?

I haven't made it out as cut and dried. I am saying what I and a lot of others have said from the very start: that Apple never had a prayer of winning this case. So you are claiming that I was wrong?

 

[giantfan1224]

So you are disputing the entire legal system?

No, not the entire legal system. Hence the reason why I brought up the appeals process. Checks and balances against the potential of a rogue judge wreaking havoc.

I haven't made it out as cut and dried. I am saying what I and a lot of others have said from the very start: that Apple never had a prayer of winning this case. So you are claiming that I was wrong?

I guess if the judge was as biased as you apparently were before it went to trial then maybe Apple never did have a prayer. Good grounds right there to pursue an appeal.

 

[IJ Reilly]

No, not the entire legal system. Hence the reason why I brought up the appeals process. Checks and balances against the potential of a rogue judge wreaking havoc.

I guess if the judge was as biased as you apparently were before it went to trial then maybe Apple never did have a prayer. Good grounds right there to pursue an appeal.

Yes, I suppose I am biased -- towards being informed.

You have zero evidence that this judge was biased. In fact this "biased" judge just whittled down the DoJ's requested remedy to almost nothing.

The peculiar part of this debate is the feeling of deja vu I'm getting. The company defending itself before without any real defense before was Microsoft. Those of us who followed that case knew that their chance of coming away with a favorable judgement was close to zero, all the law and evidence being against them. We heard the same bloviatation from Microsoft stalwarts about how the judge in that case was "biased" too. Then as now, the only real evidence of this bias that anyone could point to was that he found that the company had violated the law.

 

[BaldiMac]

They were found guilty of violating antitrust laws. Sorry.

No, they were not. The DOJ could have prosecuted them criminally, but they chose not to. They sued them in civil court, and Apple was found to be liable.

 

[IJ Reilly]

No, they were not. The DOJ could have prosecuted them criminally, but they chose not to. They sued them in civil court, and Apple was found to be liable.

You are splitting hairs, counsellor. I have never heard of a criminal case being pursued for a violation of antitrust law.

 

[BaldiMac]

You are splitting hairs, counsellor.

Nope, just being accurate. OJ was found not guilty, but he was still found liable. Different standards of proof.

I have never heard of a criminal case being pursued for a violation of antitrust law.

I'm sure there is a lot of things you've never heard of.
http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/criminal/index.html
(Note that the first thing they mention is price fixing.)

 

[IJ Reilly]

Nope, just being accurate. OJ was found not guilty, but he was still found liable. Different standards of proof.



I'm sure there is a lot of things you've never heard of.
http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/criminal/index.html
(Note that the first thing they mention is price fixing.)

Possible, but very uncommon.

You are still splitting hairs.

 

[BaldiMac]

Possible, but very uncommon.

More common than civil cases.
http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/workload-statistics.html

For example, in 2012, they filed 67 criminal cases and 13 civil cases.

You are still splitting hairs.

You are still wrong.

 

[IJ Reilly]

More common than civil cases.
http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/workload-statistics.html

For example, in 2012, they filed 67 criminal cases and 13 civil cases.



You are still wrong.

About nothing of significance. I'll take it.

 

[Glideslope]

WoW

Did not expect Ms. Cote to eat so much crow. This will all be overturned on appeal. Too little too late Denise. You've backpedaled with the DOJ so much you and Holderman look like Laurel & Hardy.

What a waste of taxpayer monies. Too late Ms. Cote. No Supreme Court Seat for you. Ever.

 

[BaldiMac]

About nothing of significance. I'll take it.

Only if you are ignorant of the difference.

 

[wbeasley]

View from outside US.

Sorry if this seems naive but it seems completely weird that a US department takes issue with a successful US company and tries it's hardest to compromise their business and penalise them on fairly flimsy "evidence".

Apple need to play fairly and obey the rules just as much as other companies. I'm not saying they can do whatever they like in the name of business.

However, Apple control their software and hardware. They have for years. It's their right to protect their business and if they want to disallow competitors Apps from putting direct links in, then so be it. No one forced competitors to release Apps for iOS. There must be good business sence to do so.

If they wanted to, Apple could just pull the App's approval and solve the problem. If that what the DoJ wants? I'm sure users are happy they can read books purchased from elsewhere on iOS devices.

Book publishers are struggling like most businesses. You only have to see how many fewer books and magazines sit on shelves. Ebooks and Emags are faster, environmentally friendly and potentially cheaper. Bookstores are going the way of music stores, for better or worse.

Amazon selling books at a loss to undercut competitors (including bricks-and-mortar sellers) is a far more serious "business crime" than Apple wanting to raise book prices. I have used multiple bookstores and if the price looks fair and the item is available then I'll purchase it.

I've read a lot of the DoJ v Apple stuff and honestly, it looks like grand standing and bullying.

If I was Apple, I'd be pretty p*issed off.

Apple should sue the US government for harassment and see how that goes.

The judges involved also seem to have fairly blinkered views of fairness that seem contrary to what most people-on-the-street would view as fair. Given the US economy, you would think the government would want businesses to succeed not hamstring them for years to come.

 

[Renzatic]

Sorry if this seems naive but it seems completely weird that a US department takes issue with a successful US company and tries it's hardest to compromise their business and penalise them on fairly flimsy "evidence".

You are aware that the EU investigated Apple and the four publishers over the same issues, right?

As far as evidence goes, hell...just look at how the scenario played out. Apple releases the iPad. Practically overnight, the prices of ebooks jump $3-5, and Amazon instantly loses it's competitive advantage. From that point on, all ebook retailers couldn't set their own prices for books. All outlets had the same prices for all books across the board.

I mean it's not like anyone involved was being subtle about it.

 

[bsolar]

No, they were not. The DOJ could have prosecuted them criminally, but they chose not to. They sued them in civil court, and Apple was found to be liable.

I guess the disagreement comes from the difference between the technical legal sense of "guilty" vs the layman sense. Apple was not found guilty in the legal sense, but I think the poster is actually meaning that they were found guilty in the layman sense. According to WordReference:

guilty /ˈɡɪltɪ/
adj (guiltier, guiltiest)
1. responsible for an offence or misdeed
2. having committed an offence or adjudged to have done so: the accused was found guilty
3. of, showing, or characterized by guilt: a guilty smile: guilty pleasures

Were they "found guilty" in the legal sense? No, "liable" is the correct legal term.
Were they "found guilty" in the sense that the judge found that they did some wrongdoing? There is little doubt that the judge found them responsible for a misdeed, which is the conspiration in violation of atitrust law. From the judge's conclusions:

Based on the trial record, and for the reasons stated herein, this Court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that Apple conspired to restrain trade in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and relevant state statutes to the extent those laws are congruent with Section 1.

Interestingly basically all news sources titled with "guilty", including MacRumors but in the articles most actually explained the decision using the technically correct term (liable).

 

[AdrianWerner]

Good and just ruling. Punished Apple for price-fixing and should remove their negative effects on the whole ebook industry, while at the same time avoiding the temptation to screw with the rest of Apple's business that's not related to ebooks.

 

[snowmoon]

Will be overturned on appeal. The penalties in this case are way too harsh and against prevailing case law.

Let me remind people.. Apple did not set prices, the publishers did and they only got a slap on the wrist. This whole thing was a show.

 

[otismotive77]

did apple really think they were gonna get away with this? poor apple. it'd have been really great if we got our money back.

 

[Glideslope]

No, they were not. The DOJ could have prosecuted them criminally, but they chose not to. They sued them in civil court, and Apple was found to be liable.

Your going to loose them with that one.

 

[Battlefield Fan]

Apple was wrong in this case and got off easy.

 

[giantfan1224]

Yes, I suppose I am biased -- towards being informed.

You have zero evidence that this judge was biased. In fact this "biased" judge just whittled down the DoJ's requested remedy to almost nothing.

The peculiar part of this debate is the feeling of deja vu I'm getting. The company defending itself before without any real defense before was Microsoft. Those of us who followed that case knew that their chance of coming away with a favorable judgement was close to zero, all the law and evidence being against them. We heard the same bloviatation from Microsoft stalwarts about how the judge in that case was "biased" too. Then as now, the only real evidence of this bias that anyone could point to was that he found that the company had violated the law.

You have zero evidence that she wasn't biased but what we do have are statements made pre-trial that illustrate a potential bias. The very appearance of bias in the judicial system is not to be tolerated. You know, the whole recusal thing. I'm not saying the judge wanted Apple to lose the case and that she wanted to punish them, only that it appears she may have already made up her mind, at least on some of the issues, before the trial began. That, and the fact that she oversaw the settlement cases with the publishers--which you've even admitted appears to be a preponderance to Apple's guilt--is a slippery slope for an impartial judge.