E-Books Judge Pledges to Avoid Unnecessary Intrusion Into Apple's Business

Discussion in 'MacRumors.com News Discussion' started by MacRumors, Aug 27, 2013.

  1. macrumors bot

    MacRumors

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2001
    #1
    [​IMG]


    [​IMG]
    Judge Denise Cote today told Apple and the Department of Justice that she does not want to intrude unnecessarily on Apple's business when levying a punishment for the company's e-book collusion charge. The statement came after she reviewed the DOJ's revised remedy, which was submitted last Friday.

    As with the original remedy, the revised proposal suggests that Apple submit to third-party anti-collusion monitoring and subjects the company to an injunction that prevents Apple from entering into media deals that might raise prices for the company's competitors.

    The terms state that Apple must dissolve all existing deals with publishers and renegotiate them on a staggered basis to prevent further collusion. The DOJ also wants Apple to allow competitors such as Amazon to insert hyperlinks to their own e-book stores in their iOS apps, with the government insisting that Apple initiated its in-app subscription rules "to retaliate against Amazon for competitive conduct that Apple disapproved of."

    For its part, Apple has called the DOJ's proposal a "draconian and punitive intrusion into Apple's business," insisting that Department of Justice is attempting to set up an unfair competitive advantage for Amazon and is

    According to Cote, she will approve remedies in the case next week. Apple has said that it continues to disagree with her antitrust finding and plans to pursue its appeal.

    Article Link: E-Books Judge Pledges to Avoid Unnecessary Intrusion Into Apple's Business
     
  2. macrumors newbie

    pseudomichael

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2012
    #2
    It's kind of obnoxious that Apple doesn't allow Amazon to include a link to their store in their app, but in general it does seem like the courts are going overboard on this.
     
  3. macrumors 6502a

    BornAgainApple

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2009
    Location:
    Massachusetts
  4. macrumors 65816

    Nunyabinez

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Location:
    Provo, UT
    #4
    I am a rabid Apple fan, but I am at a loss for how they can still not see that they really did break the law here.

    Yes, Amazon was exploiting their virtual monopoly in ebooks, but Apple and the publishers should have convinced the DOJ to investigate Amazon, not colluded to fix prices.

    I know many of you will never be able to accept that Apple violated the law here, but they did. And since they do not appear able to accept that fact, the courts will have to have some oversight to make sure that they don't continue on in that behavior or do it again.
     
  5. macrumors 604

    ravenvii

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2004
    Location:
    Melenkurion Skyweir
    #5
    ... and is what?
     
  6. macrumors 68020

    ouimetnick

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2008
    Location:
    Beverly, Massachusetts
    #6
    If Apple has to allow Amazon to place a link to their store within the Kindle App, shouldn't Apple be allowed (if they wanted) to make an iBook Store application and have Amazon allow it on the Kindle so consumers have a choice between Amazon purchased books or Apple purchased books on their Amazon device?

    If not, why should Apple be forced to allow Amazon to sell their books on Apple's platform?
     
  7. macrumors 6502a

    dBeats

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    #7
    So remember folks...you can crash the price of goods and kill off mom and pop shops and independent artists....but you can't provide a superior service where the price of those goods goes back up.
     
  8. macrumors 6502a

    Klae17

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2011
    #8
    That would make no sense. Would you also force Apple to sell samsung and Microsoft products in their physical stores?
     
  9. macrumors G3

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    It's Never A Good Night To Have A Curse
    #9
    Here's the thing that's so weird about what Apple's doing. Apple has ever right to deny what does or doesn't go on their app store. They don't have to allow the Kindle and Nook book apps on an iDevice. No one's forcing them to do anything here.

    But despite this, they're readily available, albeit hobbled in comparison to iBooks. The assumption is if Apple is willing to treat the iPad as a general computing device, rather than a portal to their services, then they have no excuse to hamstring the competition's apps. Either treat everyone fairly, or don't treat them at all.
     
  10. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2011
    #10
    So is it possible to drop the Amazon App all together?
     
  11. macrumors 68000

    Parasprite

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2013
    #11
    And here comes the analogies!
    [​IMG]
     
  12. macrumors G3

    charlituna

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2008
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    #12
    They don't allow anyone to put in a link to a store/sign up that bypasses Apple. It's a fair rule as it is equally applied and enforced

    Get DOJ is not so. They are setting rules against Apple only when it will create an unfair advantage at the risk of hurting consumers the same as they accused Apple.

    And attempting to overstep with the inclusion of other forms of media and potentially with the forced dissolving of existing contracts. After all even the judge said there was nothing illegal in the terms. Agency and MFNs are both totally legal.

    If the point of this is as they claim to protect consumers then they should set their own upper limits. To protect consume choice they should limit if not ban exclusive deals that prohibit titles from appearing in all stores. And so on. but they should apply to all parties.
     
  13. macrumors 603

    Oletros

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Location:
    Premià de Mar
    #13
    Because Apple has been found guilty of anti competition practices and Amazon not?
     
  14. macrumors demi-god

    CWallace

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    #14
    It is because if they did, it would allow customers to buy e-books from Amazon directly and bypass the 30% cut that Apple gets from the current process.

    Now, I expect Apple is not so much worried about the 30% cut on Amazon e-book sales as you can load Amazon's e-book page in Mobile Safari and buy e-books directly from Amazon and Apple gets no cut of those sales so this process would be effectively the same. More likely, IMO, is that Apple is worried about precedent. To my knowledge, Apple does not allow any app to bypass the 30% cut process and if they do it for Amazon, they likely would open themselves up to lawsuits from other app makers citing unfair competition. And having already done so for Amazon, that would weaken Apple's defense in said cases.



    I expect there is no legal reason why Apple could not do so, but it is likely a selling point for portable iOS devices so doing so would probably bring more harm than good to sales of portable iOS devices.
     
  15. macrumors 603

    Oletros

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Location:
    Premià de Mar
    #15
    Mmm, no?
     
  16. macrumors G3

    charlituna

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2008
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    #16
    At this point no. The judge would claim they are doing it in retailation blah blah
     
  17. macrumors G5

    Rogifan

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2011
    #17
    I agree, but its not that difficult to go to bn.com or amazon.com, buy an ebook and open it on the Nook or Kindle app. That's what I do. I don't use iBooks.
     
  18. macrumors 603

    Oletros

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Location:
    Premià de Mar
    #18
    Looking at what happened when they didn't accept Google Voice I think they would have a lot of problems for doing that
     
  19. macrumors G5

    gnasher729

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2005
    #19
    And what exactly would be wrong with retaliation?
     
  20. macrumors 68030

    PinkyMacGodess

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2007
    Location:
    Midwest America.
    #20
    Interesting that they come down hard on Apple, and let Wall Street dance away EVERY FRICKING TIME!!! Is it because DOJ likes Droids?
     
  21. macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2013
    #21
    I'm still confused about what Apple did wrong.

    So they negotiated with publishers that they can't offer their books for sale at a lower price to Apple's competitors. This caused the price of all e-books to go up instead of the price from Apple to go down? How is that Apple's fault? Do the publishers not set the price? I must be missing something.
     
  22. macrumors 603

    Oletros

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Location:
    Premià de Mar
    #22
    Yes, you're missing the part where the Agency Model was forced to all the other retailers
     
  23. macrumors 601

    Plutonius

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2003
    Location:
    New Hampshire
  24. macrumors G3

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    It's Never A Good Night To Have A Curse
    #24
    Yeah, but it's a completely unnecessary hoop you have to jump through. Being able to buy books directly from the app would make things so much more convenient.

    And since Apple's own apps give you the expectation of being able to do so...
     
  25. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2013
    #25
    Lame

    And yet when it comes to GAS, Electric price gouging DOJ always gets real foggy, looks the other way or plays dumb then dummy-ups' an lulls the obvious with technical jargon nonsense justification???? Triple Standards regardless if Apple intended or not to raise prices! OK!
     

Share This Page