Apple CEO Tim Cook 'May Testify' in E-Books Antitrust Lawsuit

Discussion in ' News Discussion' started by MacRumors, Mar 8, 2013.

  1. MacRumors macrumors bot


    Apr 12, 2001

    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
  2. iGrip macrumors 68000


    Jul 1, 2010
    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.
  3. camnchar macrumors 6502


    Jan 26, 2006
    SLC, Utah
  4. Rocketman macrumors 603


    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.


    Off-topic proof:
  5. lwapps macrumors regular


    Sep 3, 2012
    I thought he would keep separate from the messy legal stuff. I guess he feels strongly about this issue!
  6. BaldiMac macrumors 604


    Jan 24, 2008
    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.
  7. Plutonius macrumors 603


    Feb 22, 2003
    New Hampshire
    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.
  8. iGrip macrumors 68000


    Jul 1, 2010
    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.
  9. Squilly macrumors 68020


    Nov 17, 2012
    Looks like the DoJ wants a small pot of gold themselves.
  10. Rocketman, Mar 8, 2013
    Last edited: Mar 8, 2013

    Rocketman macrumors 603


    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?

    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.

  11. rlhamil macrumors member


    Feb 6, 2010
    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.
  12. Rocketman macrumors 603


    Sooner. Now.

    BTW the Constitution agrees with you.
  13. chriscrk macrumors 6502


    Nov 14, 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.

  14. Laird Knox macrumors 68000

    Jun 18, 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?"
  15. b0r1s macrumors newbie

    Apr 14, 2011
    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.
  16. ymmit macrumors newbie

    Aug 9, 2012
    Lenexa, KS
    Never thought about it that way.
  17. japanime macrumors 68000


    Feb 27, 2006
    When will Amazon come under scrutiny for advertising "free wireless delivery via Whispernet" when in fact it isn't actually free at all?
  18. Rocketman macrumors 603


    Amazon's "price dumping" strategy is allegedly clearly unlawful and unenforced.
  19. japanime macrumors 68000


    Feb 27, 2006
    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.
  20. Rocketman macrumors 603


    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.
  21. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Jul 16, 2002
    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.
  22. tongxinshe macrumors 6502a

    Feb 24, 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.
  23. Rocketman macrumors 603


    I 100% agree and have already stated why with details.
  24. Fatalbert macrumors 6502

    Feb 6, 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.


    Same thing with HP wireless printers. They work maybe once over wifi if you're lucky.
  25. Krazy Bill macrumors 68030

    Krazy Bill

    Dec 21, 2011
    So... to circumvent strong-arm tactics initiated by another company you adopt strong-arm tactics yourself... :eek:

    I see...

Share This Page