Apple Could Owe $500 Million After Being Found Guilty in E-Book Antitrust Case

[BaldiMac]

When you have any legal ruling against them, put it. Until the, have a nice day.

You do realize that two people well informed of the law can disagree on its interpretation, right?

Not to mention that this forum does not limit us from discussing the lay definition of a concept.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/predatory pricing

 

[Renzatic]

When you have any legal ruling that the DOJ proved they were innocent put it. Until then have a nice day.

Tell me this, Pirg. You obviously take issues with Amazon's rather shady business practices in the ebook market.

Can you tell me why exactly?

 

[pirg]

Tell me this, Pirg. You obviously take issues with Amazon's rather shady business practices in the ebook market.

Can you tell me why exactly?

I have problems with Amazon's model as a whole not just ebook. You can read all the problems with them

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon.com_controversies

 

[Plutonius]

No, the judge didn't said that Apple was guilty before the trial even started.

Please research your facts before posting. The judge said that Apple was likely guilty before the trial even started.

 

[Oletros]

Please research your facts before posting. The judge said that Apple was likely guilty before the trial even started.

Yap, thanks in that article itv is clear that the judge didn't said that Apple was guilty before the trial.

But if you tried to say that in a pre-trial hearing asked by the parts and after looking at evidence she said that that evidence looks bad for Apple and it seems that is likely guilty then yes, you're right. But this is totally different of what you said.

 

[Plutonius]

Yap, thanks in that article itv is clear that the judge didn't said that Apple was guilty before the trial.

But if you tried to say that in a pre-trial hearing asked by the parts and after looking at evidence she said that that evidence looks bad for Apple and it seems that is likely guilty then yes, you're right. But this is totally different of what you said.

No, it shows her bias before the trial even began. She had no interest in ruling against the Department of Justice and just kicked the decision down the road to the appeals court.

 

[BaldiMac]

Yap, thanks in that article itv is clear that the judge didn't said that Apple was guilty before the trial.

But if you tried to say that in a pre-trial hearing asked by the parts and after looking at evidence she said that that evidence looks bad for Apple and it seems that is likely guilty then yes, you're right. But this is totally different of what you said.

Wow. I have no idea how what you said is different than "The judge said she thought Apple was guilty before the trial even started."

However, I completely agree that it was not evidence of any bias!

 

[Oletros]

No, it shows her bias before the trial even began. She had no interest in ruling against the Department of Justice and just kicked the decision down the road to the appeals court.

You know that was a bench trial and the judge had been reviewing evidence, don't you?

If Apple doesn't appeal using that bias what will you say?

 

[PinkyMacGodess]

So, I want to know if 'we the people' get any refunds after this. IF there is anything left after the bloated attorneys fees of course...

 

[brewcitywi]

Funny

I'm sure someone said this already. But, if Apple has a $500 million judgment against them, they should just tell Samsung to forward their check right to the government. Done and done.

 

[otismotive77]

i hope apple is found to be guilty in this case and they are forced to pay the fine, only then will apple learn to stop suing and start working.

 

[the8thark]

3) Apple was not accused for using MFN, they were accused of colluding, which they were found guilty of despite there being absolutely no evidence to support it. No offense to Australians, but it was a kangaroo court.

Oh I agree. I am Australian and I find "Kangaroo Court" to be correct. Being found guilty with zero supporting evidence to bad up the verdict? Well that's the US justice system for you. Yes that's something that happens in dictatorships. WHich is funny, the US is against dictatorships but it does some things they do, like this saying people are guilty with zero evidence.

And this is not the only time it's happened of recent. United States vs Bradley Manning. The US is trying to convict an innocent man and has no evidence on which to substantiate their claims.

I have zero faith in the US justice system. I know the US is a good country on the whole. But if the ones in power over there keep doing things like this, it makes me never want to go there. And I do want to visit New York one day. Don't ask me why, I just do, even though it's not one of the best places on Earth the place has always interested me. But yeah in the current climate, I'd never take the risk.

 

[jm001]

I hate ignorant posts like this. $500m is a lot of money. They are accountable to the shareholder for every $1 they spend, make or lose so you don't simply willingly pay it and not worry about it.

How much money have they spent on lawyers over these past few years?

 

[Oletros]

3) Apple was not accused for using MFN, they were accused of colluding, which they were found guilty of despite there being absolutely no evidence to support it.

I like when people make accusations like this without a single proof.

 

[Renzatic]

Oh I agree. I am Australian and I find "Kangaroo Court" to be correct.

It was the evidence that damned Apple to begin with. Evidence their lawyers fought to have dismissed before the trial even came.

Just keep in mind this isn't like a criminal case, where all evidence is presented and debated in front of a (hopefully) impartial jury. It's a bench trial. The judge gets the evidence handed to them, looks it over, makes a decision to move forward based on what they've seen, then has the defendants come in and explain the evidence in a different light. If the judge is impressed by the explanation, they're innocent. If not, they're guilty.

Yeah, it does sound like you're being deemed guilty before proven innocent, but this is the way all antitrust cases are held. A corporation isn't pulled into court unless there's enough damning evidence to justify it.

If Apple thinks they were treated unfairly, or the evidence interpreted wrongly, they have every right to an appeal.

 

[ChrisA]

What I don't get is why in the original case part of their defense didn't include pointing out the Amazon was illegally selling ebooks below cost as an anti-competitive move, and that their model put a stop to that, which is why prices went up.

I don't think there is anything illegal about selling below cost. It is common to do that. What's illegal is to "fix" prices.

 

[theanimaster]

ONLY?


No wonder Apple stuck out till the end!

 

[the8thark]

It was the evidence that damned Apple to begin with. Evidence their lawyers fought to have dismissed before the trial even came.

Just keep in mind this isn't like a criminal case, where all evidence is presented and debated in front of a (hopefully) impartial jury. It's a bench trial. The judge gets the evidence handed to them, looks it over, makes a decision to move forward based on what they've seen, then has the defendants come in and explain the evidence in a different light. If the judge is impressed by the explanation, they're innocent. If not, they're guilty.

Yeah, it does sound like you're being deemed guilty before proven innocent, but this is the way all antitrust cases are held. A corporation isn't pulled into court unless there's enough damning evidence to justify it.

If Apple thinks they were treated unfairly, or the evidence interpreted wrongly, they have every right to an appeal.

And Apple should appeal. Simply because one person should not have that much power. At least in a criminal case you are tried by a Jury of 12 of your peers. Not one (supposedly not corrupt) judge. I agree that lots of evidence is usually required before they are taken to court. But to me the law in lost free countries is innocent until proven guilty, and not the other way around as it is in this case. It's just not right.

But Appealing this kind of decision would be very hard, is it's not based on evidence. it's based on one person's interpretation of the evidence. Flawed system if you ask me. It should be tried by a panel of judges at the very least. I remove the possible bias one person alone can give.

 

[Oletros]

And Apple should appeal.

Exactly why? By the way, they agree to a bench trial and didn't wanted a jury trial.

Simply because one person should not have that much power. At least in a criminal case you are tried by a Jury of 12 of your peers. Not one (supposedly not corrupt) judge.

Why not?

But to me the law in lost free countries is innocent until proven guilty, and not the other way around as it is in this case.

When has been this case guilty until proven innocent?

Flawed system if you ask me.

It seem that it is only flawed if the result is not the one we wanted

 

[the8thark]

Exactly why? By the way, they agree to a bench trial and didn't wanted a jury trial.

A bench trial should be a bench of Judges and not just one.

Why not?

To remove possible bias.

When has been this case guilty until proven innocent?

The principle of the case. The evidence is brought to the judge and you have to prove your innocence.

It seem that it is only flawed if the result is not the one we wanted

It can seem that way, but yeah I'm not against Apple coping a large fine. I'm more disappointed at the US legal system to one trials like this even existing. The whole bench or panel of Judges vs one judge is my whole point here.

 

[Oletros]

A bench trial should be a bench of Judges and not just one.


To remove possible bias.


The principle of the case. The evidence is brought to the judge and you have to prove your innocence.


It can seem that way, but yeah I'm not against Apple coping a large fine. I'm more disappointed at the US legal system to one trials like this even existing. The whole bench or panel of Judges vs one judge is my whole point here.

You know that ALMOST all the judicial systems doesn't use a bench of judges, just one, don't you?

REally, it is not a flawed or biased system, and the parties can appeal if they don't agree with the outcome.

 

[the8thark]

You know that ALMOST all the judicial systems doesn't use a bench of judges, just one, don't you?

REally, it is not a flawed or biased system, and the parties can appeal if they don't agree with the outcome.

Yes I know this. But one judge + a jury works. One Judge alone is my issue. But that's just my opinion. It won't ever change anything. I think you see my point of view here. I don't like the idea of one person having that much power. As that much power always corrupts.

 

[BaldiMac]

So, the number one and number two publishers (Random House and Pearson) were just allowed to merge for a share close to 30%. But Apple colluding with 2 to 6 with a total share around 40% was an antitrust issue. Huh.

(I am working from older numbers (2009), so feel free to correct these numbers if you have newer ones that put these statistics in a different light.)

 

[samcraig]

So, the number one and number two publishers (Random House and Pearson) were just allowed to merge for a share close to 30%. But Apple colluding with 2 to 6 with a total share around 40% was an antitrust issue. Huh.

(I am working from older numbers (2009), so feel free to correct these numbers if you have newer ones that put these statistics in a different light.)

Two completely different issues. You know that too

 

[BaldiMac]

Two completely different issues. You know that too

Of course, but, in terms of market impact, they are similar. I completely understand that collusion to fix prices is an antitrust violation regardless of market share. I'm not arguing that Apple was in the right. I'm commenting on the market forces, rather than antitrust law.

Penguin Random House is basically in a similar position as the colluding publishers if they chose to force Amazon to agency pricing.

If we pretend the original deal never happened, and Apple was entering the market now, they could simply negotiate with PRH and get the same result without the collusion. In effect, Pearson and Random House simply formalized their "collusion" through a merger. And that makes it okay somehow.

I just think the numbers are all out of whack in this case. 40% of the supply bans together against 90% of the buy side, and yet suppliers are in the wrong. But if 30% of the supply does it (PRH), it's okay.