Apple Files Brief Calling Department of Justice Remedy 'Draconian' and 'Punitive'

BaldiMac said:
How is it cheating consumers to expect to sell a product above cost?
Click to expand...

Dude, do you defend Apple for a living?

There is a difference between effective price-fixing and "selling a product above cost."

Both the DOJ in the US and the EC in the EU seem to think there was a problem with this Apple instigated "cartel" arrangement, and the publishers already backed down.

Why do you keep posting that there was no problem, when the parties involved implicitly and explicitly acknowledged that there was an issue?

Apple's attempt to muscle out Amazon through collusion with the publishers hurt all of us. As far as I am concerned, there should be punitive measures, since there was a major market disruption which will take years to correct itself (because independent competitors were driven out of the market and comparison shopping was made pointless) and consumers will be stuck with dramatically higher prices in the near term.
 
Rogifan said:
That's why their stock is up over $5 today?
Click to expand...

Yes, stock is up on the same day as this anti-Apple ruling.

I've noticed the trend. Legal rulings unfavorable to Apple rarely impact the AAPL stock share. But a single news blog about Apple products even if untrue (e.g. "Apple might delay shipment of long-awaited PINK-colored iPad") will send its stock shares crashing within minutes.
 
charlituna said:
Yes the DOJ just voided every publisher deal on ebooks but who is to say that the publishers won't just demand the same terms again. Judge Cote did say that there is nothing illegal about agency style terms or an MFN.
Click to expand...

The settlements with the DOJ prevent the publishers from going back to agency pricing for a few years (two? maybe five?).
 
BaldiMac said:
You keep saying this. It's simply not true. The publishers set prices (not Apple). They could set different prices in different stores. They could even allow other stores to continue on the wholesale model.

Again, the judge specifically said that agency pricing is legal.
Click to expand...

Agency pricing is legal.

If Penguin books turned around and said "all our books are 4.99, everyone pay up" that is one thing.
That is not exactly how it happened though.

it goes back to the deal Apple had in place with Penguin and everyone else. Where no publisher can set prices lower than what Apple has in place. Even if the company and market could bear it.

So, the example i gave earlier, still applies. Apple sets their retail price to 9.99, then works backwards and factors their profits of say 30%. this means they tell Penguin, "we will pay you exactly 7.69 per book". now the deal they have previously means, no matter what, Penguin cannot sell that book to anyone else for less than 7.69 per book. Even if they in turn COULD bear the load of say, 4.99 / book and still gain profit.

so now you have a fixed book price. And all the 5 publishers involved, have this deal in place, so Apple in turn can force down the channel (instead of channel forcing up) the price that the entire market will allow.

then you throw in the rest of it.

Apple tried to manipulate the entire market to force out competition and set the publishers book prices. they got caught. now we'll wait to see what a judge has to say.

the fact that if you followed even 1/2 this case, you'd have seen that even the publishers admitted to this, and emails were shown where Exec's at Apple were outright trying to convince them of this... it's not very nice looking. around the entire globe, almost all the courts that have looked into this have come to the same conclusion.
 
myamid said:
Come on, I'm tired of seeing this tirade about how unfair this is.

Did Apple sign contracts with MFN clauses in them? Yes
Did these clauses force prices to go up? Yes
Click to expand...

No. The MFN did not raise prices. Nor really did agency style terms.

Yes agency gave the publishers the power (within limits) to raise prices but ultimately they and they alone choose to use that power.

They could have left the prices alone.

Or they could have just stopped selling ebooks via third party stores forcing people to go directly to the publishers who would have nothing stopping them from charging whatever they want
 
Beltway Shakedown in action

Just as predicted in this piece:

Tim Carney: Apple becomes latest target of the Beltway Shakedown

Excerpt:

Apple has held out, though. Every couple of years, Politico, the trade publication of the Beltway, has run a piece warning Apple of the dangers of ignoring Washington. "Its low-wattage approach in Washington is becoming more glaring to policymakers," a 2010 article said, pointing out that the company doesn't have a PAC and its lobbying spending was a paltry $1 million.

The 2012 Politico warning to Apple included an explicit threat from a Judiciary staffer-turned-lobbyist, Jeff Miller: "There have been other tech companies who chose not to engage in Washington, and for the most part that strategy did not benefit them."
Click to expand...
 
BaldiMac said:
You keep saying this. It's simply not true. The publishers set prices (not Apple). They could set different prices in different stores. They could even allow other stores to continue on the wholesale model.

Again, the judge specifically said that agency pricing is legal.
Click to expand...

Agency models are legal
Mfn clauses are legal.

Using an agency model & Mfn clauses together to disrupt market dynamics, remove effective competition from the marketplace and increase prices to consumers in cooperation with most major players (publishers) is not, or is at best very very very questionable.
 
Yojimbo007 said:
The stance is when a ruling becomes totally absurd.. Let it be for google Ms or amazon or apple.. There is something huge to worry about!
This case was not tried by jury.. Rather conducted by a judge with prejudice! Which is a clear fact know to every one! The case was decided before it even went to court. That is tyranny and absurdness not justice!
2nd .the ruling and its bias and oneway ness and the fact the government wants to extend its tentacles in privet business to this extent is infuriating and dangerous.
That is my stance..
. And my stance is not Seeing us destroy itself through driving every good business away through this tyrannical stance it is adopting more and more everyday.
I guess we have Obama and Obama lovers to thank for this...
Click to expand...

There has been no ruling on punishment. Only "suggestions" have been offered at this point.
Only guilt has been determined at this point.
The defendants chose to go with a bench trial (non-jury), not the court.
The judge made comments AFTER reviewing the evidence and reading previous testimony. That is not irregular or biased. It's actually common.
 
John.B said:
But publishers didn't have the power to pull only ebooks. Amazon's terms said if a publisher pulled their ebooks then Amazon would refuse to sell their deadtrees books as well.

And it's Apple that gets tried for anti-competitive behavior?

Hopefully, Mr. Obama gets a warm reception in Chattanooga next Tuesday, after all, he's "earned" it.
Click to expand...

i think the publishers are just as guitly. many entered into these agreements willingly.

Why they seem to be getting a slap on the wrist instead, is cause when push came to shove, they caved and admitted their wrongness and willingly gave up the information and in effect became "informers" on the case against apple
 
macUser2007 said:
There is a difference between effective price-fixing and "selling a product above cost."

Both the DOJ in the US and the EC in the EU seem to think there was a problem with this Apple instigated "cartel" arrangement, and the publishers already backed down.

Why do you keep that there was no problem, when the parties involved acknowledged that there was an issue?

As far as I am concerned, there should be punitive measures, since there was a major market disruption which will take years to correct itself (because independent competitors were driven out of the market and comparison shopping was made pointless) and consumers will be stuck with dramatically higher prices in the near term.
Click to expand...

You are arguing with a strawman. I don't think there was no issue. I've said from the first thread on this topic that I thought there was likely collusion.

But what does any of that have to do with the question that I asked?
 
myamid said:
Come on, I'm tired of seeing this tirade about how unfair this is.

Did Apple sign contracts with MFN clauses in them? Yes
Did these clauses force prices to go up? Yes
Are higher prices a benefit to consumers? No
Did Apple knowingly do this with the cooperation of publishers to increase the prices? Yes
Did all these publishers settle and essentially admit guilt? Yes

So over all, it's pretty clear Apple did engage in a form of price fixing, and they were cough in the act. Wanting to get into a new market is all good, but the way they did it was wrong, and they should get punitive damages for it.

Come into a new market with an innovative product or with better prices and the customers will come. Try to force your way into it by forcing existing players to price higher because you took part in a mafia-like agreement to ensure other players can't price below you? That's dishonest, period.
Click to expand...


Its on video Steve Jobs telling Mossberg about the price fixing on the E-Book deals. http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2013/06/05/apple-jobs-ebook-video/
 
John.B said:
The DOJ told the judge today what the punishment will be. Try to keep up.
Click to expand...
The DOJ made a recommendation today.
The DOJ doesn't have the authority to issue punishment, only enforce them once they are decided.
The judge decides on actual damages and remedies.
 
Gasu E. said:
No; there are two separate issues-- guilt, and the actual punishment. It would have been totally appropriate for the DOJ to assess monetary damages based on the economic cost. It is totally wrong for the DOJ to force Apple into specific business policies that have nothing to do with repairing the original infraction. Moreover, they cannot even argue that they are forcing Apple to behave appropriately, since they are not requiring Amazon to behave in the same way. As Apple says, this is entirely punitive. DOJ cannot just make up a punishment out of thin air.
Click to expand...

Obama didn't invite the DOJ to his state of the union address. Tim Cook would know, he was there ;).
 
Doj is out to lunch.

Allow amazon ( while loosing money ) to drive every other bookseller out of buisness...and become a monopoly and at the same time hurt the authors and publishers . ..
Ohhhhh ya that is great thing...
It is great to destroy the publishing buisness.
And for some reason it is ok to have a momopoly if it is Amazon!

This is all great for the economy and the consumer.. Lol

This whole thing is infuriating.
 
ggamecrazy said:
So from the gist of it, us (the consumer) have nothing but to gain from this decision. :cool:

Of course the :apple: Apple stockholder can't say that.
Click to expand...

So the only way consumers can gain from anything is through lower prices? What about healthy, sustainable, and competitive markets also benefitting the entire consumer market? I understand that prices is a very tangible thing that people immediately like to gravitate to. But having a healthy market in the first place is probably the most important thing as a consumer, without that we lose out on much more than just pricing. And the natural laws of supply/demand in a healthy market determine pricing, if prices were too high then sales would have fallen and prices would have fallen as well, which they did do a little after they rose when iBooks launched
 
LordVic said:
it goes back to the deal Apple had in place with Penguin and everyone else. Where no publisher can set prices lower than what Apple has in place. Even if the company and market could bear it.

So, the example i gave earlier, still applies. Apple sets their retail price
Click to expand...

That's the part that you keep getting wrong. That's not what the agreement said. Publishers, not Apple, set prices.

to 9.99, then works backwards and factors their profits of say 30%. this means they tell Penguin, "we will pay you exactly 7.69 per book". now the deal they have previously means, no matter what, Penguin cannot sell that book to anyone else for less than 7.69 per book. Even if they in turn COULD bear the load of say, 4.99 / book and still gain profit.
Click to expand...

No. The MFN clause was about retail prices, not wholesale prices.

Again, your whole argument is wrong. The combination of agency pricing and MFN clause is legal.

Judge Cote: "If Apple is suggesting that an adverse ruling necessarily implies that agency agreements, pricing tiers with caps, MFN clauses, or simultaneous negotiations with suppliers are improper, it is wrong. As explained above, the Plaintiffs have not argued and this Court has not found that any of these or other such components of Apple’s entry into the market were wrongful, either alone or in combination."
 
Last edited:
myamid said:
Agency models are legal
Mfn clauses are legal.

Using an agency model & Mfn clauses together to disrupt market dynamics, remove effective competition from the marketplace and increase prices to consumers in cooperation with most major players (publishers) is not, or is at best very very very questionable.
Click to expand...

No, the collusion to fix prices was illegal. See the comments from the judge in my last post. "...alone or in combination..."
 
Yojimbo007 said:
The stance is when a ruling becomes totally absurd.. Let it be for google Ms or amazon or apple.. There is something huge to worry about!
This case was not tried by jury.. Rather conducted by a judge with prejudice! Which is a clear fact know to every one! The case was decided before it even went to court. That is tyranny and absurdness not justice!
2nd .the ruling and its bias and oneway ness and the fact the government wants to extend its tentacles in privet business to this extent is infuriating and dangerous.
That is my stance..
. And my stance is not Seeing us destroy itself through driving every good business away through this tyrannical stance it is adopting more and more everyday.
I guess we have Obama and Obama lovers to thank for this...
Click to expand...
Point.
 
rjohnstone said:
The DOJ made a recommendation today.
The DOJ doesn't have the authority to issue punishment, only enforce them once they are decided.
The judge decides on actual damages and remedies.
Click to expand...

The judge is the culprit... She entered this case with prejudice. It is a clear and known fact.
The case was not tried by jury. She was the judge jury and executioner .. Hardly comes close to justice!

Now the same prejudice judge has to decide punishment?... Lol
This whole case has to be tossed out and retried in front of jury and an unbiased judge presiding.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Back
Top