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

The judge did declare contract negotiations "collusion". That is worrisome. Why have they not targeted unions which bankrupt cities and countries, or other "combinations" common to society?
 
myamid said:
What upsets me is people blindly defending a company that so blatantly try to cheat them... That annoys me. :)

Look at the article I posted above, it's pretty good and should help you understand the logic behind the price fixing part.
Click to expand...

Perfect, thank you. I'll check that out. :)
 
Zargot said:
Just as predicted in this piece:

Tim Carney: Apple becomes latest target of the Beltway Shakedown

Excerpt:
Click to expand...

Opinion.

Further - target or not - the evidence seems to be pretty damning that they did collude. Was Apple being "watched" more than another company (not even talking about in the tech sector) - perhaps. You can have whatever conspiracy theory you want.

But at the end of the day - if they colluded - regardless of whether they were on some "hit list" - they colluded. And that's illegal.

We hate bad analogies - but here goes - if you're speeding along with several others on the road - but the cop knows who you are and pulls you over vs someone else - it doesn't change the fact that you were still breaking the law. And the cop isn't OBLIGATED to pull others or everyone over.
 
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...

What price does Apple require publishers use for eBooks? You claim they are price fixing then prove it. What price do they demand per book?
 
Yojimbo007 said:
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.
Click to expand...
First, monopolies are not illegal if obtained through legal means.
Second, Amazon makes a profit (amount is irrelevant) on it's eBook division.
Third, as stated in many places, the publishers actually made more money BEFORE the agency model was in place. ;)

Be honest... you're just upset that Apple was found guilty.
You will get over it. I'm sure they already have.
 
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...


Quite so. This level of bureaucratic interference in a business should appal anyone with a basic understanding of business operations. If the US is starting to use this fig leaf to dictate how a particular company sets up its business compared with all others, it is starting on the road to fascism. And not the kind of fascism that some pimply protester accuses those with which they disagree politically. Real fascism.

If this sort of bureaucratic thought bubble is allowed to actually be implemented, it is time to move. Australia is like California, just a bit better managed. Might be worth thinking a out. Hmm. Designed by Apple in Australia. Sounds good to me:)
 
Mak47 said:
This is absurd. Publishers are not going to go back to the old model. You can't simply revert an industry back by 3+ years with the stroke of a pen.

But this is what happens when bureaucrats, with no idea how the real world functions, make and enforce laws.
Click to expand...

most already have and this just makes it so that other retailers aren't punished if they put a book on sale
 
rjohnstone said:
No... MFN means you get the best/same deal as the lowest contract the publisher signs.
It has nothing to do with the actual price.

The agency model sets the sale price.
Click to expand...
Your right here, just wrong on your previous quote resellers can sell for whatever they want, they just pay the same as everyone else.
 
I hate to say it, but if I were Apple, I would simply move the entire iCloud/iTunes/App Store business oversea...
 
Pathetic that the DOJ is trying to stick it to Apple for a relatively minor effect on consumers while letting most of Wall Street blatantly rob us without so much as a firm slap on the wrist...
 
Yojimbo007 said:
This case was not tried by jury..
Click to expand...

Yes, Apple agree that

Yojimbo007 said:
Rather conducted by a judge with prejudice!
Click to expand...

Wrong, there was no prejudice

Yojimbo007 said:
Which is a clear fact know to every one!
Click to expand...

No, it is only a clear fact to people like you

Yojimbo007 said:
The case was decided before it even went to court.
Click to expand...

Wrong

Yojimbo007 said:
That is tyranny and absurdness not justice!

That is my stance..
Click to expand...

Well, everybody is entitled to his opinions. There is people that believe that the Earth was created 6 thousand years ago
 
Oletros said:
Yes, Apple agree that



Wrong, there was no prejudice



No, it is only a clear fact to people like you



Wrong



Well, everybody is entitled to his opinions. There is people that believe that the Earth was created 6 thousand years ago
Click to expand...
How can you say there was no prejudice when the judge clearly said Apple would probably not win this case before it even began?

You just can't argue with people like you. I suppose this is a phony allegation!
 
Kal El said:
You appear to be confused. I can still buy ebooks on my iPad from Amazon (or other places) without paying Apple 30%, it's called Safari. No different to buying music on a PC.
Click to expand...

And Apple won't even allow booksellers to offer a link to the web via Safari in their apps. IANAL, but this could be a restraint of trade issue. I think the DoJ is saying that Apple is stifling competition on price by using its position to make it hard for iPad users to find out, say, Amazon's price. The iBookstore, tied in with iBooks, can have lists of books with dollar amounts on them, but the Kindle app can't even point at the web.

Apple literally claims to be the gatekeeper of all access to iPad users for the purposes of commerce. The toll is 30%. I'm surprised they claimed that outright in this brief, because I'm not sure they want the DoJ to be exploring that issue.

Apple's curated in-app purchase works great for customer convenience and safety. And it works great where there's an available 30% margin on works sold directly by their creators. But in a distributorship model (eBooks), there's still a 30% margin available, but Apple says that if Amazon wants to sell books on the iPad, Apple takes all the profit, and Amazon gets nothing.

I know the Kindle is almost the opposite problem (in its base form it's not as general a device as an iPad), but Apple's not trying to sell there. The true loser is the consumer, who loses choice and convenience. The government may find it has an interest on behalf of consumers.
 
CosmoPilot said:
How can you say there was no prejudice when the judge clearly said Apple would probably not win this case before it even began?
Click to expand...

My God, the judge said that AFTER looking the evidence because she has been preparing it way before the parts explained anything. So no, no prejudice, just how the judicial system works

Why people don't inform before posting again and again and again the same wrong thing

CosmoPilot said:
You just can't argue with people like you. I suppose this is a phony allegation!
Click to expand...

Pot, kettle?
 
WhoDaKat said:
Apple, and other small business bookstores, don't want to sell books at a loss like Amazon. They can't, well Apple could, but its not their business model. And you shouldn't be forced to lose money in order to do business. That seems more anti-trust to me, but hey I'm not a lawyer.
Click to expand...

By that logic we should close down Walmart as they sell cheap books.

It's called capitalism, the free market. Pile it high, sell it cheap. It's not a crime.
 
Can anyone answer what price Apple demands per eBook? Price fixing...what is the magic $$$ Apple requires?

Last I looked, thousands of books are free!

So imagine yourself starting a resell business, you're lucky enough to negotiate a MFN clause with several wholesalers so you can compete with WalMart. Now here comes Uncle Sam saying....Nope!!! Your are WRONG!

I could see the argument if the iBook store was the only place to purchase eBooks. However, we all on this isn't the case. The consumer has multiple outlets. It's not Apples fault they did not want to compete with a business that sold books below wholesale.

Finally, the publishers did not have to sign the contracts with Apple. If they didn't, Steve Jobs was willing to not enter the eBook business.

Apple negotiated legally! Period!!! It is of no consequence the outcome. They did not price fix. Apple would be more than happy to sell every book for free and get revenue through advertisement. They just we're not willing to pay $10 for an eBook that Amazon was selling for $7.99.

Would you want a business forced into this practice?

This is nothing more than the government trying to get their fingers in the pie.
 
Oletros said:
My God, the judge said that AFTER looking the evidence because she has been preparing it way before the parts explained anything. So no, no prejudice, just how the judicial system works

Why people don't inform before posting again and again and again the same wrong thing



Pot, kettle?
Click to expand...

Please provide case law where judges state probable outcomes before litigation? I know, you can't. Reason: Judges are to be impartial. I'm sure they all have pre conceived notions, but they are not suppose to advertise it.

Thanks anyway.
 
eldervovichka said:
There is already a White House Petition to help bring the DOJ actions under review. It just started today.

http://wh.gov/lr8uW

I normally don't get involved in this type of thing, but I saw this link in another thread, so I decided to post it here.

Have a wonderful day!

Jeff
Click to expand...

Thanks a million, Jeff! I just signed. My heavens, Apple is a treasure for the American economy.
 
CosmoPilot said:
Can anyone answer what price Apple demands per eBook? Price fixing...what is the magic $$$ Apple requires?

Last I looked, thousands of books are free!

So imagine yourself starting a resell business, you're lucky enough to negotiate a MFN clause with several wholesalers so you can compete with WalMart. Now here comes Uncle Sam saying....Nope!!! Your are WRONG!

I could see the argument if the iBook store was the only place to purchase eBooks. However, we all on this isn't the case. The consumer has multiple outlets. It's not Apples fault they did not want to compete with a business that sold books below wholesale.

Finally, the publishers did not have to sign the contracts with Apple. If they didn't, Steve Jobs was willing to not enter the eBook business.

Apple negotiated legally! Period!!! It is of no consequence the outcome. They did not price fix. Apple would be more than happy to sell every book for free and get revenue through advertisement. They just we're not willing to pay $10 for an eBook that Amazon was selling for $7.99.

Would you want a business forced into this practice?

This is nothing more than the government trying to get their fingers in the pie.
Click to expand...

Jeez why can't some people get this case.

Apple told the publishers they could not sell their eBooks through Amazon at a lower price than they sold them through the iBookstore.

Which part of that don't you understand?
 
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