Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Files Brief Calling Department of Justice Remedy 'Draconian' and 'Punitive'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
LOL. The whole point of this article is that DOJ did NOT impose punitive measures they acted on behalf of Amazon, MPAA and RIAA saying Apple can't sell books, movies, music, or TV shows. The ruling is a separate question. The penalty is ridiculous and corrupt. It was probably a response to Apple making deals sell TV shows over the Internet.
What I find interesting, when reading back about iBookstore vs. Kindle or other eBook stores but especially Kindle, is the impression people gave in various blog posts that buying books was still cheaper from Amazon than from Apple. Given that, either they were misinformed and failed to look at iBook pricing to show that the same book sold for the same price on all stores, out and out lied to support the Kindle store, or, the prices were lower than iBooks.
If the latter, the DOJ case is a house of cards. Where are all the people that swore up and down before the case that ebooks were cheaper on Amazon. Or, at some point did the resellers just flip a switch, and change the pricing model and the price became the same across all stores (likely?)
I wonder then, when I shop at my Brick and Morter bookstore, if the DOJ will require them to publish or make accessible the Prices for all other bookstores in my city? Or how about groceries, will Safeway be required to publish King Soopers prices and vice versa?
At the end of the day the government needs to get out of the the Business of trying to run the eBook business. The Book wholesalers should and always had the option of negotiating whatever contract they deemed favorable to them whether agency model or whatever. If they don't like the contract they have, they can pull their products when the contract is over and renegotiate. NBC did it with iTunes as did the Recording industry with Apple.
If the latter, the DOJ case is a house of cards. Where are all the people that swore up and down before the case that ebooks were cheaper on Amazon. Or, at some point did the resellers just flip a switch, and change the pricing model and the price became the same across all stores (likely?)
I wonder then, when I shop at my Brick and Morter bookstore, if the DOJ will require them to publish or make accessible the Prices for all other bookstores in my city? Or how about groceries, will Safeway be required to publish King Soopers prices and vice versa?
At the end of the day the government needs to get out of the the Business of trying to run the eBook business. The Book wholesalers should and always had the option of negotiating whatever contract they deemed favorable to them whether agency model or whatever. If they don't like the contract they have, they can pull their products when the contract is over and renegotiate. NBC did it with iTunes as did the Recording industry with Apple.
What in the world are you talking about? Name one other case where a judge AFTER looking at the evidence and BEFORE the trial began gave their opinion about whether or not one side would win or lose. Goodness, the stuff you come up with is the stuff of legends.
You seem to think this is about Apple price fixing. It's not. It's about Apple colluding. It's ok - you aren't the only one apparently who hasn't understood this notion.
Apple did not negotiate legally or they wouldn't have been found guilty of collusion. So LEGALLY - no - they did not. Why is that so hard to understand?
And once again - Amazon did not buy books at a discount that Apple couldn't get. They SOLD books at a discount. The publisher was paid the same amount no matter what AMAZON sold a book for. In fact - switching to the model Apple provoked - they wound up making less on many books.
Again - all there in black and white in the testimony and other articles about the case. It's also mentioned in this thread and others if you care to read.
I completely understand this. What part of that is not fair? Again, if you and your family opened a widget selling business, would you want the widget manufacturer to sell widgets for a lower price than what they sold it to your family's business?
Jesus, some people just think the government is infallible!!!
You are very ill informed! I suggest u study this case from day one... Then u will see that u have been living under a rock ... Not knowing the judges position before the trial even started!
I guess in this case your closing statement applies most to u !!!
Actually, they did price fix, not at a set price, but instead they told the publishers that they couldn't allow anyone to sell at a lower price than it sells for on iBooks.
This is where they colluded to drive prices up.
Enough ground to toss this trial out.. Penalize the judge for damages!
Retry the case with new judge and full jury!
Okay, you got me there! I now understand. The opinion of 1 human being (the judge) is all inclusive. Obviously, there are not different opinions on this. I imagine every judge in the US feels the same way. Just wait for the appeal ruling and then come back and eat crow.
Apple did not collude for price fixing. They negotiated for a MFN clause which has been prove legal in multiple case law studies. The legal aspect is far from over.
You win round 1. Let's see what an appeals court says.
----------
But the publishers did not have to agree to this. MFN clauses are LEGAL!!!
Ever wonder why some movie/music/television providers don't sell on iTines? BECAUSE THEY DINT LIKE THE TWRMS APPLE SETS!!! It's called capitalism. Apple didn't force anyone to anything. However, If they wanted to sell through iBooks, they would have to treat them just like thy did anyone else.
This ruling will be overturned
Why exactly do you want e-books to be more expensive? Unless you work for Apple or hold APPL of course.
The petition is titled: Stop the DOJ and Save Consumer Choice for EBooks
I hope it's supposed to be highly ironic, because under Apple's "helpful guidance" there was no choice for eBooks - eBooks from the same publishers were sold everywhere at the same and the more expensive price!..
There are two huge problems u close your eyes to!
The judge was prejudice to the outcome f the trial before it even started!
Huge problem.
The ruling is totally absurd, oneway, biased, tyrannical and dangerous .
Who the hell is the doj to think they have the right to monitor very iTunes business deal apple conducts in music, movies etc... And say yey or ney! Do u even come close to understanding how tyrannical this is..
Who the hell is doj to tell apple how to set up its business policy .. By forcing them to allow links to the competition .
Who the hell are they to say apple is subject to these.. But the competition is not!
These ruling has ex soviet union written all over it!
And then it is ok for the ruling to empower amazon to drive all other book retailers out of business and become a monopoly! It is hypocritical...shortsighted and stupid !
Let alone how this case has extortion written all over it projected by the judges prejudice before even the case started !
*I* don't win anything because I'm neither the plaintiff or the defendant. Unlike some here - I don't take things like this personally.
I'm not going to bother to repeat what has already been spelled out repeatedly. You believe what you want. You're entitled to at least that.
I can see that u have nothing to say but pass the buck! Cool with me.
. Sure Everyone is entitled to their belief.... But be careful where your beliefs lead u in life!. The outcomes will be very personal..
And try to distinguish belief from fact as an added bonus!
The DOJ, what a joke. Of course Apple has to work the system where they do business. Good luck finding 'justice'.
Criminals and sanctioned gangsters meting out 'justice' in Bananamerica. Yeah, this will end well.
Criminals and sanctioned gangsters meting out 'justice' in Bananamerica. Yeah, this will end well.
It's cute how you believe they are separate and distinct. Eric Holder saw to it this went to a judge favorable to the administration, who declared Apple guilty before one shred of evidence was presented.
Why do you want Amazon to put all small book sellers out of business and have a monopoly on digital books by selling them below cost?
Last edited by a moderator:
It's cute how you think that regardless of whether or not this was a "witch hunt" so to speak that means Apple was innocent of collusion.
Last edited by a moderator:
The judge made it clear this was a sham trial by deciding for the DOJ before the trial began.
Though, I have to admit, it's quite a piece of work on the DOJ's part to use anti-trust law to hand Amazon a monopoly on a silver platter... <slow clap>
Did you get invited to their victory party in Chattanooga next week?
The judge made a statement that based on the evidence reviewed - it was believed that Apple was guilty of collusion. That's not the same. But way to question the integrity of a judge who has been at it for 20+ years.
And of course I got invited. I'll be wearing my Amazon Black and Orange. Or maybe my Samsung Blue. Or my Google Green, Yellow, Red and Blue. Oh - such a tough call - what do you think I should wear? Should I set up a poll?
While I don't believe in the grand conspiracy that others are promoting with the judge, I do think there is a reasonable possibility that she was influenced by overseeing the settlement talks with the publishers.