You have no idea what you are talking about. All Lawyers work on an hourly billable rate. You might consider his rate high but I am guessing this is not going to end good for Apple.
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 Requests Removal of External Compliance Monitor in E-Book Antitrust Case
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You have no idea what you are talking about. All Lawyers work on an hourly billable rate. You might consider his rate high but I am guessing this is not going to end good for Apple.
Sorry, I don't follow your point. Are you saying that the difference between a criminal conviction and losing a civil lawsuit is irrelevant because some people don't know the difference?
Based on the commentary in various press articles and quotes from various lawyers plus having some experience with high end lawyers and their fees (in the UK) it is very strongly looking like he is padding his fees.
As he has a strict remit (to check compliance with the antitrust ruling) and he has been making requests outside of that remit based on Apples filing. This combined with the fact he is friends with the judge and has to hire other legal assistance as he does not have any experience in this aspect of the law does mean that Apple are within their rights to raise this aspect with the law and ask if this is right and proper.
Now the law might rule one way of the other but it is definitely something that should be raised and the legal aspect clarified officially.
You are confusing two things here, being found liable in a civil court of a crime (collusion on pricing in this case) has no connection to whether the person charged to redress of wrongs by compelling compensation or restitution is also following the letter of the law.
If someone is found guilty of a crime it does not mean you can commit a crime against them without also being guilty of a crime yourself. Credibility is not a factor, the law and if it has been followed correctly is.
Apple have a good legal question (as outlines by Apple and mentioned above), now the law might rule that they are correct or incorrect but given the evidence they supplied it is right and proper they ask the question and have the law rule on their request.
Assuming guilt or innocence is not the point at this stage, the point is "do you have a compelling argument that should be studied". If asked I would suggest Apple's argument (based on the publicly files information) has merit as judges hiring personal friends with no experience to enforce the law is questionable (but possibility not illegal) however that is up to the law to decide.
Edwin
A criminal case? Against who?
In my opinion, being found liable as a corporation is essentially the same as a conviction as you don't often file criminal charges against a corporation for many reasons (unless you want to shut down a corporation).
No matter how you slice it, Apple was found not-innocent in a court of law. Your love of Apple will NOT change that fact. So conviction is the wrong word. That doesn't mean they're innocent as you would proclaim. As far as I can see, Apple is guilty here. The US government agrees. If there is an appeal and the US government agrees with Apple, so be it. But that's like saying, well, HSBC laundered money to terrorists, but the government didn't bring a criminal case against them, therefore, they didn't do it, despite paying a multi-billion dollar fine as settlement, and there was no probability of the government bringing criminal charges but just massive civil charges anyway...
Apple.
Everything about that is incorrect. The antitrust division of the DOJ files criminal cases far more often than civil cases. For example, in 2012, they filed 67 criminal cases and 13 civil cases.
http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/workload-statistics.html
No, they were found liable.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem
Where did I proclaim them innocent?
Again, none of that makes any sense. The reason to bring civil charges instead of criminal charges is a significantly reduced burden of proof.
If that's the only reason to bring criminal charges, then why don't we just sue drug users instead of throwing them in prison? Make money for the tax payer...win win.
Oh wait: An imprisoned company pretty much ceases to do business. Civil suits are often a means to get a company to change its behavior without having to shut it down.
Again, Apple was found not-innocent. You can call it liable, but Apple wasn't found innocent or not-liable. Unless you can somehow be liable and innocent...
And how many of those criminal cases are against companies that haven't done some massive defrauding or something requiring shut-down? Do we know? Those statistics don't say...interesting. Sounds like a worthless statistic.
Last edited:
Because the state doesn't normally have standing to sue drug dealers in civil court. And prosecutors believe that criminal charges best serve the interest of the state.
You seem to be making up stuff that sounds right to you. Criminal antitrust convictions don't normally result in prison or shutting a company down. They normally result in fines and restraints on behavior.
Here is a place to start if you are actually interested in criminal antitrust.
http://www.antitrustinstitute.org/files/aai- criminal AT PRIMER final 7-3-01_022820081334.pdf
They were found liable. What's the point of the rest of your word play?
(Of course you can be liable and innocent. The justice system is not perfect.)
As opposed to your completely unsupported statements.
My unsupported statement isn't a meaningless statistic masquerading as relevant...when I make a statement, I'm obviously the source of my statement. This statement of these cases is either meaningless or deceptive; meaningless, because it is really undefinable, or deceptive, because you cite it to prove your point, except again, we don't know what's really there.
Why is it meaningless? The numbers were simply meant to show that the DOJ's antitrust division chooses criminal over civil lawsuits in a significant majority of their lawsuits (84% in 2012) in direct contradiction to your claim that "you don't often file criminal charges against a corporation."
That's it. Specific numbers that directly refute your claim.
And I demand to know these companies and the nature of complaints. Anti-trust to my knowledge is almost always civil. And hence why I see your point as deceptively meaningless. For all we know those companies were dealing drugs and laundering money and other good things that are obvious crimes to anyone involved. Apple wasn't doing that-no comparison in treatment.
Maybe you didn't read what I said or follow the link.The numbers I provided were criminal and civil cases brought by the antitrust division of the DOJ. Nothing at all about drugs or money laundering.
Despite your "knowledge", the fact is that the vast majority of antitrust cases are criminal.
A few useful facts (you can find most of these from various governmental sites or reports linked by other posters). This is the Anti-Trust division so all the cases are of the same type (Anti-Trust) they don't deal with drug dealers etc. As you can see they rarely go Civil as it is seen as the weaker option compared to Criminal.
1. Note that the standard of liability for criminal cases is more strict than that for civil cases. This is because the Supreme Court has held that criminal intent is a separate element that must be established in a criminal antitrust case. This was decided in the case of U.S. v United States Gypsum Co., 438 U.S. 422, 98 S.Ct.2864 (1978).
2. In fiscal year 2012, the Division filed 67 criminal cases and obtained a record $1.14 billion in criminal fines. -http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/division-update/2013/criminal-program.html1987 through 2012 (DOJ website).
3. The Division’s civil enforcement program continues to vigorously protect competition for the benefit of consumers, as evidenced by the six civil cases the Division currently is litigating - http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/division-update/2013/civil-program.html
Looking back through the DOJ website this is pretty standard for all years back to ~1987 but I only linked you to the last full financial year (2012) which is the year this Apple case started.
(Hat-tip to BaldiMac as he did most of the digging and I just followed up with exact links on the DOJ's own website)