Wrong again bud...price fixing is illegal no matter how much you want it not to be.
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 Wins Brief Stay of External Monitoring in E-Books Antitrust Case
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Wrong again bud...price fixing is illegal no matter how much you want it not to be.
No, there is something that many people call "price fixing" and that is illegal, but go into any supermarket and try to haggle about the price of milk and you will see that it is fixed. It very much depends on the details of what happened. Just because you can't express yourself clearly doesn't mean that everything you think is illegal turns out to be actually illegal.
The contracts between Apple and each individual book distributor were perfectly legal. Judge Judy then declared that Apple had secretly agreed with all the book distributors together on this contract, which would be illegal. Let's say that again: If Apple offers a contract to A and A agrees, and then offers the same contract to B and B agrees, and then offers the same contract to C and C agrees and so on, that's legal. If Apple, A, B, C, D and so on come together and discuss this between them and then they all agree, that can be illegal.
Judge Judy declared _before_ the case opened that Apple was guilty. There is no actual evidence that Apple is guilty. She decided to not believe any evidence Apple showed that she was wrong. She decided to not believe testimony of one of the book distributors which said she was wrong. She took for example Jobs' biography as evidence which is ridiculous because a. Jobs didn't write it, b. Isaacson wasn't asked to come to the court, and c. even if Isaacson had been in court and testified that Jobs said was what in the biography, that would have been hearsay and not admissible. So: No evidence, actual witnesses saying the opposite, but Apple still gets convicted.
----------
I'd be happy if Bromwich doesn't get any payment when Apple wins its appeal, goes to court and spends lots of money in vain to get money out of Apple, and then actually has to pay out of his own pocket the person he had to hire because he doesn't actually know himself how to do the job.
Once again, there was no price fixing, bud. Can you tell me where Apple did that, chief? Because I can't see it, champ.
You're wrong champ http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/cases/show.php?db=special&id=325
----------
You're wrong http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/cases/show.php?db=special&id=325
Instead of posting a document that doesn't say anything about price fixing, perhaps you could explain what actions that Apple took that you believe constitute price fixing?
Here's Judge Cote's decision if that helps.
http://nysd.uscourts.gov/cases/show.php?db=special&id=306
I'm assuming you have failed in your attempt to demonstrate how Apple broke the law? If it's not that hard to comprehend you should be able to explain it. If not, don't waste my time by replying with more junk.
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't need to, the Judge in the case did that for me. You can live in denial all you want but it won't change the fact that Apple broke the law and got caught.
The judge may very well be right. But reasonable people can disagree on how to interpret the law. That's why there is an appeals process.
But that doesn't change the fact that you were simply wrong in your original post in this thread.
Repeating something untrue doesn't make it true. The only "evidence" you showed was the penalties the judge imposed. You didn't even link to her explanation of Apple's guilt. You can believe what you want to but don't assume everyone else is going to believe the lie. Apple isn't perfect nor above reproach, but they seem to try harder than most businesses to be ethical.
I understand that the judge found Apple guilty, but I question the judge's reasoning. I feel she has made the wrong decision and her actions are very questionable. The issue I bring up isn't whether Apple was found guilty. That's obvious. My issue is that not all who are found guilty are actually guilty. You do understand this concept, right? Or are you just willfully ignorant that you make little attacks without actually defending your position?
----------
Good argument.
Perhaps you could explain in a few more words how it is illegal to say "'hey, why don't you set the price of the book and if no one buys it, you'll have to lower prices."
Because what that sounds like to me is agency pricing, which Judge Cote confirmed was a legal business practice.
It's not illegal. Fredaroony just enjoys seeing Apple punished. It's only price fixing if Apple was able to raise prices across the industry without the chance for competition. Since Amazon and Nook were in the market, as well as physical books, there was no price fixing.
An example of price fixing would be if all the milk companies got together and decided the price of a gallon of milk will be $8 and no one is allowed to sell for less.
What Apple did was set up an environment where publishers could set their own price. There were no guidelines for what that price would be. For example, a Stephen King novel could be priced at $25 or $5 or whatever else. The market would then determine if the price was fair. If no one buys the more expensive novel, the publisher would then have to lower the price.
