Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Wins iPod Antitrust Lawsuit, Found Not Guilty of Harming Consumers

Nunyabinez said:
This is not directed at you per se, but this sentiment bothers me since it's been all over the internet with recent cases. Who are lay people to decide if a judgement is right or wrong? Obviously, in any case both lawyers (being specifically trained in the law) believe their case to be right and it takes a judge and sometimes a jury to sift through evidence and case law, etc. to make a determination of what the law says.

But all it takes is reading a few internet posts (or watching a video) and people think they can declare an outcome right or wrong. I agree that this seems like a sensible conclusion, but not having seen the evidence and not being a lawyer I can't say for sure.
Click to expand...

Sure... we laypeople didn't see all the evidence presented in the case.

But we read the lawsuit and used our own judgement to decide that this case was full of crap. :)

From the lawsuit:

  1. The lawsuit claims that Apple violated federal and state laws by issuing software updates in 2006 for its iPod that prevented iPods from playing songs not purchased on iTunes.
  2. The lawsuit claims that the software updates caused iPod prices to be higher than they otherwise would have been.

For point 1... Apple never claimed that 3rd-party DRM music would be supported on the iPod. Apple said iTunes music would work with the iPod... and many unprotected file formats too.

RealNetworks reverse-engineered iTunes to put their DRM music onto an iPod... but Apple plugged the hole. If anything... RealNetworks should be sued for lying to their customers telling them that their music was compatible with iPods.

For point 2... what made iPod prices "higher than they otherwise would have been"? Apple set the prices for iPods. They had iPods across many price ranges. And iPod prices actually got lower over time, while offering more capacity.

I bought an 8GB iPod Nano in 2007 for $249. Is the lawsuit suggesting that it would have only cost $199 if Apple allowed 3rd-party music stores? How did they intend to prove that?

So yeah... we're not lawyers... but this case never made any sense to me. I don't fault fault Apple for not allowing 3rd-party DRM music to be put onto iPods when it was never supported in the first place. And I don't see how iPod prices were "higher than they otherwise would have been" because of that.
 
KPOM said:
Are you the DOJ's spokesperson? The price of e-books basically stayed the same. All that happened was that Amazon finally faced some competition, and could no longer pull off the predatory pricing that would have crowded out all the the competition, essentially leaving the entire market to Amazon to price at whatever it wanted to. It's rare for the DOJ to take the side of the company with 90% market share.
Click to expand...

These two statements are mutually contradictory:

1. "The price of e-books basically stayed the same."
2. "Amazon ... could no longer pull off the predatory pricing that would have crowded out all the the competition"

You're saying Amazon no longer had "predatory" pricing, but didn't actually raise prices? How would they manage that?:rolleyes:
 
Daalseth said:
Actually if you look at your own graphic, it shows that, after a very slight initial bump, the average price for all sellers has been on a long slow slide and is now lower than it was before Apple entered the market.
Click to expand...

Actually, I believe that's part of what got them in trouble. Since the average of all publisher's prices did not go up, but the 6 that Apple was working with did, it showed that the price rise wan't due to natural industry forces, but to their agreement.
 
Gasu E. said:
These two statements are mutually contradictory:

1. "The price of e-books basically stayed the same."
2. "Amazon ... could no longer pull off the predatory pricing that would have crowded out all the the competition"

You're saying Amazon no longer had "predatory" pricing, but didn't actually raise prices? How would they manage that?:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

It's fully legitimate to use mutually contradictory arguments in a legal setting. In any case, Amazon could still be pulling off predatory pricing without depressing prices overall. They could be selectively using predatory pricing against a particular publisher, or on certain titles.
 
Michael Scrip said:
So yeah... we're not lawyers... but this case never made any sense to me. I don't fault fault Apple for not allowing 3rd-party DRM music to be put onto iPods when it was never supported in the first place. And I don't see how iPod prices were "too high" because of that.
Click to expand...

It also seemed unlikely to prevail to me, and I will be guilty like most everyone else of occasionally thinking "that seems right" or "that doesn't seem right" when I hear about legal decisions. I just was pointing out that we need to all be careful before taking the position that any case that doesn't turn out how we thought it would is wrong or unfair. Some times they get it wrong and it gets reversed on appeal and sometimes they get it right and we just don't like it.

I remember there was a case in the northeast where some guy was "upskirting" women on the subway. The court ruled that it was not a crime and people criticized the court. But they pointed out that the way the law was written it was only illegal to record a person's naked body under their clothes without their permission. And with underwear on the victims weren't naked. So, it turned out the court got the law right, but the law was poorly written. BTW within days a new law was passed.
 
Nunyabinez said:
I guess it's good that they weren't found guilty of that. They were found guilty of conspiring with publishers to raise prices. Eddie Cue went from publisher to publisher and coordinated an increase in prices. It was all based on each of those six publishers telling Eddie that they would play along and him telling each in turn that the others were on board. Those are facts not in dispute. Apple claims that is not illegal, but the court disagreed. Whether the appellate court upholds it remains to be seen, but if they overturn it, it will be on a very specific interpretation of the law as the collusion that Apple facilitated is very apparent.

----------



I don't believe there is a threshold that has to be met. The bottom line is Apple colluded with publishers and the price went up. By how much isn't the issue.
Click to expand...



regardless, apple didn't set the prices
 
SlCKB0Y said:
Yep, because an Apple verdict in this one isolated (and frivolous) case immediately negates any and all verdicts against them. What year did you graduate from Harvard Law? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Apple will win the appeal mainly do to the prejudicial conduct of Denise Cote. Her inflammatory, inaccurate Jury Instructions. Numerous errors with admission, and denial of evidence. Injecting personal bias in order to create a phasad of Skullduggery on Apple's part.

She should be removed from the bench. This appeals court has already shown the direction they are looking. Denise Cote will be relegate to a status she is worthy of by the overturning.

An Ambulance Chaser. :apple:
 
popnfresh said:
There are no lawyer fees. Apple has its own legal department with a flotilla of lawyers that handle its lawsuits.
Click to expand...

Seriously tell me you aren't this dense? Further, for every lawsuit Apple has to have the lawyer team to handle the case. The more frivolous lawsuits, the more lawyers they have to hire. Those are all costs are they not? Regardless if they are in-house council, they still have a COST. *facepalm*

I swear the basics in life are lost by some.....
 
Nunyabinez said:
Actually, that is one of the most damning aspect of this case. I'm too lazy to Google it, but in the original case's Powerpoint their is a slide that shows a very dramatic simultaneous jump in digital book prices. That's what will make this hard to overturn because there is no disputing that all at once prices went up. And the fact that they did so simultaneously and with Apple facilitating the move is unfortunately the definition of what Apple was found guilty of.

There are likely many technicalities that may impact this, but I'm sure there is no dispute that Apple coordinated a move that resulted in higher prices.

Edit: I got motivated for a second.

Image
Click to expand...


How is this not upvoted? The case against against Apple is as good as it gets in e-books.
 
Nunyabinez said:
This is not directed at you per se, but this sentiment bothers me since it's been all over the internet with recent cases. Who are lay people to decide if a judgement is right or wrong? Obviously, in any case both lawyers (being specifically trained in the law) believe their case to be right and it takes a judge and sometimes a jury to sift through evidence and case law, etc. to make a determination of what the law says.

But all it takes is reading a few internet posts (or watching a video) and people think they can declare an outcome right or wrong. I agree that this seems like a sensible conclusion, but not having seen the evidence and not being a lawyer I can't say for sure.
Click to expand...
In one narrow sense you are right, if your focus is on the limited facts of the case and to judicial procedure. But there is a bigger picture. There is the issue of abusive class-action lawsuits in general. Similar to other class action cases, the plaintiffs' attorneys stand to make millions of dollars while the (allegedly) aggrieved plaintiffs receive little or nothing of real value. Is the lawsuit motivated by a desire to right wrongs, alleviate suffering, recover substantial damages, stamp out rampant injustice, etc? Or is the real motive to funnel millions of dollars to class action plaintiffs' attorneys?

Outside observers are keenly aware of the class action lawsuit abuse issue and are rightly pleased when class action attorneys are rebuked. Especially in the iTunes/iPod case, when the facts, to the extent we can see them, appear to align with "justice".

Your complaint -- that very little actual evidence is seen by outside observers -- should be directed not only at the outside observers, but at the news media. Many media sources routinely report results and sensational aspects of the cases, and few sources provide in-depth reporting of pertinent facts and evidence.

As far as I'm concerned, High-5s are in order. ;)
 
KPOM said:
DRM was something that the music industry wanted because they were afraid of piracy, and not without good reason. Given the market realities of the time, it was a necessary phase in order to get the industry on board. Once Apple became dominant, the industry realized that they might well be creating a new behemoth in Apple and decided to drop DRM, ostensibly at the suggestion of Apple, though I'm sure Apple wouldn't have minded if they had decided to stick with Fairplay.
Click to expand...

DRM isn't the issue. Our TV shows have DRM coming out of a digital cable box, but we can watch them across different providers and and TV manufacturers.

The hypothetical analogy would be when Sony dominated the TV market in the 80s and 90s. Like your Sony Trinitron? Good, because you have to buy a Sony cable TV package. Want to rent a movie? Has to be Sony Betamax format. Legal? Yes... But it's best for the consumer when media content is device agnostic, regardless of whether it's protected by DRM (or scrambled to continue the 80s Cable TV analogy).
 
Nunyabinez said:
Actually, that is one of the most damning aspect of this case. I'm too lazy to Google it, but in the original case's Powerpoint their is a slide that shows a very dramatic simultaneous jump in digital book prices. That's what will make this hard to overturn because there is no disputing that all at once prices went up. And the fact that they did so simultaneously and with Apple facilitating the move is unfortunately the definition of what Apple was found guilty of.

There are likely many technicalities that may impact this, but I'm sure there is no dispute that Apple coordinated a move that resulted in higher prices.

Edit: I got motivated for a second.

Image
Click to expand...


Somewhat off topic (as this refers to the e-book issues, not the iPod issue)...

If you look at the graphic only, I would argue that it supports Apple's case. Prior to Apple's contract with the publishers, the average book prices were remarkably similar. Subsequently, the average price across all publishers is similar, or perhaps slightly lower (hard to tell if it is a significantly different), however the spread across the different publishers has increased markedly. My conclusion from this graphic is that prior to Apple's involvement, there was a greater degree of either collusion or external coersion to fix prices as compared to afterwards.

Looking at the average selling price, I am not clear how you can reach the conclusion that the average selling price ended up being higher - it showed a transient blip upwards, however within a year, and definitely after two years,the average price appears lower. (To be fair, I also don't understand how that can be the average price when all the other lines are higher).
 
Doc C said:
Somewhat off topic (as this refers to the e-book issues, not the iPod issue)...

If you look at the graphic only, I would argue that it supports Apple's case. Prior to Apple's contract with the publishers, the average book prices were remarkably similar. Subsequently, the average price across all publishers is similar, or perhaps slightly lower (hard to tell if it is a significantly different), however the spread across the different publishers has increased markedly. My conclusion from this graphic is that prior to Apple's involvement, there was a greater degree of either collusion or external coersion to fix prices as compared to afterwards.

Looking at the average selling price, I am not clear how you can reach the conclusion that the average selling price ended up being higher - it showed a transient blip upwards, however within a year, and definitely after two years,the average price appears lower. (To be fair, I also don't understand how that can be the average price when all the other lines are higher).
Click to expand...

I agree that the prices were being artificially pushed down due to Amazon's dominant position in the market. Apple is accused of colluding with six publishers to raise prices. Those six publishers all raised their prices together. There are enough other publishers that it didn't change the overall average price, but certainly those six publishers jumped up. Again, I think Amazon was predatory pricing and Apple broke their stranglehold, but I think they did it in a way that is prohibited by law. But, not a lawyer.
 
HurtinMinorKey said:
Are you kidding me? Apple was caught red-handed in the e-books case.
Click to expand...

A Clinton-appointed judge with a predisposed view of things (based on her pretrial comments) thought that way. 2 out of 3 judges on an appellate court panel (I'm not sure who appointed them) seemed to suggest otherwise.

Edit: George HW Bush appointed Jacobs to the Appellate Court. Obama appointed Lohier to the Appellate Court.
 
I'm tired of discussing this, so I just wanted to give this parting bit. I really hope that the appellate court reverses the decision on Apple (ebook case). I think what Amazon was doing was clearly anti-consumer in the long run, and that we are ultimately all better off by what Apple did.

Any opinions I have expressed here are simply how I interpret what happened based on my limited knowledge of the case and the law in general. So, yeah, well, that's just, like my opinion, man.
 
Nunyabinez said:
I agree with you. My personal opinion is that Amazon was practicing predatory pricing. But the solution to predatory pricing is to involve the DOJ. And it may be what saves Apple is the claim that they really were after the agency model and the rise in prices was an unintended side effect. But, that may be a hard sell.
Click to expand...

this was my take on it as well.

Amazon was participating in predatory pricing.

Instead of battling it legally. Apple decided to counteract it with an illegal act of their own.

you know that old saying, Two wrongs don't make a right. Just because Amazon is wrong, doesn't mean Apple had the right to break the law to combat them.

I don't see any relevance between the e-book collusion and this DRM story though. I am glad apple got off on this. I think Apple was dicks with how they handled other DRM's on the ipod, but I do believe that they had every right to prevent other 3rd party DRM's from existing on their devices.

I owned many ipods during those years. And Apple NEVER removed non DRM'd content.

----------
Nunyabinez said:
I'm tired of discussing this, so I just wanted to give this parting bit. I really hope that the appellate court reverses the decision on Apple (ebook case). I think what Amazon was doing was clearly anti-consumer in the long run, and that we are ultimately all better off by what Apple did.

Any opinions I have expressed here are simply how I interpret what happened based on my limited knowledge of the case and the law in general. So, yeah, well, that's just, like my opinion, man.
Click to expand...

While there are no "wrong" opinions (since you know, everyone is entitled to them)

there are such things as ignorant or uninformed opinions.

at least you admit yours are uninformed
 
KPOM said:
A Clinton-appointed judge with a predisposed view of things (based on her pretrial comments) thought that way. 2 out of 3 judges on an appellate court panel (I'm not sure who appointed them) seemed to suggest otherwise.

Edit: George HW Bush appointed Jacobs to the Appellate Court. Obama appointed Lohier to the Appellate Court.
Click to expand...

They haven't ruled yet.

----------
Nunyabinez said:
I'm tired of discussing this, so I just wanted to give this parting bit. I really hope that the appellate court reverses the decision on Apple (ebook case). I think what Amazon was doing was clearly anti-consumer in the long run, and that we are ultimately all better off by what Apple did.
Click to expand...

So you are saying that giving market power back to the major publishers (by taking away from Amazon) is going to make everyone better off? That sounds like wishful thinking.
 
The decision was good. Apple did not have a monopoly. People could choose not to use Apple products and still listen to music. Not a big deal.

This was just a bunch of lawyers desperately looking to hit the jackpot. They were so creepy they had to find a new client to justify the case because none of their original clients qualified.

Even then they case was open and shut absurd and dumped.

"Following the decision, the plaintiff's head attorney said an appeal is already planned."

Aye, spoke like a true ambulance chaser.

What we need to have happen is that the judge should award damages to Apple for all their legal fees which the plaintiff and lawyers should then have to pay. If this was a basic part of the legal system it would quickly put an end to these nuisance lawsuits that are wasting the court's time and blocking valid cases from getting into court.
 
A $350 million dollar lawsuit because the plaintiff was too stupid to burn and rip their songs. This lawsuit makes the McDonald's hot coffee lawsuit sounds like the most legitimate lawsuit in history.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back