That's true, and you can't always gauge a case from the statements made during oral arguments, but it does seem to suggest that they are taking Apple's view very seriously.
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 iPod Antitrust Lawsuit, Found Not Guilty of Harming Consumers
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That's true, and you can't always gauge a case from the statements made during oral arguments, but it does seem to suggest that they are taking Apple's view very seriously.
Conspiring to raise prices is illegal. All of the other other defendants already plead guilty.
What you are saying is pure speculation.
Apple decided for themselves what kind of contract they would like.
They went to the first publisher, offered a deal, and it got accepted.
They went to the second publisher, offered a deal, and it got accepted.
...
They went to the sixth publisher, offered a deal, and it got accepted.
All perfectly legal. _You_ are claiming that Apple was conspiring with the publishers. There is no evidence for that. Judge Cote claimed that it would be obviously a good idea for Apple to conspire with the publishers, and therefore it must have been true. Not very logical, if you ask me.
----------
For which there is no evidence. That's why there is an appeal: Because the judge claimed long before the court case started that there was a conspiracy, because there was no actual evidence found for this, and Apple got convicted because the judge declared that it would have been such an obvious thing for Apple to conspire that they must have done it.
Last edited:
And all the other defendants decided to plead guilty when there was no evidence.
riiiight
I used to joke that way. Then I saw the photos of the burns that woman got and you know what...
She was right...
Apple's too clever and too big to lose. Anyone who's ever been to court representing a popular company like Apple knows it's verdicts are based on a plethora of considerations of which justice is rarely a factor.
Did it occur to you that Apple won _this_ case because there was a bunch of ambulance chasers with no real case? Someone was nice enough to post a link to Apple's answers to the few dozen accusations, and most answers read like "most of this is legal speculation and therefore not a proper accusation, the rest doesn't actually make any sense at all, so we deny everything just in case".
Normally the answer is one of "we didn't do it" or "we had the right to do it". "Your accusations don't make any sense" is a slap in the face of the lawyer making the accusations.
The case was so bad, they didn't actually have proper plaintiffs. One woman who claimed she purchased an iPod and therefore suffered damages had to admit that she didn't actually buy an iPod, but that her husband's company - which just happens to be the lawyers suing - bought one for her _after_ the time when Apple was accused to have caused damage to iPod customers.
Someone has a big legal bill to pay with nothing to show.
Someone is not getting their law firm partnership and may be looking for a new firm.
The Valley rejoices that blood sucking attorneys didn't win.
This was probably Steve Jobs last official public business function with Apple.
Someone is not getting their law firm partnership and may be looking for a new firm.
The Valley rejoices that blood sucking attorneys didn't win.
This was probably Steve Jobs last official public business function with Apple.
And all the other defendants decided to plead guilty when there was no evidence.
riiiight
None of the book publishers plead guilty. None.
They were given the choice of paying a huge fine, or to go to court and risk getting convicted and getting a fine that would bankrupt them. They took the path that allowed them to stay in business. Apple has enough money to fight this case without the risk of bankruptcy if they lose; the book publishers didn't. The publishers became the victims of blackmail.
That's American justice for you. Google for "Aaron Swartz" and you see how it works.
Welcome to the real world where Apple is always the target. Remember bend-gate? Remember non-issue issues? If tomorrow is raining, somehow it's also Apple's fault.
Why did this ever go to court? Oh wait, I've got an idea - I don't like pink and green cars so Im going to take Ford to court.
It's normal that it's a unanimous verdict. The jury is required to produce one.
The only thing that she was right about, was that there was a real damage. This iTunes case has zero damages as one could always burn a rip their collection.
That being said, Mcdonalds coffee is still just as hot today as it was when Liebeck burned herself (80C-90C). The only difference now is that companies put caution hot labels on the cups. I guess if you are not aware that water is boiled (100C) to make coffee it could be an issue for some without the warning on the cup. For myself I would never put boiling water(near boiling) near my crotch in a car.
It amazes me that a 79 year old has never used a kettle in their life to make coffee. People keep burning themselves with coffee and try to sue but no one has won a case since Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants.
Unfortunately.... one of the aspects of this case, and those prices, is the fact that Amazon was selling many at a loss... to gain share. Obviously, they would not have continued doing so forever. But when prices would have risen, and to what degree, is really impossible to quantify. So it really muddies that whole picture up.
Here's what Apple's lawyer said: "There's no evidence that a single consumer lost a single song. There's no evidence that people thought burning and ripping was hard. There's no evidence in this case that any Harmony users even used it with the iPod. That is all made up, at this point. It's lawyer argument, is what it is."
The plaintiffs couldn't actually find a single person who gave evidence that they were harmed in any way.
DRM *is* the issue!
You can't even copy a TV show from one cable box to another of the same manufacturer because the encryption key doesn't match.
To take your analogy. Ever tried copying VHS rentals with Macrovision ?
Media content *IS* device agnostic, it's what the media licensor *adds* to the content or requires the licensee to add, that imposes the restrictions.
And all the other defendants decided to plead guilty when there was no evidence.
riiiight
So if you get taken to court for speeding, and you're sure you weren't, but you're given the option to (a) plead guilty which results in no points and a $50 fine or (b) pay $300 and add 3 pts to your license and have your insurance go up 10%, which option would you choose? Sometimes, paying a smaller fine and avoiding a legal mess is a bigger win than potentially losing hundreds of millions; especially when you don't have deep pockets like Apple.
The gov't couldn't have gotten this more wrong, not to mention, this reeks of a corrupt gov't siding with amazon that apparently lobbied the right people.
Judges Jacobs and Lohier seemed quite concerned that Judge Cote had used the wrong standard, but Jacobss qualms clearly went much furtherseeming to question the governments judgment in ever having brought the case. His problem was that Apple was a new entrant that was bringing competition to a market that had been, until then, dominated by a monopolist, Amazon. Judge Jacobs also repeatedly referred to Amazons $9.99 pricing policy, whereby it sold books at below the wholesale acquisition cost, as predatory pricing, and seemed to suggest that Amazon was obviously using it as a means of maintaining its monopoly dominance.
http://fortune.com/2014/12/15/mondays-e-book-antitrust-appeal-hearing-went-well-for-apple/
Wrong. Apple does have a legal department. However, its legal department generally does not handle big litigation matters such as this. Apple's legal department retains a third party law firm to represent Apple, and coordinates with the third party law firm.
It was never that bad; people paid hardcover prices if they wanted to read the book right away or waited a year and bought the softcover for 1/3 the price. It's about what the market will bear so the pubs were always limited in pricing power based on perceived value. I know; I used to work in that industry and there's a reason why Jack Welch identified publishing as one of the industries he wouldn't get into... they don't make that much and it's shrinking.
The worst case scenario is a monopolist like Amazon driving all competition out of the marketplace and completely dictating terms to both the consumer and publisher. Just look what happened to Hachette... it hurt Amazon a little, but Kindle customers and Hachette a lot more.
People always talk about the McDonald's case without knowing the facts. McDonalds over a ten year period received over 700 complaints that its coffee was too hot, and many people complained of third degree burns. The restaurant ignored its customers concerns.
Home coffee is usually brewed from a machine at 135 degrees. It is typically served in restaurants at 155 to 175 degrees.
Mcdonalds was serving coffee at 185 to 190 degrees, which is not the industry standard and is hot enough to give somebody a third degree burns.
I think most people might expect to burn themselves if they put a coffee cup between their legs and the lid came off, but I doubt most people would think the burns would be so bad you end up in the hospital for days and need skin grafts.
Further, the lady was only sung for like 20 grand to cover hospital expenses. It isn't her fault fault McDonalds didn't just pay up.
What are you doing posting in the MacRumors forums?
All I see when I browse in here are mostly (apparently) teenagers trying to get into tech nerd fights with each other; not thoughtful, informed posts like yours. Thanks. #It's funny how people always say that the Mcdonalds Hot coffee case is one of the most misunderstood cases and then make multiply false claims.
Can you cite a source for any of your numbers?
135 degrees?
155-175 degrees?
Did you even google coffee brew temperature?
From almost everything I have read, the industry standard is for coffee to be brewed from 195-205 degrees.
http://www.scaa.org/PDF/SCAA-Certified-Home-Brewer-Booklet.pdf
"In 1994, a spokesman for the National Coffee Association said that the temperature of McDonald's coffee conformed to industry standards."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants
Water Temperature
"The brewing temperature of the water used is very important. It should be between 195 F (91 C) and 205 F (96 C). The closer to 205 F (96 C) the better. Boiling water (212 F - 100 C) should never be used, as it will burn the coffee. Water that is less than 195 F (91 C) will not extract properly. Keep in mind that if frozen beans have been ground, the aggregate will drop the temperature of the water upon contact. In this instance the temperature of the water being added to the aggregate should be right at 205 F (96 C)."
http://www.blackbearcoffee.com/resources/87
I hope you never open a coffee shop and brew it at 135 degrees or any of the other numbers you pulled out of your a**, because it will not do very well.