They haven't ruled yet.
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.
They haven't ruled yet.
Nonsense. There wasn't actually anything illegal that Apple did.
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.
Conspiring to raise prices is illegal.
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.
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.
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.![]()
And all the other defendants decided to plead guilty when there was no evidence.
riiiight![]()
There should be fairly stiff repercussions for filing of frivolous lawsuits of this nature. It seems that parasites can shoot at Apple but Apple can't shoot back....where is the parasite penalty?
Given the unanimous decision. Can some enterprising Lawyer chime in whether there is room for appeal here?
I used to joke that way. Then I saw the photos of the burns that woman got and you know what...
She was right...
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
I was not harmed. I was one of the people who could have joined the lawsuit but chose not to. Talk about frivolous litigation!
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).
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.
And all the other defendants decided to plead guilty when there was no evidence.
riiiight![]()
There are no lawyer fees. Apple has its own legal department with a flotilla of lawyers that handle its lawsuits.
They haven't ruled yet.
----------
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 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.
The current class action lawsuit is prominent in the news because its sensational, featuring a videotaped deposition by Steve Jobs, who has been dead for 3 years or so. Here's the real story >>
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.