Other pluses:
- I can easily let a friend or family member borrow it (paper version) when I'm done reading it
- I can donate it to a library, nursing home, schools, day care centers, etc.
- I can resell it
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.
Google Executive's Testimony Weakens Justice Department's Case Against Apple in E-Book Price Fixing Trial
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Other pluses:
- I can easily let a friend or family member borrow it (paper version) when I'm done reading it
- I can donate it to a library, nursing home, schools, day care centers, etc.
- I can resell it
Nah Google is here to stay and their devoted followers will ignore this. In the grand scheme of things this is no biggie but it's pretty funny how unprepared this witness was.
If I have time later... I will put some examples on here. I have wanted to buy several ebooks recently that were cheaper for the printed version on Amazon.
----------
Suits was awesome. What happened to it?
Nope. Government taking steps to protect the consumer from the collusion of big business to fix prices rather than to compete. That's a proper function of government, which is better equipped than an individual to do this.
Yeah, I am sure nobody takes the advice of their lawyer when embroilled in legal matters of this magnitude. Hardly a Eureka moment...
Also, I cannot remember the exact details of matters I discussed last week at work, let alone something that happened years ago.
Yeah, so they are not guilty of price fixing then, [even though Steve Jobs sent emails and had it published in his biography], case closed move along nothing to see here...
This quy gets paid top dollar to do what he does. I would expect him to be a little more prepared for a big day in court.
Where does it say the decision has already been made? Can I borrow your crystal ball once you've finished with it coz I want to make a big bet on the next grand national.
That whole "tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" thing is a real drag, man.
Lawyers ALWAYS draft declarations for witnesses. There's nothing improper about this as long as the witness says that the declaration is true. I'm sure Mr. Snyder drafted and edited declarations filed in the case.
They didn't imply there was anything improper about the lawyer drafting the declaration
And as shown you can always avoid it by saying you don't remember
Indeed, but I think it is a well-enough-known tactic that it automatically shoots your credibility down and damages your ability to further your case.
The article certainly implies this by stating that this was part of the Apple lawyer's "attack" on the witness, who "eventually" "admitted" this under oath. And of course this line of questioning was intended to challenge the credibility of the witness or why ask the questions at all?
Bottom line is the most favored nations clause is price fixing in and of it's self and no one denies that clause was there, so why this long lengthy trial?
Yes, it sounds like there may have been even more price fixing beyond that, but there was clear price fixing to begin with.
The clause would be like Walmart going to a company and saying, we will carry your product, but you can't let anyone else sell it for less money than we are.
Yes, it sounds like there may have been even more price fixing beyond that, but there was clear price fixing to begin with.
The clause would be like Walmart going to a company and saying, we will carry your product, but you can't let anyone else sell it for less money than we are.
This quy gets paid top dollar to do what he does. I would expect him to be a little more prepared for a big day in court.
Where does it say the decision has already been made? Can I borrow your crystal ball once you've finished with it coz I want to make a big bet on the next grand national.
I was merely providing sarcastic commentary, not judgement... Hence the -
'sI think you look my post too literally..
Yeah, I am sure nobody takes the advice of their lawyer when embroilled in legal matters of this magnitude. Hardly a Eureka moment...
Also, I cannot remember the exact details of matters I discussed last week at work, let alone something that happened years ago.
Sorry, you're wrong...the witness signed a declaration under penalty of perjury. If he didn't remember, he shouldn't have signed it.
much?And as shown you can always avoid it by saying you don't remember
Not necessarily the case here because the identity of who wrote sections of a declaration is a minor point, but often a witness would rather say "I don't remember" than say something harmful to their case. They think they're being clever by avoiding the harmful statement. But if there's any evidence of a fact that the witness "doesn't remember," that fact is now unrefuted.
I was going to post a witty reply but then realized you're from California where the government is expected to do everything for the people. Soylent Green, anyone?
Sorry, you're wrong...the witness signed a declaration under penalty of perjury. If he didn't remember, he shouldn't have signed it.
Wrong about what? Get over it! LOL!
Everybody who is under the glare of a legal system, will do and say whatever it takes to get away with it, or to convict.
That is why murder's caught red handed still follow instructions of a lawyer to restrict liability and are often coached and so are defence witnesses. All I am saying here, is this is nothing new and not really a big deal, given the other evidence [Signed confession from SJ].
He can say that he signed it to the best of his knowledge at the time, was feeling poorly, had writers cramp. There would be reasonable doubt and I will take a bet he won't get the 'chair'. Just because he cannot remember the names, does not mean it did not happen. Also they are not relying on his sole evidence as far as I can ascertain.
Indeed.