You seemed to trust them pretty well when Samsung was found guilty of patent infringement just a little while back.
"They were found guilty in a court of law. THEY SHOULD PAAAYYYY".
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.
Proposed E-Book Publisher Settlement Could See Customers Receiving Up to $3 Per Book Purchased
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You seemed to trust them pretty well when Samsung was found guilty of patent infringement just a little while back.
"They were found guilty in a court of law. THEY SHOULD PAAAYYYY".
As you're repeating that quote ad nauseam, why don't you put it in the signature. It will have the same sense there.
By the way, EU has nothing to do with Native Americans
Different Trial. Different Judge. Use your brain. www.fosspatents.com
----------
Never made that connection. My beef is with Judge Denise Cote and her unethical comments and conduct from the bench during the e-Book trial.
Apple will win on appeal, just as surely as the French will attack Syria with the US. The Rafael's are already in Cyprus.
The EU and US are not as different as you would like to believe. Neither is a Court of Law. Get off your soap box. You're no different than anyone else in here.
Different Trial. Different Judge. Use your brain. www.fosspatents.com
How does this statement make even a quarter of a 10th of a bit of sense?
Of course it's a different trial. Of course it's a different judge. So why is it that one case is completely honest and fair by your standards, and the other a travesty of justice?
...because the judge said Apple was guilty before they went to trial? Of course she would. It's an antitrust hearing. They have completely different standards from civil and criminal hearings, where two parties have to prove their point to a jury. In this case, it's the DOJ looking over the evidence, then calling in the defendant if they believe the evidence gives them enough reason to warrant doing so.
Why?
Because if the DOJ didn't think they were guilty of something in the first place, they never would've hauled them into court. Like I said, an antitrust hearing isn't a trial by your peers. It's more like "we've received complaints, we've subpoenaed evidence, looked it over, and damn if we don't think they're right. Prove to us that we're wrong".
It's like when the DOJ broke up AT&T back in the early 80's. They had the evidence they were operating an illegal monopoly long before the lawyers went to court. Same with Microsoft. A lawyers job in an antitrust case isn't to defend their client so much as make the court believe they're mistaken. In an antitrust case, you are guilty until proven innocent.
...and yes, the DOJ can be wrong. That's why there's an appeals process. But keep in mind that being wrong and being corrupt are two entirely different things. You're claiming ineptitude and corruption when all you should be doing, at worst, is claiming error. But then again, I think the only reason you think the DOJ is being unfair is because Apple was on the beating end of the stick this go round.
So really, why am I wasting my time with you?
Your argument sounds good in general, except if you look at the courts conditions, one of them requires predicting the future. Which is entirely non-specific. It leaves considerable room to disagree with a specific interpretation. Just because the courts may not have anticipated Amazon's predatory pricing strategy, doesn't mean it's legal.
Also, despite your claim that the courts definition is the only one that matters (which I completely disagree with), you've been pushing the DOJs unprecedented opinion that Amazon's pricing is not predatory because they make an overall profit on eBooks. There is no such exception for below cost pricing.
"I returned a Toshiba notebook and paid the 15%. My reason. the notebook was too unattractive for me to sit and look at for hours over a period of years".
Hilarious, but my sympathy goes out to your significant other, if you still have one that is.
"I returned a Toshiba notebook and paid the 15%. My reason. the notebook was too unattractive for me to sit and look at for hours over a period of years".
Hilarious, but my sympathy goes out to your significant other, if you still have one that is.
Hi MacDav, my husband laughed when I boxed the computer up. He said he expected that. He was surprised I was unaware of the aesthetics at BB prior to purchase.
Again, it doesn't mean it's legal but it doesn't mean it's not legal either and the courts' opinion about what predatory pricing is and what is not seem pretty clear to me. Feel free to argue that they would use a different rationale in Amazon's case, but I'd like something more elaborated than "they might not have anticipated Amazon's strategy so all bets are off".
Amazon is not going to be found guilty using my or your definition of predatory pricing, if it will ever be found guilty is with the courts' definition. In this sense, the courts' definition is the only one that actually matters. Of course we can argue that the courts' definition is wrong or incomplete, in this case feel free to elaborate how you would actually change it.
I (again) push the opinion that if your pricing strategy does not make you sustain any losses now to recouple in the future with increased prices you are not going to be found guilty of predatory pricing by the courts. This is the condition to pass the above mentioned test, which is the standard by which the courts measure predatory pricing claims, like it or not.
Use your brain. www.fosspatents.com
Never made that connection. My beef is with Judge Denise Cote and her unethical comments and conduct from the bench during the e-Book trial.
Apple will win on appeal
Because you lack an understanding of Law?
Oh, the irony in that comment reading the previous claims.
Ps, when Apple win the appeal, call me
people are celebrating that they'd get free money, what they dont realize is that it's their money, apple stole that from you.
Because you lack an understanding of Law?
You tend to insult people without backing up any of your statements. Why don't you give me an example of my ignorance. Show me where my understanding of law falls short.
...cuz, you know, a slightly more verbose version of "OLOL OH YEAH? WELL YOU'RE DUMB" isn't really an argument.
Well I'm glad you still keep him around. I guess he is attractive enough for you keep around and look at for a period of years without getting rid of him?
The email Apple sent me said the refund will be automatic. Apple knows who bought books, they keep all records.
I bought one whole book.
And yet, your rationale comes from the DOJ and not the court.
What I was referring to by that was that I don't think that Amazon's long term strategy is to raise prices. I think it is to leverage market dominance into other markets. Something that previous predatory pricing rulings have not taken in to account. Mostly because the scale that Amazon is looking at was unimaginable.
Being found guilty and doing something illegal are two different things.
Again, Amazon was never taken to court. The DOJ declined to prosecute because of their made up standard. The law is what actually matters, not just current precedent. Precedent changes.
I think that Amazon's below cost pricing was interfering with normal competition. You can disagree, and that's completely reasonable.
Here's a brief on this topic with a bunch of legal cites. (Page 16)
http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/102755617?access_key=key-2bc3sf7fpldurgmqu1q9&allow_share=true
See above.
Uhm, no one?
If you read the story, you see that the DOJ did not file these lawsuits and is uninvolved in this settlement. The suits were filed by various state AGs and private plaintiffs, then consolidated, and then settled by private settlement, negotiated by the parties and approved by the court.
So, if you re-word your question to "who determined the amount of the refund," the answer is: those who sued, in agreement with those who were sued, with the (so far only preliminary) approval of the court. Is there someone else you think should negotiate the amount of a litigation settlement, other than those who sued, those who were sued, and the judge?
If you think the payment is too much, or too little, you are free to opt out and file your own lawsuit. If you choose to opt out and then to not file your own lawsuit, your cut goes to charity.
The links I provided above are actually courts' decisions.
They don't take it into account because you're describing a different infringment. Abusing a dominant position to get an unfair advantage in other markets needs to actually happen first as far as I understand.
Thinking that a practice is illegal and that practice actually being illegal are two different things too.
The standard is the courts' one, the citations I provided and the links I provided are courts' sentences. See above.
Last edited:
Well I'm glad you still keep him around. I guess he is attractive enough for you keep around and look at for a period of years without getting rid of him?
He's my heart.
Exactly what does 'entitlement attitude' mean? If you are entitled you are entitled. Why are you trying to add guilt to it? If you are not entitled you are not entitled. Are you trying to say that they are really not entitled or that they are entitled but should take what they are entitled to?
Obviously I am not real clear on this.
Only if you pick up the Roaming Charges.
----------
In no way was my comment meant as a factual representation of intentional insult toward you.
You simply seemed to be grasping for some illusive argument to substantiate your claims that all Apple Trials should end in punitive damages against Apple.
I merely suggested looking into the legal aspects of decisions. You really should go to www.fosspatents.com and look up the cases that bother you.
I'm sorry this was so difficult.
And none of them support the contention that Amazon's pricing is not predatory because the supposedly maintain profitability in eBooks overall. And you've been provided several examples that show that the entire business does not need to be losing money, only specific prices.
Books are not a commodity, and the eBook market should not be treated as if all books are created equal. To use an extreme example, below cost pricing should be excused on all but one book, just because you sold one book for a billion dollars.
No, you're the one that has switched argument. I'm still talking about predatory pricing. However, traditionally, the end goal of predatory pricing is to raise prices after eliminating competition. I just think Amazon has a different goal for eliminating competition through their below cost pricing.
We are discussing opinions here.
You were the one that was arguing that if a court doesn't find them guilty, then they are doing nothing wrong. I think that's silly.
None of your citations state that overall profitability in a market is a defense against charges of predatory pricing. And you've been provided multiple citations that say the opposite.