"Trust the Government. It worked well for Native Americans."
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".
"Trust the Government. It worked well for Native Americans."
"Trust the Government. It worked well for Native Americans."
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![]()
Of course it might be happening, but it also might not...
Anyway my point is that he said that "obtaining the proof is difficult", but the problem does not lie in that. Said like that it even sounds like it's easy to engage in predatory pricing without getting caught. Predatory pricing is instead considered a very rare and difficult practice:
Actually the problem is not "obtaining proof" at all. The problem is that the definition of predatory pricing (and I mean the only definition which actually matters, the courts' one) is very specific and requires to fullfill all of the above mentioned conditions. Many practices that at first sight may look like predatory pricing actually are not predatory and perfectly legit.
I buy iBooks because I prefer them. Much easier on the eye for me. I know when I purchase an iBook that it may also be available from other sellers for a little less. Most Apple items are a few dollars more.
For my needs Apple did not interferer in any way with my choice. I had a kindle book that I deleted. Not easy to read due to quality. I also deleted one from B&N for the same reason.
I prefer Apple products and I buy them. I am aware that there are other products available to purchase a a lower price from other sellers.
Personal choice. I'm all about that. Back in the day of restocking fees being standard operating procedures 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.
I like choice and I am willing to pay. If everything was strictly a matter of price my local library provides books at no charge as long as I return them on time.
We have good public transportation here. I'm keeping my cars.
"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.![]()
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.
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?
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?![]()
5 Publishers who received 70% of revenue from e-Books across multiple marketplaces (Kindle, Nook, iBookstore) in total owe $162M.
1 Ecosystem Provider (Apple) that received 30% of the e-Books revenue on a single distant-second marketplace may owe $500M.
Hmm..... something about this math does not work.
Because you lack an understanding of Law?![]()
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.
If anybody has to fill out a claim form and dig for receipts, it's for sure worth the time to get $ 3.06.
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.
who is the DOJ to determine what is the fair price?
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 have purchased ebooks from apple, amazon, and barnes and noble, and have previously received emails saying i'm pre qualified since I've purchased books through them, and will have to do nothing.
I just today received another one from "state attorney general" Administrator@qgemail.com
saying the same, records indicate I am eligible for a payment from settlements, blah blah blah...
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 entitlement attitude that so many are eager to cash in on.
Oh, the irony in that comment reading the previous claims.
Ps, when Apple win the appeal, call me
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.
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.