Apple eBook price fixing case going to court

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by jgaiser

SCOTUS agrees.

Reiner was unique, and that wasn't the Court's entire ruling, nor the context; the Supremes never said that an innocent person can take the Fifth willy-nilly; they said, in Reiner:

We have held that the privilege’s protection extends only to witnesses who have “reasonable cause to apprehend danger from a direct answer.” Id., at 486. That inquiry is for the court; the witness’ assertion does not by itself establish the risk of incrimination. Ibid. A danger of “imaginary and unsubstantial character” will not suffice. Mason v. United States, 244 U.S. 362, 366 (1917). But we have never held, as the Supreme Court of Ohio did, that the privilege is unavailable to those who claim innocence. To the contrary, we have emphasized that one of the Fifth Amendment’s “basic functions … is to protect innocent men … ‘who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances.’ ” Grunewald v. United States, 353 U.S. 391, 421 (1957) (quoting Slochower v. Board of Higher Ed. of New York City, 350 U.S. 551, 557—558 (1956)) (emphasis in original). In Grunewald, we recognized that truthful responses of an innocent witness, as well as those of a wrongdoer, may provide the government with incriminating evidence from the speaker’s own mouth. 353 U.S., at 421—422.

The Supreme Court of Ohio’s determination that Batt did not have a valid Fifth Amendment privilege because she denied any involvement in the abuse of the children clearly conflicts with Hoffman and Grunewald. Batt had “reasonable cause” to apprehend danger from her answers if questioned at respondent’s trial. Hoffman, supra, at 486. Batt spent extended periods of time alone with Alex and his brother in the weeks immediately preceding discovery of their injuries. She was with Alex within the potential timeframe of the fatal trauma. The defense’s theory of the case was that Batt, not respondent, was responsible for Alex’s death and his brother’s uncharged injuries. In this setting, it was reasonable for Batt to fear that answers to possible questions might tend to incriminate her. Batt therefore had a valid Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.

The entire context was unique to Reiner; the girl in question reasonably feared that the defendant might endeavor to place her in legal jeopardy as an alternative theory (perpetrator) of the crime. Batt was in an unusual position. Overall, anyone pleading the Fifth has to have a reasonable belief that what they testify to will place them in harm's way of prosecution. The Fifth is not a smokescreen that can be deployed at will by someone who simply doesn't want to tell the truth, under some guise of self-incrimination. Even the Supremes stated that the determination as to what constituted a "reasonable fear" was for the court to decide--not merely the witness' assertion.

FWIW.

Hitch

[jgaiser]

Originally Posted by Hitch

Reiner was unique, and that wasn't the Court's entire ruling, nor the context; the Supremes never said that an innocent person can take the Fifth willy-nilly; they said, in Reiner:

I still stand by my original statement. Invoking the 5th amendment does not and cannot imply guilt. The courts have said over and over again that a defendent cannot be forced to testify and and jury cannot use use that plea to assume guilt.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by jgaiser

I still stand by my original statement. Invoking the 5th amendment does not and cannot imply guilt. The courts have said over and over again that a defendent cannot be forced to testify and and jury cannot use use that plea to assume guilt.

My point was simply that Reiner didn't make a blanket statement, allowing innocent people to invoke the Fifth because they felt like it. There has to be a reasonable fear of prosecution. Not an irrational or child's fear, or an imaginary fear; a real one with a real basis in law. Now, we can argue and split hairs from now until hell freezes over, but the logic argument that follows from that is pretty straightforward, and though juries are not often populated by rocket scientists, even they know it.

Hitch

[Barcey]

It's interesting to read Apple's defense. They seem to be making marketing sound bites for the media coverage rather then making a defense on the charges.

"We wanted to treat everybody on a level playing field such that big publishers would be treated the same as small publishers," Saul argued. "It was all about Apple and our ability to launch a bookstore that would be the best on the planet."

That's not a statement I would expect from an attorney. I suspect they are playing to the court of public opinion. Spin it as much as they can, pay the fine and then play the victim.

news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57587613-38/apple-we-wanted-a-level-playing-field-for-publishers/

[bgalbrecht]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

This is why I tell people never ever to buy an eBook from Apple and that includes free eBooks. Apple should not sell a single eBook since it was their idea to screw the consumer and we are still being screwed today.

I won't buy anything from Apple. I did a price comparison of books I bought before 4/1/2010 when agency pricing went into effect, with their prices a couple years later. I took advantage of a lot of sales, and I calculated that I paid about $900 for close to 500 ebooks, and the price I would have had to pay for them 2 years later was about $3600. Yes, 4 times as much. Furthermore, none of them were bought from Amazon. Thank you very not, Apple. I hope Apple loses big and wastes a lot of money on an unsuccessful appeal.

[tubemonkey]

Once the most favored nations system was established, with bookseller Barnes & Nobel also adopting the model, Penguin tried to get Amazon to move to it as well. According to Shanks [Penguin CEO], the market leader didn't take the news well.

"They yelled and screamed and threatened," he said. "It was a very unpleasant meeting."

...way to go Amazon

[fjtorres]

So, opposing a conspiracy is a bad thing?

Let's face it, the conspiracy did wonderful things for Amazon but by publicly (and apparently, privately) opposing it vigorously they kept their hands clean *and* still reaped bigger benefits than anybody this side of Apple.

If it weren't for the millions of consumers that got ripped-off, this farce would actually be funny.

[DiapDealer]

What's funniest is that the publishers were all tricked into believing that their best course of action was to illegally (potentially illegal, to be generous) conspire to create a situation where Amazon could make even more money selling their books ... all to gain a tiny sliver (a tiny, almost ALL profit sliver, mind you) of the ebook pie for Apple. How do you kill a giant? Apparently by helping them make even more money selling a product they've already proven themselves to be more adept than everybody else at selling.

[ProfCrash]

Yeah I found that humerous. Amazon was making more money and the Publishers were making less. This was good for them how?

It was silly. I just want my freaking credit so I can do something with it.

[fjtorres]

The list of fallout from the conspiracy is looonnnggg...
Just off the top of my head:
- scaring the big asian CE companies out of the dedicated reader device market (Samsung, Asus, Acer...) and effectively foreclosing the North American market to Sony and the second tier vendors that stayed in the business
- crippling (and eventually killing) at least some of the independent ebookstores just as ereader adoption peaked
- iBooks was the kiss of death for ADEPT-based ebook interoperability
- BPH ebook prices went up, indie ebook prices went down -- indie ebooks became respectable
- With ebook price competition off the table as a differentiator, ebookstore customer experience became the top driver of customer choice -- Amazon became the safe buy by default for mainstream buyers.
- Amazon US market share stayed (at worst) flat *after* the Fix kicked in; Apple's gains came at the expense of everybody else in the epub world
- Amazon's worldwide share grew, both in hardware and ebooks

Yup! They really showed Amazon a thing or two with their conspiracy.

[ProfCrash]

No one said it was an effective tactic. Stupid, illegal, and ineffective. I hope they get hit with a huge fine and that money fnds its way back to the consumer. Well at least 10% of that money, probably less then that.

And I love my IPad. Love it. Use it every day. Heck it has become my primary e-reader. But Dude, they cost me money and for something that didn't even benefit them in the short or long run.

[ProfCrash]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...9531E520130604

Penguin CEO's testified yesterday

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Yup! They really showed Amazon a thing or two with their conspiracy.

Don't you mean "alleged conspiracy"? Surely they are entitled to a presumption of innocence. That's why we have trials.

[ottdmk]

While I'm not a fan of the higher prices the Agency model brought, in a way I'm grateful to it. Without it, it's entirely possible that we'd be at the mercy of an Amazon monopsony. Without Agency I doubt that Kobo would exist in its current form, and Barnes & Nobel might have been forced out of the ebook business ages ago. There would be Amazon and the small niche publishers like Baen, and that's it.

[SleepyBob]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Don't you mean "alleged conspiracy"? Surely they are entitled to a presumption of innocence. That's why we have trials.

I think you've confused fjtorres with the legal system. Fjtorres isn't under an obligation to presume anything.