Quote:
Originally Posted by stonetools
1. The DOJ timeline doesn't work. According to the DOJ, Apple and the publishers began this conspiracy from early 2009, yet they can't point to any communication between Apple and the publishers before December 2009.
|
Where does it say that? From what I see in the file they say that Apple developed the strategy to enter the ebook market in February 2009. But the strategy at the beginning of the year was the opposite compared with the one that they went with at the end of the year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stonetools
2.There are innocent explanations as to why Apple was in communication with the publishers after December 2009.
|
I think that the problem was the nature of the communication:
Quote:
|
As it negotiated with the Publisher Defendants in December 2009 and January 2010, Apple kept each Publisher Defendant informed of the status of its negotiations with the other Publisher Defendants. Apple also assured the Publisher Defendants that its proposals were the same to each and that no deal Apple agreed to with one publisher would be materially different from any deal it agreed to with another publisher.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by stonetools
3.There is a good business explanation as to why the Apple'sagreements with the publishers are so similiar.
|
Price colluding is good for business.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stonetools
4.The reason for all the publishers agreeing before April 2010 was because Apple wanted such agreement in time for theiPad launch.
|
Which is an argument for collusion, not against it.