Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham
Where? I've been Googling, and even browsing Shatzkin's site, for the last 15 minutes and can't find it. This is the best source I've found so far, which includes the link to Apple's rebuttal of the case:
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2012/05/...o-doj-bite-me/
I've mainly seen denials, not evidence that phone calls were not made, meetings were not held, timings were accidental rather than planned.
The argument from the three refusing to settle seems to be that the DOJ's evidence for collusion is circumstantial, not that they have substantial evidence showing that collusion did not occur.
Graham |
You can't prove a negative, really. All you can do is point out the defects in the Government's case. There are significant problems with the Government's time line, for example. Shatzkin:
Quote:
One is the inclusion — nay, the trumpeting — of the Picholine dinner in September 2008 as evidence of the conspiracy to implement agency pricing. The evidence in favor of DoJ’s contention is that all six big publishers were in the same room. But the evidence against it is that, at that time, nobody except perhaps a small number of people at Apple knew there would be an iPad, an iBookstore, and an agency model implemented 18 months later. In a word: this “evidence” is ridiculous.
The second is the juxtaposition of the fact that Apple told the publishers “unless there are four, there will be no store” (my attempt at memorable phrasing) with the “allegation” that publishers were asking (and telling) each other whether they were in or not. If Apple told them that — which I contend was only revealing to trading partners a pretty obvious and sensible business decision — then the publishers had no need to confer with each other. So suggesting these reports of what one publisher might have said to another proves “collusion” is only slightly less ridiculous than the Picholine “evidence
|
Also too, I find convincing John Sargent's disavowal that he conspired with the other publishers before challenging Amazon, in the absence of any evidence that he did confer with the publishers. Again, the DOJ has to come up with something other than "We believe they conferred".
I think that the case against these defendants is rather weaker than has been made out here, but really until the discovery process is over, we don't know. Its not a foregone conclusion at this point.