Quote:
Originally Posted by pwalker8
Of course. No one on the outside looking in can say what the true facts are, one can only go by what one has read or heard. Based on what I have read and heard, I said earlier what I thought the likely outcomes of the appeal will be. Other people may have different interpretations based on what they read and have heard. Unlike some here, I've never claimed that anyone who has a different opinion than mine must be some sort of fanboi.
|
Your thoughts on the likely outcomes of the appeal are not an issue. Your assertions that Apple was taken to court on this just because of their money, and that the Judge admitted to having written the majority of her final decision before the trial are. You insist that there is evidence of this admission and that you have presented it in the past, however those of us that have looked through your posts have seen no such evidence.
And while you didn't claim that anyone who has a different opinion than yours must be some sort of fanboi, you did use the phrase: <the "any stick to beat Apple" crowd>.
Spoiler:
Quote:
Originally Posted by pwalker8
While I know there is a whole lot of "any stick to beat Apple with" going on here, so far I haven't read anything that says that Apple fixed prices. Telling publishers that they can sale for whatever price they want, as long as they don't sale it for less elsewhere isn't exactly fixing prices.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by pwalker8
Geeze people, I know it's any stick to beat Apple with, but talk about over simplifying the legal issues. What the DOJ is demanding is that Apple blow up their business model, a model that is making a whole lot of money for a whole lot of people. Be careful what you wish for.
One would almost think that Amazon is dictating terms via the DOJ. One might even speculate that the $4.5 million that Amazon spent in campaign contributions and the $18 millions that Amazon spent on lobbying in Washington is starting to pay dividends. (note, those figures are just what Amazon, Inc is spending. It doesn't include what the individual Amazon execs spent)
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by pwalker8
Looks like the national press is picking this up.
Headline - Apple's Star Chamber - An abusive judge and her prsecutor friend besiege the tech maker.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/...pinion_LEADTop
Obviously the "any stick to beat Apple" crowd in this thread will dismiss such views since it doesn't fit their world view, but there really is, or should be a limit on what an individual judge can do. It will be interesting to watch the appeal process. Apparently, Cote is starting to back pedal a bit on her decree. |
Quote:
Originally Posted by pwalker8
Yep, can't really expect serious discussion here, the "any stick to beat Apple with" crowd is unwilling to do anything than mock and throw out ad homiem attacks (for those unfamilar with the term, it's a rhetorical device which involves attacking the person rather than addressing the matter at hand. The person in this case is Apple).
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by pwalker8
Yes exactly. There was quite a bit of literature about this at the time of the trial. This is the first time that a non horizontal company was treated as a horizontal company for purposes of anti-trust. that is the novel legal theory that the prosecutor used.
Yes, there are a lot of threads on the topic. The issue is that for it to be anti-trust, you have to prove a conspiracy. There was very little public evidence of that Apple did indeed conspire with the publishers to set prices. Mostly of the evidence appears to be an email that was never sent, the fact that Apple used the same contract for each of the publishers (once again a standard business practice) and Judge Cote saying that she didn't believe the Apple exec who said that they did not work with publishers to fix prices.
As far as I can tell, most of the opinions are divided between the anti stick to beat Apple with, the Apple fan boys, and a small group of postings that question the legal aspects of the trial itself. Things like Cote writing most of her opinion before the trail, saying before the trial that she thought that Apple was guilty, and Judge Cote's history of prejudicial (in the sense of favoring one party over another in trials) behavior. Then there is the question of how can a party with zero market share be guilty of anti-trust when the market leader has 80 to 90 percent of the market?
Finally there is the concern of the growing trend of government prosecutors using threats of company destroying fines to extort large amounts of cash from a wide range of companies without any admitting of guilt on the part of the company. This gives rise to the impression that it's all about raking in the bucks as opposed to justice.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by pwalker8
Apple most certainly did not accept any plea bargain on the punishment side. Cote told both sides to give her what they thought was appropriate, then she gave the prosecution most of what they were asking for.
There are a lot of beefs from Apple's point of view. All you need to do is read Apple's complaints to see them. The complaints sound pretty rational to me. Yes, Apple does have to follow Cote's judgment, though it does sound like she's been changing the judgment on the fly a bit. As I said before, it will be interesting to see if the appeals court grants Apple's emergency stay. Some say that Apple should win the appeal, others say that Apple won't.
You do realize that talking about Job's "reality distortion field" and about how much Apple thinks they are above the law just make you sound like another "any stick to beat Apple with" guy, don't you?
|