Apple $450 million e-book settlement wins court approval

[John F]

Apple Inc on Friday won preliminary court approval for its $450 million settlement of claims it harmed consumers by conspiring with five publishers to raise e-book prices. ...

http://news.yahoo.com/apple-450-mill...--finance.html

I'm curious about the initial paragraph I posted. I thought this was a mutually agreed upon settlement, so how did "apple win approval"?

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by John F

http://news.yahoo.com/apple-450-mill...--finance.html

I'm curious about the initial paragraph I posted. I thought this was a mutually agreed upon settlement, so how did "apple win approval"?

Something about Apple agrees to pay $450M if they lose the appeal, but if the appeals cout returns the case to Cote, the maximum Apple will be on the hook for is $70M.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by j.p.s

Something about Apple agrees to pay $450M if they lose the appeal, but if the appeals cout returns the case to Cote, the maximum Apple will be on the hook for is $70M.

Actually, I think that the settlement is void if Apple wins the appeal and Apple doesn't have to pay anything.

[Barcey]

Originally Posted by John F

http://news.yahoo.com/apple-450-mill...--finance.html

I'm curious about the initial paragraph I posted. I thought this was a mutually agreed upon settlement, so how did "apple win approval"?

Judge Cote wasn't happy with parts of the settlement.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...0FT2WK20140725

U.S. District Judge Denise Cote in Manhattan said she found "most troubling" a clause requiring Apple to pay only $70 million if an appeals court reversed her finding that the company is liable for antitrust violations and sent it back to her for further proceedings.

Speaking on a teleconference, Cote questioned if that would be fair and what might happen if the appeals court reversed her ruling on a minor issue. She also took issue with the lack of any requirement for Apple to pay interest while the appeals go forward.

On Thursday's call, Cote expressed concern that the middle scenario might be unfair to consumers by undervaluing their claims.

Steve Berman, a lawyer for the consumers, told her that such an outcome would result in a "much bleaker universe" for his clients.

"We thought given that unlikely scenario and the legal risk we would face it would be a good outcome for consumers," he said.

After the call ended, Berman said the parties would consider Cote's concerns. Apple did not respond to a request for comment.

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Actually, I think that the settlement is void if Apple wins the appeal and Apple doesn't have to pay anything.

What does that have to do with what happens if the case is sent back to the lower court?

Of course Apple doesn't have to pay anything if Apple wins the appeal.

In any case, I was simply providing a synopsis of the part of the article relevant to the question in the OP.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by j.p.s

What does that have to do with what happens if the case is sent back to the lower court?

Of course Apple doesn't have to pay anything if Apple wins the appeal.

In any case, I was simply providing a synopsis of the part of the article relevant to the question in the OP.

It's very rare for a case to be overturned on appeal and simply dismissed out of hand, most of the time it gets sent back to the original judge with instructions, though there have been cases where it is sent to a different judge (major slap in the face for the original judge since it says that the original judge had lost his or her impartiality).

There are a few things that happen when an appeal is upheld and sent back to the original judge. Either the case is simply dismissed, a new trial is held or some sort of settlement is reached.