Apple says DoJ "sides with monopoly, rather than competition"

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by stonetools

So you reject Apple's interpretations of what happened. Remember, though, Apple doesn't have the burden of proof. For example, if there is a good business reason why the agreements between Apple and the publishers are similar in wording,then the court will likely find for Apple. 50-50 means Apple wins.

Apple kept each publisher informed of the conversations with the others. How did they interpret this if not by collusion?

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

Apple kept each publisher informed of the conversations with the others. How did they interpret this if not by collusion?

Apple denies they did anything wrong. Discovery will tell us what's in those communications. If its nothing more than telling Publisher A, "We are still working on an agreement with Publisher B but we hope to finish by launch day", then Apple will prevail.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Apple denies they did anything wrong. Discovery will tell us what's in those communications. If its nothing more than telling Publisher A, "We are still working on an agreement with Publisher B but we hope to finish by launch day", then Apple will prevail.

If its nothing more than telling Publisher A, "We are still working on an agreement with Publisher B but we hope to finish by launch day", then DoJ wouldn't have sued. Considering the fact that they have the proposals that Apple gave to the publishers they have very good evidence to support their claims.

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Well, that's the argument to the Supreme Court.
"Yes, we colluded to fix prices BUT we did it for a good business reason, and we're asking you to make an exception to the general rule"
That's how the defendant won in the Leegin case. Now will the Supreme Court buy this in a case where there is not one supplier, but a group of suppliers acting in concert? Dunno. Possible, though.

The question really is whether Justice Kennedy will buy this argument. I think the poistions of the other justices are fairly certain with Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts agreeing with Apple and the other 4 disagreeing.

[cjr72]

Originally Posted by rhadin

The question really is whether Justice Kennedy will buy this argument. I think the poistions of the other justices are fairly certain with Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts agreeing with Apple and the other 4 disagreeing.

It's not at the Supreme Court level yet is it?

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Well, that's the argument to the Supreme Court.
"Yes, we colluded to fix prices BUT we did it for a good business reason, and we're asking you to make an exception to the general rule"
That's how the defendant won in the Leegin case. Now will the Supreme Court buy this in a case where there is not one supplier, but a group of suppliers acting in concert? Dunno. Possible, though.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems in this instance, the defendants are saying; "No, we did not collude to fix prices. But in the event you decide that we did... just know that we did so for a good business reason."

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by cjr72

It's not at the Supreme Court level yet is it?

Nope but it could go the distance. Apple's certainly got the money to buy the lawyer time.
Apple spent a lot of time in the complaint defending the MFN clause. Its possible that they are concernd about the validity of MFN clauses in all their other contracts.

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems in this instance, the defendants are saying; "No, we did not collude to fix prices. But in the event you decide that we did... just know that we did so for a good business reason."

No collusion is the defense at the pretrial stage. If they lose at trial, they'll fire up defense #2 at the appeals stage.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by stonetools

No collusion is the defense at the pretrial stage. If they lose at trial, they'll fire up defense #2 at the appeals stage.

So wouldn't the fact that they have that second line of defense all ready to go imply that they know the first-line of defense isn't going to hold up?

I really don't understand how someone can simultaneously hold both "no, we did not collude" and "OK we colluded but felt we had no choice" positions. Besides... the second isn't really a defense, it's a mitigating factor for reduced charges or a lesser sentence.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I was convinced Apple was going to go with the; "the DoJ is absolutely correct on all counts... and we don't have a pot to pi$$ in" defense. Go figure.

I thought their legal strategy was going to be to counter sue the government over patent infringement.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by stonetools

No collusion is the defense at the pretrial stage. If they lose at trial, they'll fire up defense #2 at the appeals stage.

So they'll appeal on the grounds that they used the wrong defense the first time?

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

So wouldn't the fact that they have that second line of defense all ready to go imply that they know first-line of defense isn't going to hold up?

I really don't understand how someone can simultaneously hold both "no, we did not collude" and "OK we colluded but felt we had no choice" positions. Besides... the second isn't really a defense, it's a mitigating factor for reduced charges or a lesser sentence.

No, that's common for lawsuits. "We didn't do it. And if we did, there's no admissible proof. And if there is, it wasn't our fault. And if it was, we had a good reason."

Including parts 2, 3 and 4 isn't considered any form of admitting guilt on point 1.

They're not denying extensive communications with all 5 publishers; they're claiming those communications aren't collusion. And they're saying that even if the communication is found to be collusion, it shouldn't be illegal in their case because it was For A Good Cause.

I don't expect either of those claims to hold up, but there's nothing fishy about the way they're presenting them.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

I don't expect either of those claims to hold up, but there's nothing fishy about the way they're presenting them.

I'm sure you're right. But that doesn't make it seem any less ridiculously contradictory when judged with any normal logic system.

[plib]

Originally Posted by stonetools

No collusion is the defense at the pretrial stage. If they lose at trial, they'll fire up defense #2 at the appeals stage.

I'm not sure how far they can do that. IANAL but as I understand it appeals can only be filed on the basis of erroneous application of law and only conclusions of law, not findings of fact, are reviewable by the appellate court?

[Fbone]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I'm sure you're right. But that doesn't make it seem any less ridiculously contradictory when judged with any normal logic system.

This will be a jury trial. Logic, evidence, proof and facts may be irrelevant.