DOJ publishes terms for settlement in Apple antitrust case

[fjtorres]

From the Digital Reader:

http://www.the-digital-reader.com/20.../#.UfvaQ2LD_MI

The DOJ wants Apple to renegotiate existing contracts with book publishers, allow competitors to link from inside their iOS ebook apps to websites, and appoint an outside monitor whose job will be to make sure Apple complies with the settlement. The full letter from the DOJ is copied at the end of the post.

If Apple refuses these terms they'll go to court again and the Judge could impose even harsher terms.

I hope they don't settle.

[murraypaul]

Seems pretty lenient.
The only bit that isn't "stop doing illegal things" is allowing links to other bookstores back into reading apps.
No drastic changes to how the app store or iBookstore works, no monitoring of other aspects of the business.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

Seems pretty lenient.
The only bit that isn't "stop doing illegal things" is allowing links to other bookstores back into reading apps.
No drastic changes to how the app store or iBookstore works, no monitoring of other aspects of the business.

And they're refusing to submit to oversight.
Apparently they still have stuff to hide.

[Alexander Turcic]

Also see https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=219267

[fjtorres]

Sorry for the dupe; I'm a slow typist.

[frahse]

It warms my heart!

[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)

[fjtorres]

And Apple wants the feds to blow them a kiss and let them keep on pulling more of the same shennannigans:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-575...-books-battle/

Apple said, it should place "reasonable limitations on Apple's ability to share information," prohibit agreements with publishers from having "most favored nation" pricing pacts that give Apple the best price, and "reasonable antitrust training obligations for Apple, lasting a reasonable term."

And that's it.
No fines, no restitution, and they get to keep all the market share they garnered by breaking the law.

Because, Apple is so trustworthy that their promise not to collude a third time can be believed.

I hope they keep this up.
The judge is bound to be thrilled by the posturing and PR smoke-n-mirrors.

[Edward M. Grant]

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.

And... that's what happens when you break the law. It's called 'punishment'.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Sorry for the dupe; I'm a slow typist.

I'm glad you are, because I'm a slow reader

[tubemonkey]

The DOJ proposal "hands Amazon yet another win," said Mark Coker, founder of Smashwords, an e-book publisher and distributor that works with Apple, Barnes & Noble, Sony and others. "Why isn't the DOJ forcing Amazon to play fairly? This is the question the publishing industry wants answered."

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

No thought to the fact that the deals helps Nook, Kobo, Sony, and all the small generic epub bookstores.
And through them, smashwords.
Amazon on the brain.

[elcreative]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

And they're refusing to submit to oversight.
Apparently they still have stuff to hide.

And Washington has such closed mouths and is so good at keeping secrets... why on earth would Apple be concerned about the government seeing every facet of their business, it's not like anyone on oversight could ever leak such things to competitors or the press...

fjtorres, every business has things to hide, you don't want to hand everything over to competitors (well, you might) but I suppose that with all other businesses being saints and Apple the greatest villain in the world (as it seems from your posts) then I suppose your great joy at everything anti-Apple won't be sayed unless they are completely destroyed... never mind the employees, happy customers and effects on the economy - kill Apple for good...

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by elcreative

And Washington has such closed mouths and is so good at keeping secrets... why on earth would Apple be concerned about the government seeing every facet of their business, it's not like anyone on oversight could ever leak such things to competitors or the press... :

Did you read the actual federal proposal?
Oversight would be by a third party appointed by and answering to the court.
Not government bureaucrats.

You know, antitrust penalties are always bad news. No wristslaps or sensitivity training sessions. That it got go trial guarantees Apple a ton of grief. The terms they are being offered are near the low end of what they could get.

Apple posturing for the faithful, pretending the crime was minor, isn't going to amuse the judge when the penalty trial starts next week.

[elcreative]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Did you read the actual federal proposal?
Oversight would be by a third party appointed by and answering to the court.
Not government bureaucrats.

You know, antitrust penalties are always bad news. No wristslaps or sensitivity training sessions. That it got go trial guarantees Apple a ton of grief. The terms they are being offered are near the low end of what they could get.

Apple posturing for the faithful, pretending the crime was minor, isn't going to amuse the judge when the penalty trial starts next week.

Yes I can read... and the difference between a direct government oversight and a third party, appointed by the government is... I mean they can't even keep their military, diplomatic and security services work secret so why should anyone expect an oversight of this nature to be any more secure?? Still, it hardly matters as it's only Apple, just another nasty vicious little business of no importance to the US economy, may as well encourage them to move all of their business to one of the BRIC groups completely...