Apple Pleads for Price-Fixing Reversal

[AnemicOak]

In an appeal filing with the Second Circuit, Apple attorneys pressed their argument that Judge Denise Cote blew it when she found Apple liable for its role in an alleged conspiracy to fix e-book prices, and pleaded for a reversal.

Calling the DoJ’s e-book price-fixing case an “incoherent attack on supposed collusion,” Apple stressed the unprecedented nature of Cote's 2013 decision.

“Never before has a court found a company liable under the antitrust laws for entry into a market dominated by a single company, through admittedly vertical and lawful distribution agreements, to launch an enterprise that the court admitted benefited consumers and competition, where the company did not desire higher prices and the agreements did not specify prices to be charged, and which resulted in more competition, lower market prices, and increased market output,” Apple attorneys argued. “Plaintiffs do not cite a single analogous case, and there is none. The district court’s decision finding Apple per se liable under the antitrust laws was therefore reversible error.”

By now the Second Circuit must be getting familiar with the price-fixing case: Apple has already lost two minor appeals related to the case, and late last month, two publishers filed an appeal with the Second Circuit arguing that Judge Denise Cote’s 2013 final order against Apple illegally amended their e-book price-fixing settlements from 2012, and made a timely return to a straight “no-discount” agency model all but impossible.

http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/b...-reversal.html

[tubemonkey]

for you Apple

[fjtorres]

...or, as Tiny Tina would say:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=annvu_WY-zY

[pwalker8]

Ever notice that when someone doesn't have anything rational to say, that they resort to the cheap rhetorical trick of mockery?

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by AnemicOak

http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/b...-reversal.html

Interesting. Thanks for the link. It should be noted that this is simply Apple's response to the DOJ's filings with regards to the appeal, so from that stand point its standard stuff. I think the next step is for the Appeals court to either rule on the case, or ask for additional clarification. No idea what the timeline is, but I would guess it will be several months.

I must confess that I hadn't considered how the Amazon/Hachette situation might have an effect on the appeal.

This really is going to be interesting.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Ever notice that when someone doesn't have anything rational to say, that they resort to the cheap rhetorical trick of mockery?

Yeah; I wonder why they do that?

[pwalker8]

Because way back in the 8th grade, people thought they were clever when they mocked rather than engaged in rational debate and they haven't learned better?

[pl001]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Because way back in the 8th grade, people thought they were clever when they mocked rather than engaged in rational debate and they haven't learned better?

As opposed to this comment.

People mock because it gets old constantly correcting certain people who repeatedly bring up the same misinformation.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by pl001

People mock because it gets old constantly correcting certain people who repeatedly bring up the same misinformation.

Because a bit of mockery in the morning gets the blood flowing.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by pl001

As opposed to this comment.

People mock because it gets old constantly correcting certain people who repeatedly bring up the same misinformation.

Really? Maybe you should try reading the post and article it linked to. I don't see any misinformation. For the most part, mockery is a form of intellectual laziness. It's easy to mock, not so easy to inform oneself and engage in rational discussion.

[Shane R]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Really? Maybe you should try reading the post and article it linked to. I don't see any misinformation. For the most part, mockery is a form of intellectual laziness. It's easy to mock, not so easy to inform oneself and engage in rational discussion.

One might also say that mocking the mockers for their mocking is an equally useless tactic.

People want to hear bad news about this company and revel in it. I say let them, and let them alone, too.

[TimW]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Really? Maybe you should try reading the post and article it linked to. I don't see any misinformation. For the most part, mockery is a form of intellectual laziness. It's easy to mock, not so easy to inform oneself and engage in rational discussion.

Sure, let's discuss the article. PW mentions the part about Apple adding the pointless statement about Amazon/Hachette:

In an interesting footnote, Apple attorneys refer to Amazon’s current terms dispute with Hachette, noting that “in the wake of the injunction restricting Apple’s lawful activities, Amazon reportedly continues to exert market power over the publishers by refusing to sell books if they do not agree to its terms.”

Then PW added this remark:

(Of course, Apple reportedly did the same thing to Random House, alllegedly threatening to reject Random House apps from the App Store if Random House did not agree to sign an agency deal for e-books, which it eventually did, in 2011.)

Calling Apple out for "allegedly" doing something similar to Random House, skates very close to mockery (for PW, at least).

[pwalker8]

It's not pointless if it helps their appeal. The question is will it help their appeal.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by TimW

Calling Apple out for "allegedly" doing something similar to Random House, skates very close to mockery (for PW, at least).

It's not mockery to point out that Apple did something similar to Random House. It's just pointing out that Apple is guilty of the same thing they are accusing Amazon of doing to Hatchette.

[TimW]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

It's not pointless if it helps their appeal. The question is will it help their appeal.

No. Not in the slightest. The appeals court wants Apple to focus on the case decided last summer by Judge Cote, specifically concerning any errors made by her in the conduct of the case. Amazon/Hachette is absolutely irrelevant to this case.

Jon? I agree with you. Hyperbole.