Paid Content: 17 more states join Conspiracy lawsuit

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I mean... surely BPHs' overall image now is far more important to them than the distant outcome of some drawn-out legal proceeding. I'm fairly certain they'll easily survive any punishment (if found guilty of anything) that the DOJ might dole out

Isn't there also an EU proceeding?
Admitting guilt in the US must almost certainly lead to guilt in the EU case as well, and the EU is punitive in punishing cartel actions.

[stonetools]

I think that the potential exposure to liability is considerable, both in the EU and in the USA. Everyone's playing for high stakes, here.

As to image and spin, the general public is hardly aware of this action -just that the DOJ is suing Apple and some publishing companies over something to do with ebooks. People on this forum are paying much more attention than the average ebook buyer, who frankly is OK with agency pricing. ( People on this forum predicted that "no one" would buy ebooks at the higher "agency prices"- but people overwhelmingly did so .)

The DOJ complaint painted the defendants in the darkest colors, and the impending defense response will paint them in the purest white. The truth will be more nuanced. An any case, the I don't think the imge of either Apple or the publishers will take a big hit over this. Their profits will take a big hit, though, if they lose.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by howyoudoin

That's a strange stance to take. Jobs functioned as a representative of Apple, and Apple doesn't get let off the hook just because their representative at the time happens to be deceased now.

I'm just saying that he could have been saying, "if you do this then this will happen" but we can't know either way since he isn't here to answer for what his meaning was. And it is in bad taste (IMO) for them to attack a dead man who can't speak in his own defense. I mean if you were to die and someone then accused you of something do you think that would be fair? If someone is to be accused of something let it be when they are able to answer their accusers back.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by crich70

I'm just saying that he could have been saying, "if you do this then this will happen" but we can't know either way since he isn't here to answer for what his meaning was. And it is in bad taste (IMO) for them to attack a dead man who can't speak in his own defense. I mean if you were to die and someone then accused you of something do you think that would be fair? If someone is to be accused of something let it be when they are able to answer their accusers back.

Apple has to decide (and try to convince the DOJ) what he meant; corporate lawsuits are not going to stop because the main negotiator is no longer in the company or is deceased. "He's passed on, therefore let's not interpret what he said or did harshly" doesn't give redress to the people harmed.

Nobody's attacking Steve Jobs; they're interpreting the actions of the former head of Apple. Since the current company still honors the contracts he made, they're stuck with trying to stand behind his words.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Nobody's attacking Steve Jobs; they're interpreting the actions of the former head of Apple. Since the current company still honors the contracts he made, they're stuck with trying to stand behind his words.

All the feds (and State AGs) are doing at this point is *quoting* Saint Stephen of Jobs. It is *Apple* that needs to answer for their part in the conspiracy. This is a *corporate* action, not a personal one. And, so far, all the cases filed are *civil* cases, not criminal.

None of the conspiring CEOs, alive or dead, is at any personal risk.

[CyGuy]

Originally Posted by stonetools

...People on this forum are paying much more attention than the average ebook buyer, who frankly is OK with agency pricing. ( People on this forum predicted that "no one" would buy ebooks at the higher "agency prices"- but people overwhelmingly did so .)

That only confirms that people are gullible and are less and less able to think for themselves...

[howyoudoin]

Originally Posted by crich70

I'm just saying that he could have been saying, "if you do this then this will happen" but we can't know either way since he isn't here to answer for what his meaning was. And it is in bad taste (IMO) for them to attack a dead man who can't speak in his own defense. I mean if you were to die and someone then accused you of something do you think that would be fair? If someone is to be accused of something let it be when they are able to answer their accusers back.

I realise he isn't here to defend himself, but then this isn't a personal charge. It's Apple that's being charged with masterminding the collusion, and they're answerable for the actions of the person they appointed to act on their behalf. It's not like Jobs is being held personally responsible. As far as the court is concerned, Jobs and Apple are the same party, and Apple exists to answer to any charges. I agree with what you say when it comes to individual liability.

[ProfCrash]

Heck, I bought books at Agency Prices. If there is a book that I want to read and I am ok with the price, I will buy it.

[jgaiser]

Originally Posted by ProfCrash

Heck, I bought books at Agency Prices. If there is a book that I want to read and I am ok with the price, I will buy it.

Yep.. So did I. Doesn't mean I liked it. Doesn't me that it isn't wrong. Doesn't mean it's not collusion.

And I've skipped a fair number of books that were *considerably* more expensive then their paper counterparts. And I will continue to do so.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by heySkippy

It remains to be seen if it was illegal, or if it was, who performed illegal acts.

Not really, three of them already admitted it.

The evidence is very strong on the DOJ side.

[sabredog]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Not really, three of them already admitted it.

The evidence is very strong on the DOJ side.

Exactly. They would not have settled if they thought the DoJ case was weak.

[yoho]

Jobs? interesting indeed.

[MikeB1972]

Originally Posted by jgaiser

Yep.. So did I. Doesn't mean I liked it. Doesn't me that it isn't wrong. Doesn't mean it's not collusion.

And I've skipped a fair number of books that were *considerably* more expensive then their paper counterparts. And I will continue to do so.

Must be different in the UK, our agency ebooks seem to be mostly cheaper or the same price as the current pbook (before anyone goes scouring the net, I'm sure you could find some, I'm saying most are cheaper) and the publishers seem to be doing random deals for £1-£4 for backlist books.
Just got a couple of old James Herbert books for £1 each and SFGateway seems to have settled on £2.99 as a price (Just reading Fools by Pat Cadigan at the moment, needs much proofreading, although with all the intentional disconnect and grammer quirks in the book I can see how a proof reader would give up with a headache

So, personally, I'm all for agency prices at the moment

[fjtorres]

And now, news from the *third* front--the Class action lawsuit:
Apple and the Publishers had asked the suit be tossed out.
The judge refused and... Well...
http://paidcontent.org/2012/05/15/ju...=Google+Reader

Citing ongoing state, federal and international antitrust investigations, Cote turned down arguments that Apple and the publishers had acted independently when they changed the pricing model for e-books.

Cote’s opinion is at times remarkable for the emphatic language in which she decries the alleged conspiracy. It is also noteworthy for citing the late Steve Jobs on several occasions to suggest that Apple was at the center of it:

In short, Apple did not try to earn money off of eBooks by competing with other retailers in an open market; rather, Apple ‘accomplished this goal by [helping] the suppliers to collude, rather than to compete independently.’

More from the judge:

Finally, Jobs’ prescient prediction at the iPad launch that the prices consumers would be paying for eBooks would all ‘be the same’ and the other quotations from Jobs, Murdoch and Sargent, combine to provide ample evidence that the Publisher Defendants had agreed with each other to undertake collective action to raise eBooks’ prices and that Apple intentionally and knowingly joined that conspiracy.

And:

Finally, the fact that Apple might have had different motivations for joining the conspiracy, and was involved in only a portion of it, does not undermine the existence of the conspiracy itself or Apple’s role as a participant.

Let's see the "Authors" Guild and the other apologists spin *that*.

A little extra incentive to settle, perhaps?
(Sounds like the judge has already settled the question of whether there was a conspiracy.)

[Rob Lister]

Originally Posted by howyoudoin

I realise he isn't here to defend himself, but then this isn't a personal charge. It's Apple that's being charged with masterminding the collusion, and they're answerable for the actions of the person they appointed to act on their behalf. It's not like Jobs is being held personally responsible. As far as the court is concerned, Jobs and Apple are the same party, and Apple exists to answer to any charges. I agree with what you say when it comes to individual liability.

That is the part I keep 'not getting'. Apple was not fixing prices; they were not their prices to fix.

Are they being charged with accessory to conspiracy to collude to fix prices?

I'm not trying to be difficult, I really just don't understand.