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

[DiapDealer]

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

Understood.

[John F]

I think Apple is taking a page from kid's playbook:

Me: "Johnny, why is Sally crying?"
Johnny: "I didn't do anything, and I for sure didn't hit her!!! But if I did hit her, she definitely deserved it and she definitely hit me first! You're Mean!"

[Phogg]

Originally Posted by Fbone

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

Yeah, but they will be exponentially more relevant than a trial adjudicated by one of the besotten old alzheimer's fossils that preside in many jurisdictions, or the political blinder musings of one of the party hacks (who only pry their way onto the bench by sycophanticly catering to one of the two irredemably corrupt political parties) who preside over many others.

Juries only look bad if you refuse to look objectively at the quality of performance the alternative delivers in practice, rather than the theoretical one may wish it exhibeted.

[Fbone]

Originally Posted by Phogg

Yeah, but they will be exponentially more relevant than a trial adjudicated by one of the besotten old alzheimer's fossils that preside in many jurisdictions, or the political blinder musings of one of the party hacks (who only pry their way onto the bench by sycophanticly catering to one of the two irredemably corrupt political parties) who preside over many others.

Juries only look bad if you refuse to look objectively at the quality of performance the alternative delivers in practice, rather than the theoretical one may wish it exhibeted.

Anything can happen in a jury deliberation room. Since they are not required to explain how they reached their decision jurors in the US are above the law. They do not have to uphold the US Constitution, State and local laws. Previous Supreme Court decisions can also be ignored. They can create their own definitions of collusion, MFN, agency pricing and monopoly. They can look beyond what was said in court.

Just choosing a jury will be difficult also. The DOJ attorneys may exclude those owning an iPad or Mac. The other side those with Kindles or users of a Kindle app.

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by Fbone

Anything can happen in a jury deliberation room. Since they are not required to explain how they reached their decision jurors in the US are above the law. They do not have to uphold the US Constitution, State and local laws. Previous Supreme Court decisions can also be ignored. They can create their own definitions of collusion, MFN, agency pricing and monopoly. They can look beyond what was said in court.

Just choosing a jury will be difficult also. The DOJ attorneys may exclude those owning an iPad or Mac. The other side those with Kindles or users of a Kindle app.

This may be surprising to Mobile Readers, but the vast majority of Americans don't own an EBR or Ios device. Jury selection will not be a problem on that issue.

The juries should be able to understand the issues. These issues aren't as technical or complex as the issues in the Oracle patent case, and apparently the jury did OK there.
Civil jury verdicts can be appealed from , reversed, and modified, as well.

[jgaiser]

Originally Posted by stonetools

This may be surprising to Mobile Readers, but the vast majority of Americans don't own an EBR or Ios device. Jury selection will not be a problem on that issue.

The juries should be able to understand the issues. These issues aren't as technical or complex as the issues in the Oracle patent case, and apparently the jury did OK there.
Civil jury verdicts can be appealed from , reversed, and modified, as well.

There you go again. The *issue* isn't reading devices. The *issue* isn't Agency Pricing. The *issue* is collusion. Which you continue to ignore and make it some other issue. Did the defendants *collude* to raise prices. If the Feds layout a good enough case, and the jury agrees, they're guilty. Simply, huh? Forget Agency Pricing. Forget ebook readers. That isn't the point.

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by jgaiser

There you go again. The *issue* isn't reading devices. The *issue* isn't Agency Pricing. The *issue* is collusion. Which you continue to ignore and make it some other issue. Did the defendants *collude* to raise prices. If the Feds layout a good enough case, and the jury agrees, they're guilty. Simply, huh? Forget Agency Pricing. Forget ebook readers. That isn't the point.

I'm answering the issue about whether an impartial jury can be chosen, and whether such a jury is capable of understanding the issues. I say yes.
Do you disagree?

[KindleChickie]

Originally Posted by stonetools

I do think that a lot of folks felt that there was NO WAY that Apple could mount any counter argument to the DOJ complaint, which was 100 per cent gospel truth.

My personal experience tells me Apple rigged the ebook market. I know what I was paying before their collusion with big publishing, and I know what the books I bought before cost now.

$14 to $15 for an ebook that has been out years and sells cheaper in print form?

[plib]

Originally Posted by KindleChickie

My personal experience tells me Apple rigged the ebook market. I know what I was paying before their collusion with big publishing, and I know what the books I bought before cost now.

$14 to $15 for an ebook that has been out years and sells cheaper in print form?

Some people seem to see Apple with a halo around it, as though it were an entity serving some higher purpose of marrying artistic form to function and therefore exempt from criticism.

In fact it's one of the most ruthless, gouging, greedy organizations on the planet, built in the image of its founder (or the founder who didn't actually make the first Apple anyway).

[elcreative]

Originally Posted by plib

Some people seem to see Apple with a halo around it, as though it were an entity serving some higher purpose of marrying artistic form to function and therefore exempt from criticism.

In fact it's one of the most ruthless, gouging, greedy organizations on the planet, built in the image of its founder (or the founder who didn't actually make the first Apple anyway).

Just like some people seem to think that Apple sports a tail and horns and Amazon wears a halo etc etc... all these viewpoints have about as much value as the paper they're printed on... personally, I'd be very surprised by any corporation having either a halo or horns and tail... neither extreme tends to be conducive to corporations' primary aim - making money

[sabredog]

Originally Posted by plib

Some people seem to see Apple with a halo around it, as though it were an entity serving some higher purpose of marrying artistic form to function and therefore exempt from criticism.

In fact it's one of the most ruthless, gouging, greedy organizations on the planet, built in the image of its founder (or the founder who didn't actually make the first Apple anyway).

So true. Love their product, hate the way the company operates.

Yet there are plenty of people who paint Amazon in the opposite way. resplendent with horns trident and cloven hoofs, Amazon is the great and evil organisation out to eat your children.

Apple and the BPH's are jealous of the success of Amazon as a business and terrified of the changes Amazon is fronting. Apple in particular are even more so, determined that they are the company to dominate the ebook market. Hence Job's determination at the time to wrest market share away by colluding with the BPH's on fixing prices to stop Amazon selling ebooks at prices customers snapped up.

If Apple could not destroy a company by endless patent suits, then this was the best way forward. The BHP's love the agency pricing scheme. It allows them to maintain the same business structure they have had for two hundred years. No change is good, at least in their eyes and especially if Amazon, that evil game changer, is throttled.

I look forward to this trial unfolding. The DoJ's case, contrary to some true agency price disciples, is strong. Else, why would three big publishing houses settle to avoid the fire and pain ahead?

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by sabredog

So true. Love their product, hate the way the company operates.

Yet there are plenty of people who paint Amazon in the opposite way. resplendent with horns trident and cloven hoofs, Amazon is the great and evil organisation out to eat your children.

Apple and the BPH's are jealous of the success of Amazon as a business and terrified of the changes Amazon is fronting. Apple in particular are even more so, determined that they are the company to dominate the ebook market. Hence Job's determination at the time to wrest market share away by colluding with the BPH's on fixing prices to stop Amazon selling ebooks at prices customers snapped up.

If Apple could not destroy a company by endless patent suits, then this was the best way forward. The BHP's love the agency pricing scheme. It allows them to maintain the same business structure they have had for two hundred years. No change is good, at least in their eyes and especially if Amazon, that evil game changer, is throttled.

I look forward to this trial unfolding. The DoJ's case, contrary to some true agency price disciples, is strong. Else, why would three big publishing houses settle to avoid the fire and pain ahead?

And apparently some people paint BPHS as the ones with horns. Hey, maybe all of these follks acting in own economic self interest. Maybe you might want to try that approach.

[sabredog]

Originally Posted by stonetools

And apparently some people paint BPHS as the ones with horns. Hey, maybe all of these follks acting in own economic self interest. Maybe you might want to try that approach.

When economic self interest sinks to price fixing and collusion in an attempt to wrestle market share, then the BPH's should feel the full weight of that laws consequences.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by stonetools

This may be surprising to Mobile Readers, but the vast majority of Americans don't own an EBR or Ios device. Jury selection will not be a problem on that issue.

Half of all US households own at least one Apple device

[elcreative]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

Half of all US households own at least one Apple device

Got to love polls... based on a survey of 846 people pre-selected by landline/mobile...