E-Books-Anti-Trust- What did Steve Jobs Know? When did he know it?

[SeaKing]

E-Books - Anti-Trust - What did Steve Jobs know? When did Steve Jobs do? When?

"Steve Jobs Biographer Resists Subpoena in e-Books Case
By Judith Rosen, Publishers Weekly
Jul 23, 2012"

"At least for now, bestselling author Walter Isaacson has eluded an “informal discovery conference” for materials from his biography of Steve Jobs, requested by Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, attorney for the class action plaintiffs in the Electronic Books Antitrust Litigation case filed late last year. In a hand-scrawled note on a letter of opposition from Isaacson’s attorney, Elizabeth A. McNamara, Judge Denise Cote wrote, “the plaintiff may renew its application when it can show that it meets the test for disclosure of nonconfidential material.”

Hagens Berman served a subpoena on Isaacson on May 23 for documents and communications with Jobs regarding Apple’s entry into the e-book market, most-favored-nation clauses, sales of e-books, and pricing strategies."

Read more here.

Inquiring minds want to know. Indeed, demand to know!

[kennyc]

Do we really need another thread on the same topic?

[elcreative]

Originally Posted by SeaKing

E-Books - Anti-Trust - What did Steve Jobs know? When did Steve Jobs do? When?

"Steve Jobs Biographer Resists Subpoena in e-Books Case
By Judith Rosen, Publishers Weekly
Jul 23, 2012"

"At least for now, bestselling author Walter Isaacson has eluded an “informal discovery conference” for materials from his biography of Steve Jobs, requested by Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, attorney for the class action plaintiffs in the Electronic Books Antitrust Litigation case filed late last year. In a hand-scrawled note on a letter of opposition from Isaacson’s attorney, Elizabeth A. McNamara, Judge Denise Cote wrote, “the plaintiff may renew its application when it can show that it meets the test for disclosure of nonconfidential material.”

Hagens Berman served a subpoena on Isaacson on May 23 for documents and communications with Jobs regarding Apple’s entry into the e-book market, most-favored-nation clauses, sales of e-books, and pricing strategies."

Read more here.

Inquiring minds want to know. Indeed, demand to know!

Naaa... enquiring minds could care less... they'd rather get on with their lives than go with the endless "bad Apple," "nasty Microsoft" and "they're all out to get us..." Fine, we've heard the message... time after time after time... big yawn, time to go...

[Phogg]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Do we really need another thread on the same topic?

New threads at least relieve the tedium of having the same topic titles at the top of the forums week after week. The topics won't go away because the behaviors are profitable and some entity will always be engaging in them. At least we can change the titles.

[crossi]

Well, I'm interested. I don't remember reading previous threads on the topic. And I would like an update if they manage to get access to that information. Jobs may be dead but his company isn't so it is still relevant.

[SeaKing]

I thought that it was new news that Steve Jobs biographer was being brought into the mess, but maybe I missed it in other posts.

Publishers Weekly thought it was news!

I myself thought it rather startling.

[Greg Anos]

It would be "hearsay evidence" without admissable documents...

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

It would be "hearsay evidence" without admissable documents...

It's admissible for impeachment, though - meaning that if Apple said something that was contradicted by something Jobs told Isaacson, that would be admissible to impeach that statement.

Isaacson's notes may also be admissible under the business records exception, although I'm not certain.

[rhadin]

How can you believe anything Jobs said to Isaacson? Jobs was so contradictory it is impossible to separate fact from fantasy. Have we so quickly forgotten how he stole from Xerox Parc and claimed it as his own but then wanted to destroy Android as having stolen from Apple? Or that he famously declared no one reads anymore so he wasn't interested in ebooks only to create an Apple ebookstore.

Of course there is another question: Do Jobs' god-like fantasies constitute something he "knew" or just something he wished for?

[elcreative]

Originally Posted by rhadin

How can you believe anything Jobs said to Isaacson? Jobs was so contradictory it is impossible to separate fact from fantasy. Have we so quickly forgotten how he stole from Xerox Parc and claimed it as his own but then wanted to destroy Android as having stolen from Apple? Or that he famously declared no one reads anymore so he wasn't interested in ebooks only to create an Apple ebookstore.

Of course there is another question: Do Jobs' god-like fantasies constitute something he "knew" or just something he wished for?

Wow, now that's so subtle... you can barely detect your anti-Jobs bias in your post...

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by rhadin

Have we so quickly forgotten how he stole from Xerox Parc and claimed it as his own but then wanted to destroy Android as having stolen from Apple?

You mean the stuff Jobs *bought* from Xerox PARC? http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2...urrentPage=all

[RainingLemur]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

It's admissible for impeachment, though - meaning that if Apple said something that was contradicted by something Jobs told Isaacson, that would be admissible to impeach that statement.

Isaacson's notes may also be admissible under the business records exception, although I'm not certain.

I'm pretty much a dunce when it comes to this stuff.... But, what good would impeaching statements do?

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by RainingLemur

I'm pretty much a dunce when it comes to this stuff.... But, what good would impeaching statements do?

It keeps Apple honest.

For example, if Jobs told Isaacson in June of 2009 that he called the publishers with a plan for fighting Amazon's e-book dominance, and Apple testified at trial that the first contact they had with the publishers was in November of 2009, when the publishers called them, Jobs' statement would be admissible to impeach Apple's statement.

Obviously, you hope for more of a smoking gun, like "We've got this great plan to sell e-books, although our lawyers say it's illegal."

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by rhadin

How can you believe anything Jobs said to Isaacson? Jobs was so contradictory it is impossible to separate fact from fantasy. Have we so quickly forgotten how he stole from Xerox Parc and claimed it as his own but then wanted to destroy Android as having stolen from Apple? Or that he famously declared no one reads anymore so he wasn't interested in ebooks only to create an Apple ebookstore.

Of course there is another question: Do Jobs' god-like fantasies constitute something he "knew" or just something he wished for?

Do you think the world would be\have been a better place without him and his company?

Helen

[SeaKing]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

Do you think the world would be\have been a better place without him and his company?
Helen

It is one thing to consider the warts and moles of a person's personality, intentions and deeds. It is quite another to get all metaphysical about him.