Apple eBook price fixing case going to court

[Synamon]

Originally Posted by leebase

I was wrong....I thought Apple had made their case well and would win. I was right in that no matter what the ruling, it wouldn't change my opinion (or anyone else's).

What exactly would it take to change your opinion, if a ruling by a judge with access to all the facts doesn't do it?

Originally Posted by jgaiser

Yep.. Apple won't go quietly into the night.

They might. It's possible Apple didn't want to set a precedent by settling, but will take their slap on the wrist willingly now.

[AnemicOak]

Originally Posted by Synamon

They might. It's possible Apple didn't want to set a precedent by settling, but will take their slap on the wrist willingly now.

Didn't they settle a similar case in the EU?

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by AnemicOak

Didn't they settle a similar case in the EU?

The EU wasn't asking for monitoring of their contract activities, just a promise not to be rambunctious kids again.

[AnemicOak]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

The EU wasn't asking for monitoring of their contract activities, just a promise not to be rambunctious kids again.

Ahhh, thanks

[DiapDealer]

Travesty! Debacle!
*harrumph, harrumph*

[Graham]

Originally Posted by Synamon

What exactly would it take to change your opinion, if a ruling by a judge with access to all the facts doesn't do it?

It's well worth digging into pdf of the ruling itself, linked above, leebase, if you're at least willing to allow your opinion to changed.

The judge covers the points that we've been reading about where Apple has been judged in the press to have made a good case, and explains her reasoning as to where those points do not stand up.

There are also a number of footnotes where she notes that elements of Cue's and others' testimony are 'not credible', and then goes on to explain why.

Graham

[Andrew H.]

I'm an Apple fan, but it's always seemed obvious to me that they were engaged in price-fixing, and the various e-mails they sent seemed like pretty good evidence.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Synamon

What exactly would it take to change your opinion, if a ruling by a judge with access to all the facts doesn't do it?


They might. It's possible Apple didn't want to set a precedent by settling, but will take their slap on the wrist willingly now.

Yes and they just dropped the "App Store" lawsuit against Amazon....

[K. Molen]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Yes and they just dropped the "App Store" lawsuit against Amazon....

I wasn't even aware that this suit was going on. I remember something about them grumbling about it, but I didn't realized they had sued. Ridiculous.

[fjtorres]

Publisher's Weekly has called out some pundits and resumes. They blame the Publishing Execs for Appe's loss. (Of course!)
http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/b...book-case.html

They also talk about the odds of a successful appeal:

Apple, of course, is likely to appeal. "It's pretty likely in my mind that Apple will appeal to the Second Circuit,” observed Christopher Sagers, a law professor at Cleveland State University who has followed the case closely. “I think it's extremely unlikely, however, that the Second Circuit would do anything except resoundingly affirm in all respects. Apple’s only meaningful hope would be to convince the court that there was a mistake of law in finding the agreement per se illegal, but I put the odds of success on that point at [virtually zero]."

As for the judge’s "fact rulings," they will be “essentially unassailable on appeal,” Sagers says. “In any case it’s very difficult to appeal factual judgments, but in this case it will be exceedingly hard because you’ve got a 160-page opinion that is extraordinarily, meticulously detailed as to the findings of fact.”

Apple's strategy at this point remains to try to stall, stall, and stall:

Sagers says he doubts Apple will negotiate at this stage, and expects a damages trial.

“Apple does not really have much to lose by putting off being stuck with remedies until after an appeal, which should take about a year or so,” he says. Ultimately, any remedies will be court-ordered by the court, and most likely will fall along the lines of earlier settlement, although the DoJ could be more aggressive.

"A big open question," Sagers adds, “is how intrusively DOJ can get up into Apple’s other businesses.”

Uh, I would suggest the proper phrasing is "how intrusively they *will* get into Apple's other businesses". Which, given that the trial brought out that Apple used their iOS Appstore market power as a weapon to get Random House to do ebook business with them, on *their* terms (and thus join the price fix regime), suggests that *everything* this side of the Mac is in play.

They really should have settled.

BTW, beware the comments section; Laughter-induced injuries lie in there.

[leebase]

Originally Posted by Synamon

What exactly would it take to change your opinion, if a ruling by a judge with access to all the facts doesn't do it?

You know as well as I do, that had the decision gone in Apple's favor -- not a single person here would have changed their opinion.

Nothing is going to change my mind due to the ruling, and I'd just be repeating all the points I and others have made all along.

1. $9.99 is not the "market price" of NYT Best Selling ebooks, it's the predatory pricing Amazon was using to buy up market share and run competitors out of business.

2. Agency pricing is legal.

3. Publishers setting the prices instead of Amazon does not equate to "price fixing". Publishers still have to compete against books from other publishers, from free books, from the library, from the horde of cheap independent books etc. You can't compare this to selling gas or milk or bread. It's just books, and no one need buy a book.

4. Agency pricing brought more competition to the market, not less.

5. The result of this loss by Apple and the publishers will not result in $9.99 ebooks....rather it will result in ebooks being time windowed. You can't force the publishers to allow the selling of ebooks at $9.99 during the high demand window where they sell hard backs for $20+

But -- all of this had been said before. I don't expect anyone to change their opinions.

[Ninjalawyer]

From Ars Technica today:

The US Department of Justice has won its antitrust case against Apple, with District Judge Denise Cote today ruling that "Apple conspired to restrain trade" by leading a conspiracy to raise e-book prices above the low prices charged by Amazon.

Full story here.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

From Ars Technica today:



Full story here.

Dude, you're way late.

[whitearrow]

I've read through the opinion. Absent something really weird happening at the 2nd circuit, I don't see the novel or important issue of statutory or constitutional law that would persuade the US Supreme Court to take this case.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by whitearrow

I've read through the opinion. Absent something really weird happening at the 2nd circuit, I don't see the novel or important issue of statutory or constitutional law that would persuade the US Supreme Court to take this case.

But they're Apple. It's like God being sued and losing