Apple gripes about antitrust monitoring

[elcreative]

Originally Posted by pl001

Apple is like a spoiled kid who ignores the fact that he got caught and now must face the consequences. They are in no position to dictate terms. At first I thought they were just being arrogant, but now I am starting to wonder if they are being so belligerent because they have more to hide.

And just maybe they want to know what the hell he's doing trying to delve into totally separate areas of the company which have never had anything to do with eBooks which is where his anti-trust mandate is aimed?? Totally irrelevant of course as it doesn't take the fully justified "Apple's evil" facts into account...

[alanHd]

I love how they claim he is biased because he stated they were not cooperating.

[tubemonkey]

Poor, poor Apple; they're being picked on

Ya know, if they don't like Bromwich, then why don't they buy him off? Like give him a vice-presidency within the company.

[Barcey]

Originally Posted by elcreative

And just maybe they want to know what the hell he's doing trying to delve into totally separate areas of the company which have never had anything to do with eBooks which is where his anti-trust mandate is aimed?? Totally irrelevant of course as it doesn't take the fully justified "Apple's evil" facts into account...

So you believe that Apple doesn't need to have anti trust policies in place in their other lines of business because they've only been judged to violate them in their ebook business?

[DiapDealer]

I hate my cell's feng shui. I demand the Warden be fired.

[DiapDealer]

I mean really...
Who better than the convicted entity will know whether the sentence is fair and/or being carried out properly?

[fjtorres]

I'm thinking the DOJ should simply subpoena the entire board and execs at VP and higher.
For the same day.
Then they would have to make time to answer the questions they're ducking. But under oath. I suspect there would be a few appeals to the fifth amendment.

[elcreative]

Originally Posted by Barcey

So you believe that Apple doesn't need to have anti trust policies in place in their other lines of business because they've only been judged to violate them in their ebook business?

So you believe that the trustworthy government is entitled to have oversight in areas that had no relation to the actions that were dealt with by the court case... I suppose you also sent all the links to your house webcams so that they could oversee everything you do - you know, just in case...

[elcreative]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

I'm thinking the DOJ should simply subpoena the entire board and execs at VP and higher.
For the same day.
Then they would have to make time to answer the questions they're ducking. But under oath. I suspect there would be a few appeals to the fifth amendment.

Yea government... boo Apple... interesting choice of innocent until proved guilty options... so if you get found guilty of one offence (say speeding) then you'll accept CCTV monitoring of your entire life and tagging for a two to five years... cool...

[afv011]

Originally Posted by elcreative

Yea government... boo Apple... interesting choice of innocent until proved guilty options... so if you get found guilty of one offence (say speeding) then you'll except CCTV monitoring of your entire life and tagging for a two to five years... cool...

except != accept

Unless they look at the other areas, how can they be sure they're not related to the ebooks shenanigans?

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by elcreative

Yea government... boo Apple... interesting choice of innocent until proved guilty options... so if you get found guilty of one offence (say speeding) then you'll except CCTV monitoring of your entire life and tagging for a two to five years... cool...

Uh, Apple can't hide behind the presumption of innocense: they were found G-U-I-L-T-Y.

They need to understand that antitrust has no hard bounds or limits.
Ask IBM.
Ask Mictosoft.
Ask AT&T.
It is a crime of the entire corporation, not the division that ran the scam, especially when the evidence goes straight to the very top.
Having been found guilty, the onus is on Apple to prove they aren't going to do it again. And that they aren't still doing it.

If they cannot convince the court they won't/aren't, then the court is (already) empowered to ensure they can't. Whatever it takes.

Ask AT&T.
(The original, dead and gone one.)

One more time: monitoring is the *least* of the Court's options.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by afv011

except != accept

Unless they look at the other areas, how can they be sure they're not related to the ebooks shenanigans?

Right.
Especially because the trial evidence made it clear the AppStore execs *were* part and parcel of the conspiracy.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Ya know, if they don't like Bromwich, then why don't they buy him off? Like give him a vice-presidency within the company.

A few years from now, some on Bromwich's staff will surely be working for Apple, either in-house or as outside counsel. And being less aggressive in 2014 couldn't hurt their chances of getting those opportunities.

Of course, Apple can't have blabbermouth employees like Steve Jobs telling a Wall Street Journal reporter about such a strategy. That's the mistake they made with eBooks.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Of course, Apple can't have blabbermouth employees like Steve Jobs telling a Wall Street Journal reporter about such a strategy.

...or managers that send self-congratulatory emails to the boss, documenting for posterity how they used the Appstore to force the only BPH that stayed out of the conspiracy to bow to Apple's terms.

That kind of stuff you talk about in the mens room or write on edible paper.

[elcreative]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Uh, Apple can't hide behind the presumption of innocense: they were found G-U-I-L-T-Y.

They need to understand that antitrust has no hard bounds or limits.
Ask IBM.
Ask Mictosoft.
Ask AT&T.
It is a crime of the entire corporation, not the division that ran the scam, especially when the evidence goes straight to the very top.
Having been found guilty, the onus is on Apple to prove they aren't going to do it again. And that they aren't still doing it.

If they cannot convince the court they won't/aren't, then the court is (already) empowered to ensure they can't. Whatever it takes.

Ask AT&T.
(The original, dead and gone one.)

One more time: monitoring is the *least* of the Court's options.

AT&T really suffered from the anti-trust breakup, just like Rockefeller did... especially all the extra money that shareholders made from the shards of the original - there was a quote somewhere that Rockefeller really made his really big money from/after the "breakup"

And like I said earlier, guilty for one thing then the "lLand of the Free" screws 'em to the wall for everything whether connected or not... automatic presumption of guilt, really fair legal process... one more time, "They need to understand that antitrust has no hard bounds or limits." is not fair which is kind of funny when you consider that the case was essentially about conspiracy to act in an unfair manner but I guess that it's OK for court and government bureaucracies to ignore such concepts...