Apple gripes about antitrust monitoring

[Prestidigitweeze]

The thing I've enjoyed about this discussion is that, despite the charged nature of the subject and the parties involved, the debate on both sides has mostly been about the trial and not the unstated tactics or motives of other members or their supposed allegiances.

You're close to exhausting the subject at this point and it's understandable that participants' interest is beginning to wane. Still, I hope the thread will go out as it came in -- discussing the ramifications and intricacies of the decision -- and not degenerate into mutual accusations.

[Moderator: I didn't see your warning until after I'd written my comments. Please feel free to delete this post if you like.]

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by shalym

Hmmm...when I go to www.baenebooks.com it looks like an ebook store to me.

Shari

I was under the impression that since you are no longer able to purchase monthly bundles after the books come out in print and the e-mail from Baen talked about buying from Amazon, that they were just offering the monthly bundles. Going into the baenbooks and looking at individual books, I see you are correct, they are still selling the individual books.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Prestidigitweeze

The thing I've enjoyed about this discussion is that, despite the charged nature of the subject and the parties involved, the debate on both sides has mostly been about the trial and not the unstated tactics or motives of other members or their supposed allegiances.

You're close to exhausting the subject at this point and it's understandable that participants' interest is beginning to wane. Still, I hope the thread will go out as it came in -- discussing the ramifications and intricacies of the decision -- and not degenerate into mutual accusations.

[Moderator: I didn't see your warning until after I'd written my comments. Please feel free to delete this post if you like.]

There really isn't going to be much to talk about until the appeals court decides on the emergency stay. I will say though that the $840 M damage claim filed on Friday simply solidifies my belief that this one is all about a legal raid on a company known to have lots of cash, the primary reason that I've been following the case.

[bgalbrecht]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

There really isn't going to be much to talk about until the appeals court decides on the emergency stay. I will say though that the $840 M damage claim filed on Friday simply solidifies my belief that this one is all about a legal raid on a company known to have lots of cash, the primary reason that I've been following the case.

I don't think you can claim that the lawyers filing this class action suit have the same motivations as the DOJ. I'm not quite sure who would be the class in this case (all ebook buyers from Apple, all ebook buyers from the 5 publishers?), but I'm not sure why this should go forward since the settlements by the publishers in the class action lawsuits by the 50 state attorneys general should be covering the damages incurred by ebook buyers.

[Fluribus]

Originally Posted by bgalbrecht

I don't think you can claim that the lawyers filing this class action suit have the same motivations as the DOJ. I'm not quite sure who would be the class in this case (all ebook buyers from Apple, all ebook buyers from the 5 publishers?), but I'm not sure why this should go forward since the settlements by the publishers in the class action lawsuits by the 50 state attorneys general should be covering the damages incurred by ebook buyers.

Six people injure you. Five settle. Doesn't mean you can't sue the sixth.

I've never gotten a class action settlement that was actually worth much to the injured parties. I haven't even bothered to claim them. Not worth the postage and hassle. If the publishers settlement ends up giving me anything, it'll be because I didn't have to file a claim.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Fluribus

Six people injure you. Five settle. Doesn't mean you can't sue the sixth.

I've never gotten a class action settlement that was actually worth much to the injured parties. I haven't even bothered to claim them. Not worth the postage and hassle. If the publishers settlement ends up giving me anything, it'll be because I didn't have to file a claim.

Class action law suits are rarely about making injured parties whole. It's almost always about extracting bucks for lawyers. If the states are involved, then the money typically goes to a state slush fund.

I'm with you on the publisher's settlement. I felt that I paid a fair price for the ebooks I bought, but if they are going to force me to take the money, I have no problem using it to buy more ebooks.

[PatNY]

Originally Posted by bgalbrecht

I don't think you can claim that the lawyers filing this class action suit have the same motivations as the DOJ.

Yes, completely agree. Contrary to what was erroneously stated earlier in this thread, the DOJ did not bring their suit against Apple in order to line its coffers. In fact, they requested no damages at all. Zero. The DOJ brought the suit to bust up the pricing scheme, help prevent price fixing in the future, and to punish Apple & the publishers for their illegal actions.

The class action suit recently filed is separate. I'm sure the lawyers involved in that suit are angling for a big pay day. Can you blame them? Apple is overflowing with cash and already lost the suit brought by the DOJ, so they are viewed as ripe for the picking.

But the motives for the 2 suits shouldn't be confused.

--Pat

[pwalker8]

Just as an update, apparently the hearing in front of the 3 judge panel on the stay was held yesterday. No word on when the ruling will come out.

[tubemonkey]

Expect Apple to file a motion to require the judges to deliberate for a minimum of three moths before rendering their decision.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Expect Apple to file a motion to require the judges to deliberate for a minimum of three moths before rendering their decision.

How long is a moth anyway? Trust Apple to use non-standard units whenever possible...

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

How long is a moth anyway? Trust Apple to use non-standard units whenever possible...

...a couple of inches

[bgalbrecht]

Not that this is any indication of how the actual appeal for the anti-trust lawsuit will go, but the Second Court of Appeals denied Apple's motion to rein in Bromwich.

Here's the pertinent portion of the decision:

...As the government explaned at oral argument, the injunction "ensur[es] not just that [Apple] ha[s] an anti-trust compliance program in place but [that Apple's] employess particularly, senior executives and board members are being instructed on what those compliance policies mean and how they work" The government conceded that the injunction would not allow the monitor to investigate whether such personnel were in fact complying with the antitrust or other laws.

This according to appellees, the monitor was empowered to demand only documents relevant to his authorized responsibilty as so defined, and to interview Apple directors, officers, and employees only on subjects relevant to that responsibility. We agree with that interpretation of the district court's order. In addition, we take counsel's statement as a formal representation that appellees also accept that interpretation, and that the monitor will conduct his activities within the bounds of that order, absent further action by the district court or by the panel that will in due course hear the merits of the appeal.

Upon due consideration, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is DENIED because, on the above understanding of the order and judgement, Appellant Apple had not demonstrated that is is entited to a stay pending appeal.

So, no overreach on the part of Bromwich (so far), and one of the best summaries I've seen as to why they've got the monitor and why he's supposed to be able to interview anyone at Apple.

[Greg Anos]

As per the rules of US law, the appeal of the District judge's refusal to stay her monitor was properly heard, and ruled upon. Unless Apple wants to try to appeal to the US Supreme Court, it's the final ruling and Apple must shut up and comply with the monitor, at least until the appeal of the District Court's judgment is ruled upon by the Appellate Court.

Strictly following the US law's forms.

<Bangs the gavel> Next Case!

[robko]

Is it just me or is that really confusing when you have "appellees", "appellants" and "Apple" as the appellant?

This case reminds me of one Conrad Black (newspaper barron) who still complains that he should not have been found guilty and served jail time for obstruction of justice for removing records from his office, explicitly against a court order, because he was found not guilty of some of the fraud charges the court order related to. His theory is that if he was found not guilty he couldn't have obstructed justice .

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

As per the rules of US law, the appeal of the District judge's refusal to stay her monitor was properly heard, and ruled upon. Unless Apple wants to try to appeal to the US Supreme Court, it's the final ruling and Apple must shut up and comply with the monitor, at least until the appeal of the District Court's judgment is ruled upon by the Appellate Court.

Strictly following the US law's forms.

<Bangs the gavel> Next Case!

Actually, if you read the order, that isn't what was said at all. Here is the relevant part

" In addition, we take counsel's statement as a formal representation that appellees also accept that interpretation, and that the monitor will conduct his activities within the bounds of that order, absent further action by the district court or by the panel that will in due course hear the merits of the appeal."

Thus they are saying that they will leave the monitor in place pending the appeal, but that he has to stay in the narrow bounds of monitoring the compliance, i.e. no more demands to talk to people having nothing to do with ebooks. This is probably as good as Apple could expect. They got everyone to agree that their interpretation was correct, and that the monitor didn't have a carte blanche to do whatever he wanted.

One thing to keep in mind that this was an appeal for the request for a stay, not the appeal of the ruling itself. It's a very narrow point and does not address anything other than whither or not Judge Cote legally has the right to appoint the monitor and what his duties were. There was never a doubt that Cote had the legal authority to appoint the monitor, but lots of doubt about his authority and duties. I'm pretty sure that the actual appeal of the findings hasn't been heard yet and probably won't be for a while.