Apple files appeal

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Sydney's Mom

Agreed. That is what happens when you decide to go to trial. At least it wasn't a choice between 20 years or the death penalty!

Apple was found guilty. While ebooks were the subject, the issue now is company culture. I don't know who the idiot is here (lawyer or apple exec.) Just set up a program and require all your employees to complete it! Every time my company does something wrong, there is a new training video that I have to watch and take a test to show I understand the material. Even though I don't set prices, and don't deal with members of the military, I have had to take training programs on all of them. And then my company just shows the regulator the results--we had X number of employees take the training and demonstrate mastery of the material. "If it happens again, it is not our fault."

Not only is Apple's reputation in the toilet, they are bleeding money to the attorneys. There must be some executive who thinks Apple will someday be seen as a hero for taking on big, bad Amazon. Except Amazon stands for low prices, and Apple stands for huge margins. Don't hold your breath, boys.

The problem here is that the Apple employees who have to be trained are the higher executives. They are the ones in a position to break antitrust laws.

[Sydney's Mom]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

The problem here is that the Apple employees who have to be trained are the higher executives. They are the ones in a position to break antitrust laws.

Maybe they should write essays on "I am not above the law"

[cfrizz]

Originally Posted by Sydney's Mom

Maybe they should write essays on "I am not above the law"

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by Sydney's Mom

Maybe they should write essays on "I am not above the law"

I think Apple watches too much South Park

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

The problem here is that the Apple employees who have to be trained are the higher executives.

The training is fairly simple and has likely already been given -- avoid putting anything you don't want on the front page of the New York Times in writing -- being especially wary of email -- and consult with counsel before talking with outsiders about pricing policy.

This from the American Airlines antitrust settlement gives the flavor of what the executives need to do:

Among other things, Crandall is required ''to consult with a company lawyer before communicating with officials of any other airline carrier and to make notes on all such conversations as well as any discussions with American's vendors and creditors pertaining to other airlines' fares,'' the department said.

However, I don't think Judge Cote is requiring the written notes. Safer to keep such contacts verbal.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

The training is fairly simple and has likely already been given -- avoid putting anything you don't want on the front page of the New York Times in writing -- being especially wary of email -- and consult with counsel before talking with outsiders about pricing policy.

This from the American Airlines antitrust settlement gives the flavor of what the executives need to do:

However, I don't think Judge Cote is requiring the written notes. Safer to keep such contacts verbal.

You do realize that Apple does not acknowledge that antitrust laws were violated, right? And they have lawyers who argue this. How would consulting the company lawyers ensure that this will not happen again when the company lawyers are the ones who say that their actions were legal?

This was the point of appointing a monitor, and the point for the monitor interviewing the executives. If Apple would have accepted that they violated antitrust law, the judge wouldn't have had to appoint a monitor. But Apple insists that they didn't violate antitrust law so they are not in a position to change the procedures without being monitored. The monitor needed to asses the executives' view of the matter before the procedures get changed to know if the changes are sufficient.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

How would consulting the company lawyers ensure that this will not happen again when the company lawyers are the ones who say that their actions were legal?

Lawyers are hired guns doing whatever it takes to get their clients off. Those same company lawyers, if working for the government, would say that Apple's actions were illegal.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

You do realize that Apple does not acknowledge that antitrust laws were violated, right? And they have lawyers who argue this. How would consulting the company lawyers ensure that this will not happen again when the company lawyers are the ones who say that their actions were legal?

This was the point of appointing a monitor, and the point for the monitor interviewing the executives. If Apple would have accepted that they violated antitrust law, the judge wouldn't have had to appoint a monitor. But Apple insists that they didn't violate antitrust law so they are not in a position to change the procedures without being monitored. The monitor needed to asses the executives' view of the matter before the procedures get changed to know if the changes are sufficient.

I'm pretty sure for most people, claims that they did not violate the law is not considered proof that they should be punished. While I know that most here would rather engage in their favorite sport of Apple Bashing (and the corollary that anyone who disagrees must be an Apple fan boy), there really are some fairly serious legal issues with the case. That's why Apple decided to go to trial and why Apple decided to appeal. No idea if they will win or not, but it will be interesting to follow. The next step will be the DOJ's response sometime in May.

[Barcey]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

You do realize that Apple does not acknowledge that antitrust laws were violated, right? And they have lawyers who argue this. How would consulting the company lawyers ensure that this will not happen again when the company lawyers are the ones who say that their actions were legal?



This was the point of appointing a monitor, and the point for the monitor interviewing the executives. If Apple would have accepted that they violated antitrust law, the judge wouldn't have had to appoint a monitor. But Apple insists that they didn't violate antitrust law so they are not in a position to change the procedures without being monitored. The monitor needed to asses the executives' view of the matter before the procedures get changed to know if the changes are sufficient.

There are defense lawyers and antitrust lawyers. If a company is serious about obeying the antitrust laws they would have a lawyer that specializes in antitrust and is accountable for them not running foul of the laws. The company is supposed to have these processes and checks in place and Apple obviously doesn't and that's why the monitor was put in place. Apple is to implement a minimal compliance process and the judge didn't believe they could be trusted to do so on their own. The appeals just prove she was correct. Apple obviously wants to continue negotiating deals that run afoul of the laws.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I'm pretty sure for most people, claims that they did not violate the law is not considered proof that they should be punished. While I know that most here would rather engage in their favorite sport of Apple Bashing (and the corollary that anyone who disagrees must be an Apple fan boy), there really are some fairly serious legal issues with the case. That's why Apple decided to go to trial and why Apple decided to appeal. No idea if they will win or not, but it will be interesting to follow. The next step will be the DOJ's response sometime in May.

Actually, once someone has been found guilty of a crime, continuing to declare their innocence is proof that they are not repentant...it's enough to get a person turned down for parole, I believe. In this case, it's proof that they don't believe that they need a new policy, which means that they need a monitor to ensure a new policy is created.

Shari

[pl001]

Perhaps the lawyers are telling the executives whatever it takes to keep themselves on retainer, and Apple executives are arrogant enough to believe them.

Anybody who has experience dealing with executives at a large corporation should find this a believable theory.

[pwalker8]

Actually, no it's not. That's why we have an appellate court. Lack of remorse is one thing, declaring innocence is a different thing all together. Certainly, saying you are innocent might make a parole board less likely to give you parole, but it isn't grounds for denial of parole per se. Parole boards have a lot of latitude though.

Apple's appeal is based on the 2007 Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc vs. PSKS, Inc Supreme Court ruling that vertical price restraints is _not_ illegal per se. That's the ruling that Judge Cote either ignored or dismissed with a wave of her hand.

The appeal itself is rather interesting. On one hand, pointing out that Judge Cote gives the appearance of prejudicial conduct might make the panel take a closer look at the actions and fact of the matter rather than simply pay due deference to the trial judge, on the other hand, it also may not play well with other judges who don't like seeing a colleague criticized. Apple's lead appeal lawyer is a very experienced and successful appeals lawyer, so one would think that he knows what he's doing.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by pl001

Perhaps the lawyers are telling the executives whatever it takes to keep themselves on retainer, and Apple executives are arrogant enough to believe them.

Anybody who has experience dealing with executives at a large corporation should find this a believable theory.

LOL

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Barcey

There are defense lawyers and antitrust lawyers. If a company is serious about obeying the antitrust laws they would have a lawyer that specializes in antitrust and is accountable for them not running foul of the laws. The company is supposed to have these processes and checks in place and Apple obviously doesn't and that's why the monitor was put in place. Apple is to implement a minimal compliance process and the judge didn't believe they could be trusted to do so on their own. The appeals just prove she was correct. Apple obviously wants to continue negotiating deals that run afoul of the laws.

Wouldn't defense lawyers in antitrust cases also be antitrust lawyers?

[bgalbrecht]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Apple's appeal is based on the 2007 Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc vs. PSKS, Inc Supreme Court ruling that vertical price restraints is _not_ illegal per se. That's the ruling that Judge Cote either ignored or dismissed with a wave of her hand.

The last time you mentioned this in the thread, I pointed out that Cote already covered it when she wrote that even if the evidence did not support a per se violation, the case would come out the same under the rule of reason standard, because Apple cannot show any pro-competitive effect of the publisher agreements. I guess you either ignored it or dismissed it with a wave of your hand.