Antitrust fallout: retailers sue conspirators

[Barcey]

Yes it's likely that the publishers were using some of those phone calls and lunches to conspire about author contract percentages rather then just retail prices. They probably feel they got a raw deal because the DoJ overstated how much time they were conspiring on consumer prices when they were really conspiring on other things.

[Shane R]

There are whispers that Tim Cook is not a fan of the litigious-natured stances that Jobs was fond of taking and the many court cases that they've ended up in because of it and that he's moving the company toward paying off, settling, and moving on from them.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

So the defendant can win a new trial on appeal after they're fired, sued, and disbarred for conspiring with an evil judge, of course.

Hey, Perry Mason did it all the time, embarrasing the DA and the police by dramatically solving the case in mid-trial...

Snark aside: it does happen but only rarely under explicit instructions from the defendant and only when the evidence of "innocence" convicts them of a graver, more heinous crime. Like a habitual thief being charged of a burglary at a time he was murdering somebody else. Again, you see it mostly on cop shows.

Yes, but this would be evidence that the defendant wouldn't want coming up at trial either. There is no logical reason for the defense to keep evidence of the defendant's innocence to show at the trial and not the pretrial. So naturally the judge would have seen all the evidence for the defendant's innocence that is ever going to be shown by the defense during the pretrial. There is no reason to say that the judge makes decisions without seeing the evidence.

The point of the procedure is that the plaintiffs and the defendants try to settle the dispute themselves during the pretrial, so they each show the evidence for their arguments while trying to discover as much evidence against their opponent's arguments. The judge's input is required only if the two sides can't agree.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

Yes, but this would be evidence that the defendant wouldn't want coming up at trial either. There is no logical reason for the defense to keep evidence of the defendant's innocence to show at the trial and not the pretrial. So naturally the judge would have seen all the evidence for the defendant's innocence that is ever going to be shown by the defense during the pretrial. There is no reason to say that the judge makes decisions without seeing the evidence.

The point of the procedure is that the plaintiffs and the defendants try to settle the dispute themselves during the pretrial, so they each show the evidence for their arguments while trying to discover as much evidence against their opponent's arguments. The judge's input is required only if the two sides can't agree.

We need a snark font in the worst way...

I was just pointing out how silly the whole "pure as fallen snow" spin is.

Defendants settle to avoid worse things. Either bigger penalties, bigger expenses, preserving secrets...

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

Why would the defense want to hide evidence of the defendant's innocence?

Probably he wouldn't, however he doesn't have to bring to light evidence of the defendant's guilt.

The big thing that neither party presents before the actual trial is the basic tact and legal theories that they will be using in the trial. They want to give the other side as little time as possible to come up with and present counter arguments. Most cases only last a day or so, which means that if you can present a novel legal theory and convince the judge of it's worth, then the other side basically has to shot holes in that theory on the fly rather than do in depth research.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Probably he wouldn't, however he doesn't have to bring to light evidence of the defendant's guilt.

So your argument here is that the judge didn't see all the evidence of Apple's guilt at the pretrial?

Originally Posted by pwalker8

The big thing that neither party presents before the actual trial is the basic tact and legal theories that they will be using in the trial. They want to give the other side as little time as possible to come up with and present counter arguments. Most cases only last a day or so, which means that if you can present a novel legal theory and convince the judge of it's worth, then the other side basically has to shot holes in that theory on the fly rather than do in depth research.

The reason why most cases last a day or so is because the in depth research is done during the pretrial.

[jersysman]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

. . . The reason why most cases last a day or so is because the in depth research is done during the pretrial.

Bingo!

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Most cases only last a day or so, which means that if you can present a novel legal theory and convince the judge of it's worth, then the other side basically has to shot holes in that theory on the fly rather than do in depth research.

And that fosters justice how?

[avantman42]

Originally Posted by j.p.s

And that fosters justice how?

I don't think anyone has claimed that it does. As far as I can tell, pwalker8 was simply making a statement about how the system works, not commenting on how good or bad it is.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by avantman42

I don't think anyone has claimed that it does. As far as I can tell, pwalker8 was simply making a statement about how the system works, not commenting on how good or bad it is.

Yep. I think all of us want the justice system to be about justice (well, except the Apple haters, who are just looking for a stick to beat Apple with. ), but the justice system is about law and procedures. Lawyers are concerned about winning their case, not about seeing justice done. If I'm a defense lawyer, I don't care if my client is guilty or not, I'm only trying to get my client off, or at least get him the best deal I can.

In theory at least, prosecutors have a higher standard, but for all practice purposes, they also are simply trying to win their case, regardless of guilt or innocence. Judges tend to be concerned about law, not justice. These days, judges prefer that the parties reach a plea bargin agreement prior to coming to trial. Quite a few judges get quite annoyed when a defendant actually decides to go to trial and will really throw the book at them to show their annoyance.

The reality of our criminal system is quite different than what one sees on TV or imagines in the abstract. Try hanging out with trial lawyers sometime (few lawyers actually argue cases in court, btw) if you want to find out what really goes on and what many judges are really like.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by avantman42

I don't think anyone has claimed that it does. As far as I can tell, pwalker8 was simply making a statement about how the system works, not commenting on how good or bad it is.

On a previous thread pwalker8's position on this subject was that Apple was being treated unfairly because the judge wasn't following the rules and was overreaching. Now his position seems to be that since the system has rules that are skewed in favor of the defense (like the fact that prosecutors have to give any evidence for the defendant's innocence while the defense doesn't have to hand over evidence of wrongdoing, and the fact that the defense can hold off on presenting their arguments so that the opposition doesn't have time to think about a good reply) it just shouldn't be possible for a judge to find Apple guilty.

[avantman42]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

On a previous thread pwalker8's position on this subject was that Apple was being treated unfairly because the judge wasn't following the rules and was overreaching. Now his position seems to be that since the system has rules that are skewed in favor of the defense (like the fact that prosecutors have to give any evidence for the defendant's innocence while the defense doesn't have to hand over evidence of wrongdoing, and the fact that the defense can hold off on presenting their arguments so that the opposition doesn't have time to think about a good reply) it just shouldn't be possible for a judge to find Apple guilty.

I vaguely remember pwalker8 making statements about Judge Cote over-reaching. I didn't read the post that I responded to as suggesting that "it just shouldn't be possible for a judge to find Apple guilty." I simply saw it as addressing the way the US justice system works, with no particular slant on whether it worked in Apple's favour or not.

Personally, I'm only vaguely interested in the case. I subscribed to the thread so that I'd be able to see when decisions where made.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by avantman42

I vaguely remember pwalker8 making statements about Judge Cote over-reaching. I didn't read the post that I responded to as suggesting that "it just shouldn't be possible for a judge to find Apple guilty." I simply saw it as addressing the way the US justice system works, with no particular slant on whether it worked in Apple's favour or not.

But that is not the way the US justice system works.

pwalker8 is describing a system that would work in Apple's favor, and the judge didn't act according to this imaginary system, because the judge acted according to the actual system.

[avantman42]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

But that is not the way the US justice system works.

I'll have to take your word for that. I don't know much about the UK justice system, and even less about the US system.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

But that is not the way the US justice system works.

pwalker8 is describing a system that would work in Apple's favor, and the judge didn't act according to this imaginary system, because the judge acted according to the actual system.

No pwalker8 isn't describing a system that would work in Apple's favor. But hey, that's a nice straw man. Pwalker8 is describing "i.e. judge waits until _after_ the trial to start writing the decision" how the system of justice is suppose to work. Ever heard of a jury rendering a verdict before the trial? Well, actually I have, but usually when a jury makes up it's mind before the trial, the verdict gets thrown out on appeal.

My point all along is that Judge Cote did not follow normal legal procedures and allowed a novel legal theory that is specifically in conflict with the most recent Supreme Court ruling with regards to Anti-Trust. Apple is appealing on both of those grounds. We are still waiting for the first stage of the appeal to be ruled on. My expectation is that the case will most likely make it up to the Supreme Court.

Legal appeals are mostly about points of law. There are many reasons why an appeal will be refused or not which have nothing to do with the actual guilt or innocence of the plaintiff.