Antitrust fallout: retailers sue conspirators

[jgaiser]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

What about you? You open to being swayed?

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Believe what you wish. Rather obviously nothing I say or can point to will change your mind.

Actually it is the lack of pointing to links that I was commenting on.

[leebase]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

What about you? You open to being swayed?

Nobody is going to change their mind. Not one of you who has ranted against Apple would have changed your opinion had Apple won. Nor will you if Apple wins on appeal.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by leebase

Nobody is going to change their mind.

Thanks for agreeing that neither "side" exhibits a willingness to be swayed to the "other side's" point of view. That was kinda my point.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Thanks for agreeing that neither "side" exhibits a willingness to be swayed to the "other side's" point of view. That was kinda my point.

Of course, my point is that people hurl themselves at a conclusion based on their biases. Someone says something negative about Judge Cote? Obviously an Apple fanboi who can be ridiculed and discounted. Someone says something negative about Apple? Obviously an Android fanboi who doesn't know what he's talking about.

Me, I made the mistake of thinking that people might actually be interested in the facts of the case and the legal theory behind it. I would not be shocked if most people posting on this thread have never even heard of the Antitrust Paradox (without running out to google real quick before answering), much less read it. After all, it's a specialize, expensive book. Yet the book and the legal theory it expounds is at the heart of this case.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

Actually it is the lack of pointing to links that I was commenting on.

No, I've included links in the past. It was a major point of discussion for a few weeks right after Judge Cote announced her initial decision. I'm sure if you put some work into it, you can find references to it, if not here, then on the internet. Some people said that it was an unusual thing to do that opened her up to the charge of bias, others waved it off as normal procedure. My understanding is that while it might be normal to keep notes and a rough outline, something to the extent that she seems to do is unusual. It certainly _gives_ the appearance of bias, which is something judges are suppose to avoid.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Of course, my point is that people hurl themselves at a conclusion based on their biases. Someone says something negative about Judge Cote? Obviously an Apple fanboi who can be ridiculed and discounted. Someone says something negative about Apple? Obviously an Android fanboi who doesn't know what he's talking about.

Me, I made the mistake of thinking that people might actually be interested in the facts of the case and the legal theory behind it. I would not be shocked if most people posting on this thread have never even heard of the Antitrust Paradox (without running out to google real quick before answering), much less read it. After all, it's a specialize, expensive book. Yet the book and the legal theory it expounds is at the heart of this case.

My whole problem with your stance, pwalker, is not that I think you're an Apple fanboy--I believe you when you say it has nothing to do with Apple, per se. My problem is that you believe your stance to be more grounded in fact, and/or "legal theory" and hence more unbiased than other's. When in fact nothing could be further from the truth. Your stance (just like everybody's) is based on idealistic personal conviction. You've as much as admitted (here and in many other threads) that you believe government should should stay out of the business world. And because of that idealistic socio-political/economic philosophy, you give more weight to the expert opinions of those who agree with your ideals and ignore the opinions of those who don't. Saying you're more concerned with points of law doesn't actually make your stance based on points of law.

Let's leave the (fan|hate) boys out of it entirely. Of those who are left (and who are not qualified anti-trust experts--such as ourselves): most of those who agree with Judge Cote, do so because they believe the preponderance of evidence proves illegal collusion (under existing anti-trust law). Those who disagree with Judge Cote, do so because they "believe" the government never should have had the right to prosecute in the first place. In other words; they hurl themselves at evidence based on that bias.

So neither of us are more (or less) on the side of "facts" or "law." We're both on the side of our personal convictions--I'm just not pretending my convictions are more objective than other's.

[mrscoach]

I've read several threads in the past where pwalker8 states his views. I support his right to his views. What I have a problem with is his claim, constantly, to have supplied links in the past and refusal to "repost" those links. The one place I remember him talking about getting material was behind a paywall and he refused to even quote from it because he would get into trouble. I went back to see if I had missed something while reading the earlier threads, and did not see these many links he says he supplied, so I won't waste my time again.
Now he talks about ONE book that espouses a theory and seems to talk down to us for not having read it because it is specialized and expensive and, evidently, we probably wouldn't understand it anyway.
Condescending. That's how he comes across to me, anyway. He evidently knows more than anyone else so why argue? (That last was sarcasm, BTW)

[cfrizz]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

My whole problem with your stance, pwalker, is not that I think you're an Apple fanboy--I believe you when you say it has nothing to do with Apple, per se. My problem is that you believe your stance to be more grounded in fact, and/or "legal theory" and hence more unbiased than other's. When in fact nothing could be further from the truth. Your stance (just like everybody's) is based on idealistic personal conviction. You've as much as admitted (here and in many other threads) that you believe government should should stay out of the business world. And because of that idealistic socio-political/economic philosophy, you give more weight to the expert opinions of those who agree with your ideals and ignore the opinions of those who don't. Saying you're more concerned with points of law doesn't actually make your stance based on points of law.

Let's leave the (fan|hate) boys out of it entirely. Of those who are left (and who are not qualified anti-trust experts--such as ourselves): most of those who agree with Judge Cote, do so because they believe the preponderance of evidence proves illegal collusion (under existing anti-trust law). Those who disagree with Judge Cote, do so because they "believe" the government never should have had the right to prosecute in the first place. In other words; they hurl themselves at evidence based on that bias.

So neither of us are more (or less) on the side of "facts" or "law." We're both on the side of our personal convictions--I'm just not pretending my convictions are more objective than other's.

Originally Posted by mrscoach

I've read several threads in the past where pwalker8 states his views. I support his right to his views. What I have a problem with is his claim, constantly, to have supplied links in the past and refusal to "repost" those links. The one place I remember him talking about getting material was behind a paywall and he refused to even quote from it because he would get into trouble. I went back to see if I had missed something while reading the earlier threads, and did not see these many links he says he supplied, so I won't waste my time again.
Now he talks about ONE book that espouses a theory and seems to talk down to us for not having read it because it is specialized and expensive and, evidently, we probably wouldn't understand it anyway.
Condescending. That's how he comes across to me, anyway. He evidently knows more than anyone else so why argue? (That last was sarcasm, BTW)

Two posts that sum up this whole debate with Pwalker PERFECTLY! It will never matter what we say to him, he has on his rose colored glasses and lives in his own special little world rather than in reality.

When he provides a link to his law degree and specialty in antitrust law, then he might have a leg to stand on. Until then don't listen to a word he types.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

No, I've included links in the past. It was a major point of discussion for a few weeks right after Judge Cote announced her initial decision. I'm sure if you put some work into it, you can find references to it, if not here, then on the internet. Some people said that it was an unusual thing to do that opened her up to the charge of bias, others waved it off as normal procedure. My understanding is that while it might be normal to keep notes and a rough outline, something to the extent that she seems to do is unusual. It certainly _gives_ the appearance of bias, which is something judges are suppose to avoid.

You haven't included links in the past to a source for your claim about the judge's admission. I've looked. It's not difficult since the forum has very nice search options. I've read your posts and I followed the links and there is nothing about this admission.

Also logically if this claim were true, it would have been mentioned in Apple's appeal.

[Graham]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

You haven't included links in the past to a source for your claim about the judge's admission. I've looked. It's not difficult since the forum has very nice search options. I've read your posts and I followed the links and there is nothing about this admission.

Also logically if this claim were true, it would have been mentioned in Apple's appeal.

Here's one which I found pretty quickly searching on Google:

http://fortune.com/2013/05/24/u-s-ju...ikely-to-lose/

I disagree with pwalker's conclusions on this, but Judge Cote definitely prepared much of her final statement in advance. The dispute is whether this was justified.

Bear in mind that both Apple and the DOJ asked her to do this pre-trial work.

Graham

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Graham

Here's one which I found pretty quickly searching on Google:

http://fortune.com/2013/05/24/u-s-ju...ikely-to-lose/

I disagree with pwalker's conclusions on this, but Judge Cote definitely prepared much of her final statement in advance. The dispute is whether this was justified.

Bear in mind that both Apple and the DOJ asked her to do this pre-trial work.

Graham

I can't see the content in that link. I did a google search and it turned up a page that I can see: https://fortunebrainstormtech.wordpr...titrust-judge/
Can you confirm that it is the same article?

If it is, the article just states that:

Asked during a preliminary hearing Thursday to share her thoughts about the Department of Justice's case against Apple (AAPL) in the long-awaited e-book antitrust trial, U.S. District Judge Denise Cote said this, according to Reuters:

"I believe that the government will be able to show at trial direct evidence that Apple knowingly participated in and facilitated a conspiracy to raise prices of e-books, and that the circumstantial evidence in this case, including the terms of the agreements, will confirm that."

Here's the thing: The trial doesn't begin until June 3. Also, there's no jury, so Judge Cote's decision is final, and she says she's already begun writing a draft of it.

In her defense -- a strange phrase to use about a judge -- she's had a chance to read some of the evidence. Much of it is contained in e-mails and correspondence exchanged over a six-week period before the launch of the iPad, when Apple and five book publishers worked on alternatives to Amazon's (AMZN) below-cost pricing model of $9.99 for bestsellers.

This doesn't mean that much of her final statement was prepared in advance.

But it does mean that she was doing her homework, the result of which on one occasion benefited Apple (source: https://fortunebrainstormtech.wordpr...-judge-cote/):

On Thursday, Laura Porco, one of the Amazon executives who negotiated deals with book publishers, submitted a written statement that strongly suggested the former. In it she testified that the week before Steve Jobs announced the iBookstore, five of the six major publishers told her that "they were requiring Amazon to switch its terms ... because that's what Apple required them to do."

That looked pretty damaging to Apple.

But before Porco was allowed to leave the witness stand, Judge Cote, who alone will decide the non-jury case, had a few questions.

She zeroed in on the next sentence in Porco's written testimony:

"[The publishers] said their agreement with Apple included restrictions around consumer pricing that made it technically impossible to remain on reseller terms with Amazon or any other retailer."

Could those "restrictions" be what the publishers were referring to when they said Apple "required" them to change their terms? Judge Cote asked Porco. In other words, were the publishers' longstanding deals with Amazon off because of the structure of their agreement with Apple, not direct instructions from Apple?

The lawyers at Apple's table snapped to attention.

It was the first time in four days of trial that the judge -- who in pre-trial statements seemed to have already decided the case against their client -- asked a clarifying question that not only favored Apple, but seemed to get to the heart of its defense.

[Graham]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

I can't see the content in that link. I did a google search and it turned up a page that I can see: https://fortunebrainstormtech.wordpr...titrust-judge/
Can you confirm that it is the same article?

Yes, that's the same article.

Graham

[JSWolf]

The problem as I see it is too many people want links. They just cannot see what's in front of them as the truth and need to have it spelled out by some website.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Graham

Yes, that's the same article.

Graham

So what we have here is a judge that at a scheduled preliminary hearing at which she had to give a preliminary statement that can be either 'the plaintiffs have presented enough evidence to justify a trial' or 'the plaintiffs have not presented enough evidence to justify a trial' decided there was enough evidence to justify a trial.

This part of the procedure is done for the benefit of the defense and as such it is the defendant's right to waive it. Apple's defense chose not to waive it.

For whatever reason we don't have a direct quote of the judge's statement about the draft of the final decision just the author of the article paraphrasing it as "she says she's already begun writing a draft of it".

I've searched for the judge's name and "wrote most of her decision", "wrote the majority of her decision", "wrote most of her final decision", "wrote the majority of her final decision", "wrote most of the decision", "wrote the majority of the decision", "wrote most of the final decision", "wrote the majority of the final decision" and according to google none of these variations exist outside of mobileread.