Apple gripes about antitrust monitoring

[John F]

"Apple loses bid to disqualify antitrust monitor -US court"

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/apple...142522304.html

[Phogg]

Originally Posted by John F

"Apple loses bid to disqualify antitrust monitor -US court"

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/apple...142522304.html

Awwww.
That's a real shame.

[pwalker8]

Not surprised by the ruling, but the bit about waiting too long to complain is a bit hard to understand. They complained about him within a month of him starting. This thread was started in Nov, 2013.

[John F]

"US court agrees Apple violated antitrust law in e-book entry"

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-co...142032257.html

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by John F

"US court agrees Apple violated antitrust law in e-book entry"

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-co...142032257.html

Interesting. One assumes that Apple will continue the appeal. I'll be interesting to read the actual findings.

[fjtorres]

Some details:
http://the-digital-reader.com/2015/0...case/#comments

Two to one decision.
Even the dissenting judge validated Cote's finding on conspiracy.

With the findings of fact ("yes, there was a hub-n-spoke conspiracy") any full bench or SCOTUS appeal isn't going very far.

It really *is* open and shut classic price fixing antitrust.

Edit: Wall Street Journal report:
http://www.wsj.com/article_email/app...MjM3MDUzNjA3Wj

"We conclude that the district court correctly decided that Apple orchestrated a conspiracy among the publishers to raise e-book prices,” wrote Second Circuit Judge Debra Ann Livingston. The conspiracy “unreasonably restrained trade” in violation of the Sherman Act, the federal antitrust law, the judge wrote.

"Apple understood that its proposed contracts were attractive to the publisher defendants only if they collectively shifted their relationships with Amazon to an agency model -- which Apple knew would result in consumers facing higher e-book prices,” Judge Livingston wrote in a decision joined by Judge Raymond J. Lohier Jr.

Apple could ask the Second Circuit to rehear the case or ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review it.

The third judge accepted there was a conspiracy but tried to convince the court that antitrust didn't apply because Apple operated on a different rung of the supply ladder.

Judge Dennis Jacobs, writing in dissent, said that the trial judge who found Apple liable for price-fixing in 2013 viewed the case through the wrong legal lens. He said antitrust law couldn’t hold Apple plainly responsible for a conspiracy among publishers on a different rung of the supply chain.

[Barcey]

Not surprising but what a bizarre statement for a judge to make:

He said it was a mistake by Cote and his fellow appeals judges to assume "competition should be genteel, lawyer-designed, and fair under sporting rules, and that antitrust law is offended by gloves-off competition."

Abiding by the USA criminal antitrust laws is equated to being "genteel, lawyer-designed and fair under sporting rules". You know it's just kind of optional. We expect people to break a few criminal laws or they're really not trying hard enough.

http://https://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-court-agrees-apple-violated-142032257.html

[Barcey]

The full opinion is on the DoJ site.

http://http://www.justice.gov/atr/ca...400/315478.pdf

[Shane R]

Just pay the 450 million and move on.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by John F

"US court agrees Apple violated antitrust law in e-book entry"

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-co...142032257.html

If this is not classic price fixing, price fixing doesn't exist. And you might as well throw out all anti-trust law. I guess Apple's defense was "We're Apple, we can do whatever the hell we want."

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by rcentros

If this is not classic price fixing, price fixing doesn't exist. And you might as well throw out all anti-trust law. I guess Apple's defense was "We're Apple, we can do whatever the hell we want."

And, surprisingly, one judge agreed.
He admitted there was a conspiracy but said antitrust didn't apply to Apple.

Day-ammm those Mac users sure are loyal.

[PatNY]

This is nice vindication for Cote, especially in the face of some unwarranted misinformation and baseless allegations made against her by those attempting to defend Apple. It also vindicates Amazon whom Apple and some of its defenders tried to blame for their own misbehavior.

I’m not surprised that Apple would issue a defiant statement after their latest court loss, still claiming that it did no wrong. If they attempt to take their case to the Supreme Court, I believe and hope the Supremes will refuse to even hear the case.

--Pat

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

And, surprisingly, one judge agreed.
He admitted there was a conspiracy but said antitrust didn't apply to Apple.

Day-ammm those Mac users sure are loyal.

This is of course, totally not true. What the judge actually said was that per se rules does not apply in this case. The other two judges said they should. Per se means that a specific action is automatically illegal. If you do not apply per se, then you have to show that Apple's actions harmed competition, something that is pretty difficult to do given Amazon's 90% of the market position at the time. One would assume this will be appealed to the Supreme Court since the ruling doesn't match the most recent ruling by the Supreme Court.

[avantman42]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

If you do not apply per se, then you have to show that Apple's actions harmed competition,

I thought anti-trust laws concerned themselves with harm (or otherwise) to consumers, rather than competition. Is that not right?

[Barcey]

Originally Posted by avantman42

I thought anti-trust laws concerned themselves with harm (or otherwise) to consumers, rather than competition. Is that not right?

Yes but you don't understand this new definition of 'competition'. 'Competition' is to provide cartels with alternate distribution channels to their customers so they can keep one distribution channel from lowering prices. This way prices to the consumer only increase by a defined 50%. Also instead of having multiple iOS apps where you can buy books (Kobo, Amazon, B&N) you get one iBooks app. This is known as 'competition'.