Apple appeals to Supreme Court

[kennyc]

(I didn't see this posted, so here goes)

Apple appeals to Supreme Court in e-books price fixing antitrust case
By Roger Fingas
Thursday, September 17, 2015, 12:43 pm PT (03:43 pm ET)

Apple is looking to file an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court in order to overturn previous court decisions, which found that the company conspired with book publishers to fix the price of e-books.

http://appleinsider.com/articles/15/...antitrust-case

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by kennyc

(I didn't see this posted, so here goes)



http://appleinsider.com/articles/15/...antitrust-case

The headline is misleading. Apple has asked for 30 day extension so they can (potentially) file. They're still trotting out the old "we used anti-trust because Amazon was too powerful" argument. I don't think the "end justifies the means" argument will work -- but the Supreme Court decisions have been pretty wonky lately (they think it's their right to write laws now), so I guess Apple figures why not give a shot.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by rcentros

The headline is misleading. Apple has asked for 30 day extension so they can (potentially) file. They're still trotting out the old "we used anti-trust because Amazon was too powerful" argument. I don't think the "end justifies the means" argument will work -- but the Supreme Court decisions have been pretty wonky lately (they think it's their right to write laws now), so I guess Apple figures why not give a shot.

The 30-day extension means they get to file after the Court schedule is set for the year so they buy at least another year of protesting innocence. Possibly two if the court decides to revisit whether to allow Agency at all.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

The 30-day extension means they get to file after the Court schedule is set for the year so they buy at least another year of protesting innocence. Possibly two if the court decides to revisit whether to allow Agency at all.

I see. Thanks for the clarification.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by rcentros

The headline is misleading. Apple has asked for 30 day extension so they can (potentially) file. They're still trotting out the old "we used anti-trust because Amazon was too powerful" argument. I don't think the "end justifies the means" argument will work -- but the Supreme Court decisions have been pretty wonky lately (they think it's their right to write laws now), so I guess Apple figures why not give a shot.

No, as the article said, they are trotting out the old "Cote failed to consider the case in the proper framework", i.e. Cote used to per se criteria for determining anti trust rather than the rule of reason, which was the decision in the Leegin case (2007) the most recent Supreme Court anti trust decision.

[eschwartz]

Apple appeals to Supreme Court

What, again?!?!?!?!

[murg]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

No, as the article said, they are trotting out the old "Cote failed to consider the case in the proper framework", i.e. Cote used to per se criteria for determining anti trust rather than the rule of reason, which was the decision in the Leegin case (2007) the most recent Supreme Court anti trust decision.

You're right.

Cote did fail to consider the case in the proper framework:

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

No, as the article said, they are trotting out the old "Cote failed to consider the case in the proper framework", i.e. Cote used to per se criteria for determining anti trust rather than the rule of reason, which was the decision in the Leegin case (2007) the most recent Supreme Court anti trust decision.

They're not denying the anti-trust allegations. Those are too obvious and there's too much evidence. It's not Apple's right to determine that "Amazon needs be knocked down a peg or two and we'll break the law to do it." If they felt Amazon was breaking anti-trust laws (which they weren't) they should have filed a complaint with the Justice Department, not gone "vigilante." But, really, they're full of BS. Jobs bragged about how he was going to take the eBook business and raise prices. And he colluded with the publishers to do so. When Apple got its hands stuck in the cookie jar, that was then they started yelling, "they're the ones who took the cookies!" They just need to take their medicine and shut up about this. The more they whine about Amazon, the more they're going to look like feckless fringe dwellers.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by murg

You're right.

Cote did fail to consider the case in the proper framework:

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by rcentros

They're not denying the anti-trust allegations. Those are too obvious and there's too much evidence. It's not Apple's right to determine that "Amazon needs be knocked down a peg or two and we'll break the law to do it." If they felt Amazon was breaking anti-trust laws (which they weren't) they should have filed a complaint with the Justice Department, not gone "vigilante." But, really, they're full of BS. Jobs bragged about how he was going to take the eBook business and raise prices. And he colluded with the publishers to do so. When Apple got its hands stuck in the cookie jar, that was then they started yelling, "they're the ones who took the cookies!" They just need to take their medicine and shut up about this. The more they whine about Amazon, the more they're going to look like feckless fringe dwellers.

Or, they actually might be aware of the legal definition of anti-trust, as defined by the Supreme Court and thus believe that they did not do anything wrong. There is a reason that the Justice Department never tried to prove that Apple was guilty by rule of reason rather than per se.

Jobs, of course, never did any such thing. He suggested to the book publishers that they adopt a tiered model similar to the iTunes music store. The book publishers turned that down.

[dickloraine]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Or, they actually might be aware of the legal definition of anti-trust, as defined by the Supreme Court and thus believe that they did not do anything wrong. There is a reason that the Justice Department never tried to prove that Apple was guilty by rule of reason rather than per se.

Jobs, of course, never did any such thing. He suggested to the book publishers that they adopt a tiered model similar to the iTunes music store. The book publishers turned that down.

Secret meetings and communication suggests that they all knew that what they were doing wasn't legal. Otherwise, why try to hide it? If you are caught, you can apologize or trying to justify it. The former I can accept, the latter I hate.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by dickloraine

Secret meetings and communication suggests that they all knew that what they were doing wasn't legal. Otherwise, why try to hide it? If you are caught, you can apologize or trying to justify it. The former I can accept, the latter I hate.

Most contract negotiations are secret.

[theducks]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Most contract negotiations are secret.

Most contract negotiations don't involve competitors bids/terms being exchanged among the bidders.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by theducks

Most contract negotiations don't involve competitors bids/terms being exchanged among the bidders.

Which is why it was a textbook case of collusion. And the point -- again -- is that Apple is not denying what they did (which is an anti-trust violation) they're just trying to justify it.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by rcentros

Which is why it was a textbook case of collusion. And the point -- again -- is that Apple is not denying what they did (which is an anti-trust violation) they're just trying to justify it.

The point is that whither or not what Apple did is illegal depends if you use the per se definition of anti-trust as Cote did, or you use the rule of reason definition of anti-trust, as the Supreme Court instructed in Leegan. In anti-trust, your market position is extremely important. Apple had no market position since they had not entered into the market yet.