eBook settlement credit is on the way

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Once again, no matter how much you want it to be all about Apple, the question here isn't Apple, it's the law and the American legal system.

Apple is guilty as charged according to the American legal system. End of story. If you fail to understand that, then YOU don't understand the American legal system.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Well, I came up with my solution to do with the money, binge buy!

I pick up a lot of backlist books and specialty books that I had my eye on. 25 in all. Nothing that had triggered the "Oh, I've got to have that" impulse but a lot of books that fill in some of the blank spaces in my library. For example, I had lost interest in Novik's Temeraire series after book 5, but with the positive reviews of the final book in the series, I decided to go ahead and finish the series up and snarfed up the remaining 4 books.

I used up most of my credit at BN on music CDs; still have some left for a couple of e-books down the road.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

Apple is guilty as charged according to the American legal system. End of story. If you fail to understand that, then YOU don't understand the American legal system.

Sigh. Nice straw man. I never said that Apple was not found guilty. I said that Apple was not found guilty of what the original poster said. I also said that the SC's decision not to hear the appeal does not mean that the SC upheld the verdict, but rather that for various possible reasons, the SC decided not to hear the appeal. I assume you either didn't bother to read the link that I posted, or decided to ignore the points that I raised about the current state of the Supreme Court.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Catlady

I used up most of my credit at BN on music CDs; still have some left for a couple of e-books down the road.

Online or at a physical store?

B&N used to be my go to spot for CD's and DVD's. I would look there first, and only if the local B&N didn't have it, did I buy it on Amazon. I really didn't stop going until they had cut back so much that it stopped being worthwhile. I still think they missed a golden opportunity.

[Cinisajoy]

Apple was found guilty. Apple appealed. Apple still found guilty.
Apple is having to pay.
No argument can be made that they are innocent.
It doesn't matter about Scalia.
Supreme Court refused to hear. Therefore Apple is guilty.

[murg]

I thinking that we should start a drinking game: every time 'ad hominem' is mentioned, everyone takes a drink.

[DiapDealer]

Two drinks for every "strawman!"

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Two drinks for every "strawman!"

Brb with my special drinks.
1 part each kahlua, creme de menthe, orange liquor, amaretto.
2 parts each Jim Beam, Jack Daniels, Wild Turkey 101 and Crown Royal.
10 parts each vodka, gin, rum.
20 parts tequila.
38 parts everclear.
Enjoy.

[induna]

I received a check yesterday (or my sister-in-law did in the States. I live in Costa Rica now). At the time I was buying all of my books from Sony. I have received nothing from anyone else.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Online or at a physical store?

B&N used to be my go to spot for CD's and DVD's. I would look there first, and only if the local B&N didn't have it, did I buy it on Amazon. I really didn't stop going until they had cut back so much that it stopped being worthwhile. I still think they missed a golden opportunity.

Online. My local store closed in January. CDs were one of the few things I could find at BN that were not priced way over Amazon prices, and with the coupon BN has for purchases over $50, I came out well.

[DuckieTigger]

Shall we dance on hot coals barefoot? I try to specifically include every sentence of yours this time so none of the sentences feel left out.

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Sigh.

Sigh. Sigh.

Nice straw man.

Thank you, but only because you say so doesn't make it so.

I never said that Apple was not found guilty.

And yet you squirm like a fish out of water every time someone mentions that Apple is guilty using the "wrong" words, but not the wrong spirit. Let me demonstrate:

I said that Apple was not found guilty of what the original poster said.

I have to assume you mean that OP said something similar to "Apple is guilty of raising ebook prices"? Because, aehm, that is exactly what they are guilty of. Why? Because Apple illegally orchestrated as ring leader the collusion that set in motion agency pricing for the sole purpose to raise ebook prices of certain publishers that the end customer pays for a licence all at once across the board. Steve Jobs promised that the prices will be the same, Apple wasn't interested in competing in price, Apple requires a 30% profit, Apple reserved the right to discount prices to price match any competitor while maintaining the 30% cut of the lowered price. All that put together in effect raised the prices. And Apple knew exactly that it would happen just like that as they counted on it to grab up marketshare.

I also said that the SC's decision not to hear the appeal does not mean that the SC upheld the verdict, but rather that for various possible reasons, the SC decided not to hear the appeal.

By not deciding to hear the case they did upheld the verdict. What the Supreme Court doesn't do by not hearing a case is to set precedent. Precedent doesn't matter at all for the case at hand, but only matters for the outcome of future cases.

I assume you either didn't bother to read the link that I posted, or decided to ignore the points that I raised about the current state of the Supreme Court.

Yes, that is correct. There is a reason I didn't quote anything relating to the death of one of the judges and the current difficulty to fill the empty seat. There is more than one reason. First, it doesn't make the decision to not hear based on only eight judges any less valid. Second, speculating what would have happened if there were nine is pointless other than to waste time speculating. Third, it is off topic and in depth discussion of it belongs to the P&R forum only.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Two drinks for every "strawman!"

They are favored tactics on the internet. But hey, it's a lot easier to try to deflect than admit you got caught with your hand in the cookie jar of rhetorical tricks.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Online. My local store closed in January. CDs were one of the few things I could find at BN that were not priced way over Amazon prices, and with the coupon BN has for purchases over $50, I came out well.

My local store still seems to be open, but it's been a while since I went there.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

...
Yes, that is correct. There is a reason I didn't quote anything relating to the death of one of the judges and the current difficulty to fill the empty seat. There is more than one reason. First, it doesn't make the decision to not hear based on only eight judges any less valid. Second, speculating what would have happened if there were nine is pointless other than to waste time speculating. Third, it is off topic and in depth discussion of it belongs to the P&R forum only.

Pretty much like I thought. You don't know and don't want to learn.

[murg]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

They are favored tactics on the internet. But hey, it's a lot easier to try to deflect than admit you got caught with your hand in the cookie jar of rhetorical tricks.

You're completely correct.

Apple got caught with their hand in the cookie jar.