Antitrust fallout: retailers sue conspirators

[Barcey]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Gosh, all you have to do is look at this thread to see how much effort some will go to in order to avoid admitting someone else might actually have a point or they might be in error.



I have no idea if she wears a pointy black hat and cackle. Could be, maybe she likes Harry Potter.



I really don't understand some here. Is it really impossible to discuss facts without reverting to their inter Ring Lardner ("Shut up, he explained") or resorting to mocking. Rhetoric 101 says when the facts don't back you up, then use emotion. That might impress an audience, but it doesn't make for a very rational discussion.

Says the person who refuses to provide facts because they "won't play that game".

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Gosh, all you have to do is look at this thread to see how much effort some will go to in order to avoid admitting someone else might actually have a point or they might be in error.

I have no idea if she wears a pointy black hat and cackle. Could be, maybe she likes Harry Potter.

I really don't understand some here. Is it really impossible to discuss facts without reverting to their inter Ring Lardner ("Shut up, he explained") or resorting to mocking. Rhetoric 101 says when the facts don't back you up, then use emotion. That might impress an audience, but it doesn't make for a very rational discussion. So far, this thread has had most of the standard rhetoric devices and fallacies used. Mocking, straw man arguments and flocking. You would think that literary people would be a bit above all that.

You have presented no facts to back you up, just insisted that you presented them before and that the proof can be found on internet if people would just look hard enough.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Gosh, all you have to do is look at this thread to see how much effort some will go to in order to avoid admitting someone else might actually have a point or they might be in error.

I have no idea if she wears a pointy black hat and cackle. Could be, maybe she likes Harry Potter.

I really don't understand some here. Is it really impossible to discuss facts without reverting to their inter Ring Lardner ("Shut up, he explained") or resorting to mocking. Rhetoric 101 says when the facts don't back you up, then use emotion. That might impress an audience, but it doesn't make for a very rational discussion. So far, this thread has had most of the standard rhetoric devices and fallacies used. Mocking, straw man arguments and flocking. You would think that literary people would be a bit above all that.

You forgot one important fact: it is you who are doing all this (by general consensus). You are the one refusing to bring any facts to back you up.

Everyone else here has the unique pleasure of having both facts and emotion.

Barcey presented a chain of reasoning:

Originally Posted by Barcey

Wow, so she made up her mind before the trial, wrote up her decision, ignored everything that didn't match what she already decided and disregarded testimony just because it didn't match what she decided. She then went and researched what all her critics were saying and cleverly wrote rebuttals in her final decision.

I don't know but that sounds like a lot of work to me. I would have thought it'd been easier to just go through the standard trial proceeding and make the final decision after. She's some devious lady. Did she wear a pointy black hat and cackle too?

and finished by asking why anyone would think Judge Cote is quite that dedicated to sticking it to Apple. A little humor was then brought in, after the facts were presented.

Now you come along and create an emotional appeal by claiming we are all

reverting to their inter Ring Lardner ("Shut up, he explained") or resorting to mocking

Would you like to start presenting any facts or logic you may have stashed away?

[pwalker8]

Sigh. Oh, I've presented facts. Just because you don't want to believe something is true doesn't make it less a fact.

If you want the facts and logic, just go back and read what I actually wrote rather that dismiss it out of hand, or create straw men. I see no point to keep repeating myself.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Sigh. Oh, I've presented facts. Just because you don't want to believe something is true doesn't make it less a fact.

If you want the facts and logic, just go back and read what I actually wrote rather that dismiss it out of hand, or create straw men. I see no point to keep repeating myself.

Well, since nobody but you seems to be able to find these links you claim to have posted... and outside of that, you basically seem to be repeating the same idea without any proof...

How about this. Pretend we are all as stupid as rocks, and also have never had the dubious pleasure of debating you before.

Now, please explain the facts and logic.

[JSWolf]

Fact: Some eBook shops had a business model in place that worked and customers liked this business model and shopped there.

Fact: When Apple and friends colluded to fix prices, these models stopped working and people didn't shop there as much because of this.

Fact: Some shops were unable to make a deal with the price fix six for a some time after the price fixing went into effect and thus, they did lose business.

Fact: The price fix six didn't give a damn about who they hurt because they were focused on trying to hurt Amazon.

Now, given these facts, if I was on a jury in this case, I would vote that Apple is guilty.

[AnemicOak]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Now, given these facts, if I was on a jury in this case, I would vote that Apple is guilty.

There was no jury, it was a bench trial.

[Graham]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Sigh. Oh, I've presented facts. Just because you don't want to believe something is true doesn't make it less a fact.

If you want the facts and logic, just go back and read what I actually wrote rather that dismiss it out of hand, or create straw men. I see no point to keep repeating myself.

I've gone back again to try to trace this back to find the evidence you say that you've presented. The earliest that I can find is this in response to me asking for evidence back on 2013-10-08:

https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...1&postcount=12

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Well, it is true, no matter how many times you deny it. She wrote the first 122 pages of her 160 page decision before the trial started.

http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2013/07/...erdict-appeal/

where you point to the exact same Fortune article we linked just above.

We rebutted that article back then in the same way that we have done just now. It doesn't prove that she wrote her judgement in advance. The author asserts that she could have written much of it before the trial.

https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...2&postcount=14

Your repeated assertions obviously worked on my subconscious as it was me doing the rebutting back then, and it took Sil-lis to dispel my illusions just now!

All I can find other than this in your posts is the link to the Robing Room that I mentioned before:

https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...5&postcount=56

http://www.therobingroom.com/Judge.a...=1403#comments

which has a mix of good and bad comments, some of which assert that she prejudges cases, but which do not stand as evidence that she wrote her final judgement in the ebook trial in advance.

The next link you include is in this post:

https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...5&postcount=25

This one's behind the Wall Street Journal paywall, but begins:

Impossible as it sounds, Judge Denise Cote has found a way to make the Justice Department's antitrust assault on Apple even more abusive. Because it presumed to enter the e-books market, the court is forcing the company to pay for a special prosecutor to investigate itself—and shredding the separation of constitutional powers too.

This doesn't sound like it has anything to do with writing the judgement in advance - and you do not claim that it does in your post.

Next is your post:

https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...0&postcount=39

http://fortune.com/2013/12/02/behind...books-monitor/

This link is about Apple's gripes with the monitor, not about Cote writing the judgement in advance.

In your next post with links on the matter you're referring to MSN clauses, not to writing the judgement in advance:

https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...3&postcount=98

Then we have this one which discusses the Steve Jobs email, and not writing the judgement in advance:

https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...&postcount=135

Your next link is in this post:

https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...&postcount=204

where you give us Cote's letter of recommendation for Bromwich, but this isn't about writing the judgement in advance either.

Next we have a post which contains two more links behind paywalls, but again this is about Bromwich, not the judgement preparation:

https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...&postcount=382

This brings us up to this thread, where you posted a link on Amazon pulling publishers:

https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...3&postcount=16

Seriously, pwalker8, if the evidence that you keep referring to is not included in these links, then please repost it as I've had a long hard look and can't find it.

Are you remembering anything other than the Fortune/Reuters article and the Robing Room criticism?

Graham

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Just because you don't want to believe something is true doesn't make it less a fact.

The reverse is equally true.

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

The reverse is equally true.

So, do you guys think you would make more or less progress debating Eugene Goostman?

http://www.reading.ac.uk/news-and-ev.../PR583836.aspx

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

The reverse is equally true.

Of course. No one on the outside looking in can say what the true facts are, one can only go by what one has read or heard. Based on what I have read and heard, I said earlier what I thought the likely outcomes of the appeal will be. Other people may have different interpretations based on what they read and have heard. Unlike some here, I've never claimed that anyone who has a different opinion than mine must be some sort of fanboi.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Of course. No one on the outside looking in can say what the true facts are, one can only go by what one has read or heard. Based on what I have read and heard, I said earlier what I thought the likely outcomes of the appeal will be. Other people may have different interpretations based on what they read and have heard. Unlike some here, I've never claimed that anyone who has a different opinion than mine must be some sort of fanboi.

On the other hand, the main purpose of calling people fanbois is to dismiss their opinions as biased and pointless.

You have dismissed everyone elses' opinions as biased and pointless, without the need for calling us fanbois. Good job on that, by the way. More more effective, as ad hominem attacks go.

So you have done the direct equivalent of calling us fanbois. But we are the ones who use ad hominem attacks. You would never do such a thing. (Not even by accusing us of "claim[ing] that anyone who has a different opinion than mine must be some sort of fanboi.")

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Of course. No one on the outside looking in can say what the true facts are, one can only go by what one has read or heard. Based on what I have read and heard, I said earlier what I thought the likely outcomes of the appeal will be. Other people may have different interpretations based on what they read and have heard. Unlike some here, I've never claimed that anyone who has a different opinion than mine must be some sort of fanboi.

Your thoughts on the likely outcomes of the appeal are not an issue. Your assertions that Apple was taken to court on this just because of their money, and that the Judge admitted to having written the majority of her final decision before the trial are. You insist that there is evidence of this admission and that you have presented it in the past, however those of us that have looked through your posts have seen no such evidence.

And while you didn't claim that anyone who has a different opinion than yours must be some sort of fanboi, you did use the phrase: <the "any stick to beat Apple" crowd>.

Spoiler:

Originally Posted by pwalker8

While I know there is a whole lot of "any stick to beat Apple with" going on here, so far I haven't read anything that says that Apple fixed prices. Telling publishers that they can sale for whatever price they want, as long as they don't sale it for less elsewhere isn't exactly fixing prices.

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Geeze people, I know it's any stick to beat Apple with, but talk about over simplifying the legal issues. What the DOJ is demanding is that Apple blow up their business model, a model that is making a whole lot of money for a whole lot of people. Be careful what you wish for.

One would almost think that Amazon is dictating terms via the DOJ. One might even speculate that the $4.5 million that Amazon spent in campaign contributions and the $18 millions that Amazon spent on lobbying in Washington is starting to pay dividends. (note, those figures are just what Amazon, Inc is spending. It doesn't include what the individual Amazon execs spent)

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Looks like the national press is picking this up.

Headline - Apple's Star Chamber - An abusive judge and her prsecutor friend besiege the tech maker.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/...pinion_LEADTop

Obviously the "any stick to beat Apple" crowd in this thread will dismiss such views since it doesn't fit their world view, but there really is, or should be a limit on what an individual judge can do. It will be interesting to watch the appeal process. Apparently, Cote is starting to back pedal a bit on her decree.

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Yep, can't really expect serious discussion here, the "any stick to beat Apple with" crowd is unwilling to do anything than mock and throw out ad homiem attacks (for those unfamilar with the term, it's a rhetorical device which involves attacking the person rather than addressing the matter at hand. The person in this case is Apple).

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Yes exactly. There was quite a bit of literature about this at the time of the trial. This is the first time that a non horizontal company was treated as a horizontal company for purposes of anti-trust. that is the novel legal theory that the prosecutor used.

Yes, there are a lot of threads on the topic. The issue is that for it to be anti-trust, you have to prove a conspiracy. There was very little public evidence of that Apple did indeed conspire with the publishers to set prices. Mostly of the evidence appears to be an email that was never sent, the fact that Apple used the same contract for each of the publishers (once again a standard business practice) and Judge Cote saying that she didn't believe the Apple exec who said that they did not work with publishers to fix prices.

As far as I can tell, most of the opinions are divided between the anti stick to beat Apple with, the Apple fan boys, and a small group of postings that question the legal aspects of the trial itself. Things like Cote writing most of her opinion before the trail, saying before the trial that she thought that Apple was guilty, and Judge Cote's history of prejudicial (in the sense of favoring one party over another in trials) behavior. Then there is the question of how can a party with zero market share be guilty of anti-trust when the market leader has 80 to 90 percent of the market?

Finally there is the concern of the growing trend of government prosecutors using threats of company destroying fines to extort large amounts of cash from a wide range of companies without any admitting of guilt on the part of the company. This gives rise to the impression that it's all about raking in the bucks as opposed to justice.

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Apple most certainly did not accept any plea bargain on the punishment side. Cote told both sides to give her what they thought was appropriate, then she gave the prosecution most of what they were asking for.

There are a lot of beefs from Apple's point of view. All you need to do is read Apple's complaints to see them. The complaints sound pretty rational to me. Yes, Apple does have to follow Cote's judgment, though it does sound like she's been changing the judgment on the fly a bit. As I said before, it will be interesting to see if the appeals court grants Apple's emergency stay. Some say that Apple should win the appeal, others say that Apple won't.

You do realize that talking about Job's "reality distortion field" and about how much Apple thinks they are above the law just make you sound like another "any stick to beat Apple with" guy, don't you?

[shalym]

Originally Posted by Graham

Are you remembering anything other than the Fortune/Reuters article and the Robing Room criticism?

Graham

pwalker8, can you please answer Graham's question? I'm curious, too. Maybe we missed something?

Shari

[Graham]

Just to recap, the evidence (that Judge Cote wrote the majority of her judgement in advance) presented in the threads here at MobileRead would appear to be the following three pieces:

1) The Reuters report on the pretrial hearing from 23rd May 2013:

Cote, who is hearing the case without a jury, said at the start of the proceedings that she was working on a draft of a written decision that she would expand and publish after the trial.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...94M19A20130523

Given that she was asked to provide a tentative view by both Apple and the DOJ this is not surprising. However, this does not prove that this draft was completed before the trial, or, even if it was, that it made up the majority of the final text of the judgement.

2) The comments at the Robing Room that Judge Cote has a tendency to pre-judge cases:

http://www.therobingroom.com/Judge.a...=1403#comments

There are six posts that assert that she has a tendency to pre-judge: comments 12988, 12534, 12300, 11883, 9552, 9176.

There are also eight very positive comments about her there.

Still, given those negative comments, we can't rule out that she may have a tendency to pre-judge a case. However, that isn't evidence that she did so in this case. It would just support any other evidence to that effect.

3) The Fortune article after the trial which suggested that Judge Cote could have written much of her judgement in advance:

http://fortune.com/2013/07/10/the-ap...e-2nd-circuit/

The first 122 pages of the 160-page ruling against Apple that U.S. District Judge Denise Cote handed down on Wednesday could have been written before the trial began. In fact, most of them probably were.

This is simply the author's assertion, based on a) Judge Cote's comment that she had started work on a draft, and b) the fact that the first 122 pages basically cover the events leading up to the trial.

Here's the judgement document for reference:

http://fortunedotcom.files.wordpress...us-v-apple.pdf

The first 122 pages make reference to things that occurred during the trial from p6 onwards, but mainly in footnotes, which does support the idea that much of this section was drafted in advance.

However, the structure of the document is to cover the history leading up to the launch of iBooks in the first 100 pages, followed by 12 pages of analysis of the legal standards against which the case should be judged, before getting into the analysis of the evidence.

So, there's really no reason why the first 112 pages shouldn't have been written in advance anyway.

The remaining 47 pages are where the detailed analysis takes place based on the trial, and where Judge Cote's reasoning for the judgement is presented. There's no suggestion anywhere that this more important last 40 pages or so was written in advance.

I can see no other evidence presented on MobileRead nor have I found any through Google searches outside MobileRead.

pwalker8, if these are not the three pieces of evidence that convinced you that Judge Cote was biased because she had prepared most of her judgement in advance, please direct us to your other sources.

Graham