Apple appeals to Supreme Court

[murg]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

I don't think so. Apple's next step will be the UN. They'll try and get the World Court to hear it. If that fails, they'll appeal to the United Federation of Planets.

I believe you're correct.

Clearly, the finding against Apple is a crime against humanity.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The fact that it was a majority opinion would seem to indicate that it wasn't a clear-cut case. More judges disagreed with Apple than agreed with them, but the fact that there was a dissenting minority would suggest that, in the eyes of that minority, their case had merit.

I'm surprised that they declined to grant cert. When the Supreme Court declines to grant cert. then it means that the ruling stands, but is not binding on other district courts. It could simple be a case where they thought that it would be that without Scalia, it would have been a 4-4 decision or they simply didn't want to address the issue with so many other things in front of them.

Regardless, yes, the case is now over and Apple is legally guilty and must pay the settlement.

[leebase]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The fact that it was a majority opinion would seem to indicate that it wasn't a clear-cut case. More judges disagreed with Apple than agreed with them, but the fact that there was a dissenting minority would suggest that, in the eyes of that minority, their case had merit.

Yes, true. However, I'm sure had Apple won, not a single person on this forum would have changed their minds.

One has to live with the Supreme Court judgments....but that's it. Nobody who believes abortion is murder has changed their mind just because the Supreme Court said its ok. Etc. Etc.

Apple will pay the fine. The rest of the changes have already been implemented as far as the publishers and Amazon.

Amazon continues to amass anti-competitive powers in the book business that would has been blunted had Apple succeeded in creating a decent competitor.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by leebase

Amazon continues to amass anti-competitive powers in the book business that would has been blunted had Apple succeeded in creating a decent competitor.

Apple has the money, so they could've easily competed with Amazon's pricing.

Hey, if you enter the market late, don't expect to be handed a level playing field on your terms.

[John F]

Originally Posted by leebase

Yes, true. However, I'm sure had Apple won, not a single person on this forum would have changed their minds.

One has to live with the Supreme Court judgments....but that's it. Nobody who believes abortion is murder has changed their mind just because the Supreme Court said its ok. Etc. Etc.

...

I'm sure your wrong. I thought they were guilty, but I followed it at a high level without digging into the details. If the SCOTUS ruled them not guilty, I would have changed my mind.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The fact that it was a majority opinion would seem to indicate that it wasn't a clear-cut case. More judges disagreed with Apple than agreed with them, but the fact that there was a dissenting minority would suggest that, in the eyes of that minority, their case had merit.

The minority was one judge. Who was reaching beyond precedent and seeking to narrow the scope of antitrust law.
The SCOTUS declined that invitation.

Apple's next move is to petition the president for a pardon early next January.
Many a white collar convict does that.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

The minority was one judge. Who was reaching beyond precedent and seeking to narrow the scope of antitrust law.
The SCOTUS declined that invitation.

Apple's next move is to petition the president for a pardon early next January.
Many a white collar convict does that.

Interesting legal question, would a pardon vacate a consent agreement. I doubt it.

Besides, why would Apple wait until January?

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Interesting legal question, would a pardon vacate a consent agreement. I doubt it.

Besides, why would Apple wait until January?

Because that is when most Presidential pardons happen.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

Because that is when most Presidential pardons happen.

Now, that the Supreme Court has spoken, I pretty sure that money is going to be gone well before January. Since no one is going to jail, there is no need for a pardon, except perhaps to avoid paying the payoff.

[kennyc]

Information about the settlement payout:

http://appleinsider.com/articles/16/...ook-settlement

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

Because that is when most Presidential pardons happen.

They are also at their cheapest as the ex-prez is ready to leave for the world of presidential library foundations and 6-figure speaking fees.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Apple has the money, so they could've easily competed with Amazon's pricing.

Hey, if you enter the market late, don't expect to be handed a level playing field on your terms.

I don't agree that they could have easily (even if they wanted to) thrown money at it and compete. If you enter the market you cannot simply undercut everybody else and be free and clear. Especially if you try to match or undercut Amazon's loss leaders. It is okay to have loss leaders as long as you make up for it elsewhere (and not with iphones either, but with books). Predatory pricing is still bad for antitrust.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

I don't agree that they could have easily (even if they wanted to) thrown money at it and compete. If you enter the market you cannot simply undercut everybody else and be free and clear. Especially if you try to match or undercut Amazon's loss leaders. It is okay to have loss leaders as long as you make up for it elsewhere (and not with iphones either, but with books). Predatory pricing is still bad for antitrust.

Predatory pricing is about selling below cost (buying market share/power) and *then* raising prices. "Buying" market share with low prices and keeping them low is perfectly legal. And since Amazon did and does make money at ebooks, Apple could've matched them and still make money.

The conspiracy was never about "can't" compete--it was about not wanting to compete for consumers.

Agency was not illegal.
Raising prices was stupid but not illegal.
Conspiring to *all* raise prices simultaneously?
Illegal.
And unnecessary.

Amazon's mythical 90% peak share was in early 2009 before Nook snd right when Sony rebooted their solid lrf business into a generic epub operation.
By mid 2010, when agency kicked in, market forces alone had brought Amazon down to 54%. After Agency it never went lower.
B&N was doing fine with Nook until they saw "fixed ebook prices!" and thought thry could underprice Amazon on ereaders. Bad call.

All that drama, unnecessary.

[Shane R]

Those who bought New York Times bestsellers in the appropriate window of time will receive between $6.05 and $6.54 per e-book. Non-bestsellers will result in compensation of between $1.39 and $1.50 per e-book. E-book purchases from Amazon, Apple, Barnes & Noble and Kobo will result in an automatic account credit.

I wonder how much consumers would have gotten if the States Attorneys had refused to negotiate a settlement with them. In retrospect, negotiating when they had such a clear-cut legal case against them looks odd.

And why credits? A store credit encourages spending with place extending the credit. Give me a check (or the option of a check) to deposit into my bank account and spend as I please. My money shouldn't be held captive by the rule-breaker.

The settlement applies only to American citizens, and does not apply to rented, free or gifted e-books.

Why not gifted e-books? That's another settlement oddity.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by Shane R

I wonder how much consumers would have gotten if the States Attorneys had refused to negotiate a settlement with them. In retrospect, negotiating when they had such a clear-cut legal case against them looks odd.

And why credits? A store credit encourages spending with place extending the credit. Give me a check (or the option of a check) to deposit into my bank account and spend as I please. My money shouldn't be held captive by the rule-breaker.



Why not gifted e-books? That's another settlement oddity.

There may be a good reason on the gifted ebooks.
If I buy you an ebook, you do not have to get that ebook. You can request a gift card instead.
So there is no guarantee that the book was actually received.
Note: The giver will not know the difference unless they happen to be the author and are selling so few books that one download would be noticed.