eBook settlement credit is on the way

[Blossom]

Moderator Notice

A reminder that political discussions about the U.S. Supreme Court, upcoming elections or The President of the United States may only appear in the (opt-in) Politics and Religion forum.

Any more posts that step over that line will be automatically removed.

[DiapDealer]

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.

Just as it's a favored tactic/trick to deflect informal conversations toward esoteric meta-topics by "officially" naming/identifying rhetorical fallacies (which are, of course, almost entirely irrelevant outside of formal debate venues)--usually in an attempt to exaggerate the level of ones's self-proclaimed "hobby" expertise in a particular subject.

[Mims]

My BN check came today($94.78). Not a big windfall but will apply toward annual library subscription. Much better for me than BN credit.

[PatNY]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

No, not even close.

1) the appeal court didn't even consider the facts in the matter. They considered the specific legal points that Apple appealed on. So the 2-1 ruling says nada about the facts in the case.

Yes, but the fact that the appeals court ruling completely left Cote's finding of facts intact meant that for all intents and purposes, Cote's facts were upheld.

2) The fact that the Supreme Court declined to review the case meant that the Supreme Court declined to review the case period. For those who haven't been paying attention, the Supreme Court is currently in a 4-4 split. Thus they are declining to hear a number of cases that they would have normally since they know that it will end in a deadlock. If the Supreme Court had chosen to hear the case and it ended in a deadlock, then the finding would have been upheld and it would have established precedent. By declining to hear it, they simply say the equivalent of "no comment". It's a rather important distinction.

This has been discussed in the previous thread. But realistically, if Apple could not muster even the support of 4 justices to grant cert, the most logical conclusion is that they had a poor case and you cannot assume even a 4-4 split had the case been heard. Sure, we know there is a distinction between affirming a lower court ruling and declining to hear. But distinction or not, the outcome is the same regarding Cote's decisions and findings -- they are effectively upheld and Apple is still guilty as originally found.

If at least 4 justices felt strongly that Apple's arguments had merit and important legal principles were at stake (like some of the Apple defenders kept insisting), a 4-4 tie would be secondary to being able to write a lengthy defense of Apple's actions and supposedly clarify important points of law.

3) You are correct that other judges (and lawyers) may point to the case. Of course, it's equally correct that Judge Jacobs' dissent may also be pointed at by other judges and lawyers. Certainly, lawyers will be advising their clients based on the decision, but then again, anti-trust law being the mess that it is, lawyers have been advising their clients to tread carefully in such cases for quite a while, as one can tell by reading the various anti-trust articles over the past decade. I rather doubt this case will make much of an impact in that regard. Just my opinion, of course.

A lone dissent at the appeals court level is likely to have very little impact -- and far less impact than the outcome itself. I predict you will never see a repeat of the antics pulled off by Apple in their attempt to influence eBook pricing. And if you do, you certainly won't ever see a company try to defend themselves so arrogantly beyond reason as happened in this case. If Apple with their tremendous financial resources couldn't get away with it, then it's likely no one else will be able to. Companies have been warned.

[MikeB1972]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Two drinks for every "strawman!"

I took a drink for every time Apple was mentioned.
shtill nead a thew moar before drunk i am.

[John F]

I received an "Apple E-books Antitrust Litigation" check yesterday for $9.42. I'm not sure who it is from. I don't think I indicated to B&N that I wanted a check. I received credit from Kobo and I had no eligible books at Amazon. I tried to check if I had eligable books at B&N, but I can't figure out how to see a purchase history on their site, and checking my emails, I don't see anything during the settlement period. I think that leaves Fictionwise and Sony.

[ProfCrash]

Probably Sony. I read that Sony was simply sending out checks.

[AnemicOak]

Just got two small checks in the mail. I'm guessing it's for Borders and Sony, but didn't see anything to really indicate that.

[Joykins]

Originally Posted by Blossom

How do you do that?

Bought way way too many ebooks. I hadn't learned to handle the immediate gratification of e-purchasing yet

Although it is sufficiently larger than my last settlement amount, I suspect that I had a lot of bestsellers purchased.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by Joykins

Bought way way too many ebooks. I hadn't learned to handle the immediate gratification of e-purchasing yet

Although it is sufficiently larger than my last settlement amount, I suspect that I had a lot of bestsellers purchased.

Hehe....I think she was asking you how you checked your balance!
But I was wondering how you racked up an award that large, so thanks.

[Joykins]

Originally Posted by ApK

Hehe....I think she was asking you how you checked your balance!
But I was wondering how you racked up an award that large, so thanks.

Ah, you go to Manage gift cards and credits for nook under your Account.

[Dusky Rose]

Originally Posted by Joykins

Bought way way too many ebooks. I hadn't learned to handle the immediate gratification of e-purchasing yet

Although it is sufficiently larger than my last settlement amount, I suspect that I had a lot of bestsellers purchased.

This one's larger than my last settlement as well, but I don't really remember what it came out to last time.

All together, I've gotten about $425 in rebates in this round.

I was transitioning from physical to ebooks at the time, selling off a lot of physical books and fanzines, to stock up on old favorites and new series I was into. So it racked up pretty high.

But I actually gave DH half of my Amazon chunk, and we both picked up things we needed. I'm pretty much just watching the freebies and using KU, so didn't need to splurge again.

[Angst]

I'm more than a little p.o. seeing some of these numbers. Despite spending thousands, (no that is not an exaggeration), on ebooks since 2009, my total returned is $1.xx- B&N, $1.xx - Kobo, and $8.xx in the mail. I also received a token amount from Amazon, but I wasn't a Kindle user until recently.

I suspect this was because my main sources of books were FictionWise, (a direct victim of Apple et.al.) and Sony, (now defunct). I also shopped at Diesel Ebooks, (folded also).

[AnemicOak]

Originally Posted by Angst

I suspect this was because my main sources of books were FictionWise, (a direct victim of Apple et.al.) and Sony, (now defunct). I also shopped at Diesel Ebooks, (folded also).

Fictionwise never sold Agency books (they stopped carrying those publishers when Agency went into effect) and IIRC for Diesel you had to manually file a claim for agency books covered by the settlement period.

[library addict]

After over three months, 6 phone calls, and a gazillion emails, they're finally going to send me checks for the books I had purchased directly from Penguin and at OmniLit/AllRomance eBooks.

I still find it odd that in the original AG settlement from Kobo I was credited for the same number of books, but more were at the NYT Best Seller rate. But they calculated for the same number of books this go around and insist the amount is correct, so oh well. At least I am getting some of the money.