Apple appeals to Supreme Court

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Here's the view from Apple land:

http://www.macnn.com/articles/16/03/....right.132927/

They'll never surrender, never give up.

What else would you expect from religious fanatics?

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by dickloraine

Okay, I don't know the american law system, but wouldn't not hearing a case mean, that the majority of judges think that the appeal has no chance at all and don't need a full trial to come to that conclusion? Because the case appears to be clear for them?

Actually not, at least not for the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court only hears a small percentage of the cases that they are asked to review, on a yearly basis, they hear between 100-150 out of the some 7,000+ cases that they are asked to hear.

This link gives some the criteria that the Supreme Court uses.

http://litigation.findlaw.com/legal-...ar-a-case.html

When you read some of the interviews of the various Supreme Court justices and they talk about what cases they hear or don't hear, they never talk about whither or not the case has any chance. They talk about is the case important, or is there a disagreement between two different circuits, is it of particular to one judge or another or does it fly in the face of another Supreme Court decision (it's going to be very interesting to see what happens with Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin)

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Here's the view from Apple land:

http://www.macnn.com/articles/16/03/....right.132927/

They'll never surrender, never give up.

The usual bizarre justifications.

They were hurting long before Apple came along with iBooks, and they conspired to disrupt Amazon's pricing model. We know that because the publishers admitted it. Everyone knows that, because the publishers admitted it. So it's undisputed that Apple did not lead the conspiracy, yet that is precisely what it was accused of, and precisely what it has now been ruled as having done.

I can say with certainty it is not undisputed. SCOTUS for one disputes it. That was the point of the ruling that they explicitly mention and whine about.

The fact that publishers themselves were whining before Apple does not actually have any bearing whatsoever on who lead the conspiracy. But it sure sounds good!

Apple is also accused of acting to lock out other companies, and that's also unsupportable. Apple's actions made iBooks more expensive than Amazon, so it cannot lock out other companies by aggressive pricing. Amazon, on the other hand was selling books at below cost, therefore below a price that smaller companies could match.

Have the words "agency model" completely escaped them? I really don't think they have the right to own a website which posts news articles if they haven't heard of "agency".

They also don't seem to have grasped the very solid point that it is indeed undisputed (by opinions that can be respected as more qualified than that of a small child) that Amazon did NOT lose money on ebooks and the "selling books at below cost" was only to the same extent as any other loss-leader which is made up by the advertising.

But no, here we are again with the "Amazon sold books at a loss just to drive other ebooksellers out of business" shtick. How depressingly boring -- do people actually still go for that???

[dickloraine]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Actually not, at least not for the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court only hears a small percentage of the cases that they are asked to review, on a yearly basis, they hear between 100-150 out of the some 7,000+ cases that they are asked to hear.

This link gives some the criteria that the Supreme Court uses.

http://litigation.findlaw.com/legal-...ar-a-case.html

When you read some of the interviews of the various Supreme Court justices and they talk about what cases they hear or don't hear, they never talk about whither or not the case has any chance. They talk about is the case important, or is there a disagreement between two different circuits, is it of particular to one judge or another or does it fly in the face of another Supreme Court decision (it's going to be very interesting to see what happens with Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin)

Okay, but since the appeal based on saying that the judgment disregarded a previous ruling of the supreme court, that would be a strong reason to hear it. Not hearing it basically means, they don't think it contradicts the previous ruling.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by dickloraine

Okay, but since the appeal based on saying that the judgment disregarded a previous ruling of the supreme court, that would be a strong reason to hear it. Not hearing it basically means, they don't think it contradicts the previous ruling.

Exactly.

Shari

[Sydney's Mom]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I think that it's likely that if a majority of judges wanted to make the statement that you claim, then they would have heard the case and voted that way. Not hearing the case makes no statement at all.

I hope they have better things to do.

[Sydney's Mom]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Here's the view from Apple land:

http://www.macnn.com/articles/16/03/....right.132927/

They'll never surrender, never give up.

I can't believe people are still arguing this!!!

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by Sydney's Mom

I can't believe people are still arguing this!!!

Some people would argue with a fence post.

[alanHd]

Wow, there is brand loyalty and then there's BRAND LOYALTY. Has anyone checked iPhones and macs for subliminal messages.

They have been found guilty, the quote "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence" comes to mind.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Sydney's Mom

I can't believe people are still arguing this!!!

They'll still be arguing when the asteroid blows up the planet.

First the DOJ was in Amazon's pocket, then the judge was biased, the Appeals court ignored their argument, now the Supreme Court was one judge shy.
Next they'll say Bezos had Scalia killed.

It's a strange world they live in that they take it so personal.

[murg]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Next they'll say Bezos had Scalia killed.

Shhhhhhh......

[DiapDealer]

"Why yes, Sally, you're correct. The land-locked country of Cupertino WAS once a part of the United States many, many years ago."

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

Some people would argue with a fence post.

and lose. . .

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

They'll still be arguing when the asteroid blows up the planet.

First the DOJ was in Amazon's pocket, then the judge was biased, the Appeals court ignored their argument, now the Supreme Court was one judge shy.
Next they'll say Bezos had Scalia killed.

It's a strange world they live in that they take it so personal.

Jobs Saves!

[darryl]

This quote from Judge Debra Ann Livingston appeared on the Passive Voice Blog. It is from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals decision and to me very neatly sums up the whole situation:

Competition is not served by permitting a market entrant to eliminate price competition as a condition of entry, and it is cold comfort to consumers that they gained a new e-book retailer at the expense of passing control over all e-book prices to a cartel of book publishers.

I think most of us could see that the Emperor was in fact naked. However, it has become quite obvious that some remain so deluded even now that they still insist that they saw the fine set of elegant clothing which remain forever beyond the senses of the rest of us course ordinary beings.