Apple gripes about antitrust monitoring

[Robotech_Master]

Actual text of the stay is here:

http://ia601206.us.archive.org/6/ite...4628.440.0.pdf

I wouldn't read too much into this. All it means is the appellate judge thinks it would do less harm if he granted the stay and turned out to be wrong than if he didn't grant the stay and turned out to be wrong. I'd expect it to take no more than a week or so for it to get around to hearing the case, given that it wants the DoJ's response in by the end of Friday.

[FizzyWater]

Originally Posted by John F

"Apple gets reprieve from e-book monitor's oversight"

http://news.yahoo.com/apple-gets-tem...--finance.html

This is an offside comment on something from the linked article:

Apple has complained that Bromwich has been too intrusive, including by seeking interviews with top executives and board members, and has been charging an inflated $1,100 per hour for his services to rack up high fees. The Cupertino, California-based maker of the iPad, iPod and iPhone has said Bromwich's activities could interfere with its ability to develop new products.

I don't get the correlation between the monitor's oversight and the bolded sentence.

I work in a big company with layers and layers of management. Having someone come in and interviewing the bigwigs would hardly interfere with our ability to "create new products". That innovation happens in the trenches and slowly makes it way up the food chain.

I make this comment completely outside of the discussion on whether or not Apple was unfairly judged. It's just a odd statement, IMO, and that kind of exaggeration tends to make me more cynical about anything else Apple says. I hope it was a misquote by the reporter, rather than something Apple is actually trying to claim to be true.

[Fluribus]

Originally Posted by FizzyWater

I work in a big company with layers and layers of management. Having someone come in and interviewing the bigwigs would hardly interfere with our ability to "create new products". That innovation happens in the trenches and slowly makes it way up the food chain.

Unlike other companies, Apple creates products entirely from pixie dust. If anyone is allowed to look behind the curtain, the magic will vanish in an instant.

[bgalbrecht]

Originally Posted by FizzyWater

I don't get the correlation between the monitor's oversight and the bolded sentence.

...

I make this comment completely outside of the discussion on whether or not Apple was unfairly judged. It's just a odd statement, IMO, and that kind of exaggeration tends to make me more cynical about anything else Apple says. I hope it was a misquote by the reporter, rather than something Apple is actually trying to claim to be true.

I suspect that it is mild hyperbole, but when IBM and Microsoft were in the middle of their antitrust lawsuits, it restricted some of their planned marketing and development for fear that the DOJ would ask the court to shut them down.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by BuddyBoy

Truthfully, I don't think many people purchase their ebooks from Apple, even folks firmly entrench in the Apple ecosystem. "Fanboi" usually has more to do with someone's presupposed bias and apparent wilfull disregard of fairly obvious facts that put the object of their affection in a negative light.

I'm a heavy Apple user, and have been since the early 1980s. But I'm no fanboi, being quite open with my criticism. My delight in their products has often been tempered with my anger at their arrogant, paternalistic policies, and their spoiled-brat, entitled behaviour.

Can I ask you, pwalker, though you have indicated you purchase no books through Apple, given the level of your engagement on this issue, do you by chance have any pecuniary interest in Apple? Are you an employee, contractor, sub-contractor, shareholder, etc? If not, are you, like me, well entrenched in the Apple ecosystem, with one or more apple products?

Nope, I have never worked for or with Apple in any way shape or for, nor do I have any financial interest. I would not say that I have a particular entrenchment in any ecosystem, per se. My first computer out of college was an Apple IIe, then I switched to a PC when the Apple II line was abandoned. I switched to a mac about five or six years ago when Microsoft went with the activation model, and I found myself having to argue with some guy on the phone every time I had to re-install Windows (a regular occurrence) and Microsoft assumed I must be some sort of pirate. I use Windows 7 at work. I didn't buy an iPhone until a few years ago, before I had a Motorola droid. I had a Sony PRS-505, Kindle and Kindle fire before I bought my first iPad and use my iPad mostly as an ebook reader. I make it a policy not to get too entrenched with any company.

My interest in the case has a lot more to do with what I perceive as an increasing tendency of prosecutor over reach, i.e. prosecutors going after various big name companies and people on questionable charges in an effort to count coup in the press in order to increase their political possibilities. A lot of prosecutors view that office as a spring board to bigger and better political offices, on both sides of the aisle.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Robotech_Master

Actual text of the stay is here:

http://ia601206.us.archive.org/6/ite...4628.440.0.pdf

I wouldn't read too much into this. All it means is the appellate judge thinks it would do less harm if he granted the stay and turned out to be wrong than if he didn't grant the stay and turned out to be wrong. I'd expect it to take no more than a week or so for it to get around to hearing the case, given that it wants the DoJ's response in by the end of Friday.

I would be absolutely shocked if things moved that fast. The court system simply doesn't move in terms of days.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by Fluribus

Unlike other companies, Apple creates products entirely from pixie dust. If anyone is allowed to look behind the curtain, the magic will vanish in an instant.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by FizzyWater

This is an offside comment on something from the linked article:



I don't get the correlation between the monitor's oversight and the bolded sentence.

I work in a big company with layers and layers of management. Having someone come in and interviewing the bigwigs would hardly interfere with our ability to "create new products". That innovation happens in the trenches and slowly makes it way up the food chain.

I make this comment completely outside of the discussion on whether or not Apple was unfairly judged. It's just a odd statement, IMO, and that kind of exaggeration tends to make me more cynical about anything else Apple says. I hope it was a misquote by the reporter, rather than something Apple is actually trying to claim to be true.

I think that was triggered by Bronwich's insistence at interviewing Jonathan Ive, who has nothing to do with ebooks, but has everything to do with product design at Apple. He's Apple's lead designer and has his hands in pretty much every major physical product that Apple does. He is also apparently a very private person and like many "talents" doesn't play well with the suits.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by Fluribus

Unlike other companies, Apple creates products entirely from pixie dust. If anyone is allowed to look behind the curtain, the magic will vanish in an instant.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I think that was triggered by Bronwich's insistence at interviewing Jonathan Ive, who has nothing to do with ebooks, but has everything to do with product design at Apple. He's Apple's lead designer and has his hands in pretty much every major physical product that Apple does. He is also apparently a very private person and like many "talents" doesn't play well with the suits.

So what!? One interview with him isn't going to kill innovation. Is innovation killed when he's sound asleep every night? Surely he can spare an hour or two.

[jgaiser]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

So what!? One interview with him isn't going to kill innovation. Is innovation killed when he's sound asleep every night? Surely he can spare an hour or two.

Ah, but... He's a Special Snowflake and any interruptions of his creative process will result in all that innovation pouring out of his ears onto the floor, lost forever more.

[Robotech_Master]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I think that was triggered by Bronwich's insistence at interviewing Jonathan Ive, who has nothing to do with ebooks, but has everything to do with product design at Apple. He's Apple's lead designer and has his hands in pretty much every major physical product that Apple does. He is also apparently a very private person and like many "talents" doesn't play well with the suits.

He was the person who designed (helped design?) the iPad, which is what prompted Jobs and Cue to launch their e-book store, which is what brought about agency pricing.

Bromwich wants to interview all the executives and all the members of the board. And why shouldn't he?

These are the people who, along with the late Jobs, were responsible for Apple's egregious violations. They okayed everything Apple did. They're the ones who set the tone for the entire company. Bromwich needs to get a feel for what their understanding of the affair is and how they are affecting the rest of the company in order to be able to tell whether the antitrust measures Apple is going to put in place can be effective. And for them not to be able to set aside one hour out of their day, with plenty of advance warning, to meet with the man is ridiculous. I'll bet they spend longer than that eating lunch every day.

(Note that, per page 13 of the final injunction order which both the DoJ and Apple crafted together and signed off on, Bromwich specifically has the power to speak to any Apple personnel (yes, including Jony Ives and frickin' Al Gore), without Apple interference, in the performance of his duties. Apple sure didn't complain that Bromwich might want to talk to its execs and board members while they were agreeing that he should be able to. Odd that they should suddenly object once he actually tries to start doing his job, isn't it?)

[bgalbrecht]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

My interest in the case has a lot more to do with what I perceive as an increasing tendency of prosecutor over reach, i.e. prosecutors going after various big name companies and people on questionable charges in an effort to count coup in the press in order to increase their political possibilities. A lot of prosecutors view that office as a spring board to bigger and better political offices, on both sides of the aisle.

I hardly think Cote or Bromwich are looking to use this as a spring board to bigger and better political offices.

[Robotech_Master]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

My interest in the case has a lot more to do with what I perceive as an increasing tendency of prosecutor over reach, i.e. prosecutors going after various big name companies and people on questionable charges in an effort to count coup in the press in order to increase their political possibilities. A lot of prosecutors view that office as a spring board to bigger and better political offices, on both sides of the aisle.

Speaking as a consumer of e-books, I'd hardly say causing the price of those e-books to jump by 50% and eliminating retailers' ability to hold sales is "questionable." I used to buy a lot of books through Fictionwise's "Buywise" discount program. Then agency pricing killed it. Then B&N killed Fictionwise.

The publishers settled and got off with slaps on the wrist. Fine. Apple wants to slug it out in court? Let 'em take their lumps. "Questionable charges" or not, legal experts tend to agree Apple's chances on appeal are shaky.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by bgalbrecht

I suspect that it is mild hyperbole, but when IBM and Microsoft were in the middle of their antitrust lawsuits, it restricted some of their planned marketing and development for fear that the DOJ would ask the court to shut them down.

In this case wouldn't speeding the judicial process be beneficial?