Apple gripes about antitrust monitoring

[pwalker8]

What, you object to having someone else to shout down? Believe it or not, stating facts as the poster remembers them does not make one an Apple apologist.

In general, people who know analyze legal cases for a living like to be paid for their work, thus they tend to be behind paywalls. Not everything in the world worth having is available for free,

[bgalbrecht]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

What, you object to having someone else to shout down? Believe it or not, stating facts as the poster remembers them does not make one an Apple apologist.

In general, people who know analyze legal cases for a living like to be paid for their work, thus they tend to be behind paywalls. Not everything in the world worth having is available for free,

Maybe so, but if you want to make your point here by claiming they support your position, you should make use of your fair use rights and quote a sentence or paragraph or two (unless the whole discussion was just a sentence or paragraph, of course).

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Curious as to whether or not entities such as The Wall Street Journal, or Forbes, or Fortune have ever (or will ever) speak out in favor of the DOJ in matters of antitrust? It hardly seems likely to me.

It's a matter of economic theory and philosophy. In general, the free market economic theory holds that over time the only way a monopoly can survive is with the aid of the government. Thus, anti-trust isn't really needed as long as the government stays out of the picture.

To take the example of the ebook case. If the major publishers get together and set a price for ebooks, then over time, consumers will buy from cheaper authors and publishing companies. The big 5 can not enforce a price point one other entities. The same goes for agency pricing. The big 5 can insist on agency pricing, but if other publishers and independent authors are willing to allow the ebook store to set the price, then customers will tend to buy more of the cheaper books over time. In both cases, there is no need for anti-trust acts since any attempt to fix prices, or control supplies tends to fail over time.

[pwalker8]

In general, reposting paid for content can be a dicey thing, especially if it's from a lawyers' web site. Yes, there is fair use, but that doesn't mean that moblileread isn't going to get a nasty letter from their lawyers. I posted the link. Anyone who is sincerely interesting can sign up for the 10 day free trial.

[jgaiser]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

What, you object to having someone else to shout down? Believe it or not, stating facts as the poster remembers them does not make one an Apple apologist.

In general, people who know analyze legal cases for a living like to be paid for their work, thus they tend to be behind paywalls. Not everything in the world worth having is available for free,

I swore I was done with you, but one more time...

Linking to Apple friendly pay-walled business sites doesn't mean they aren't providing more excuses for Apple's refusal to follow the rules of the court order.

You've been asked numerous times to provide quotes from these pay-walled sites and as yet haven't provided them. That alone says quite a bit.

I'm curious what your excuses will be when Apple's appeal finally fails. So far they're batting 0 and I expect that trend will continue.

[bgalbrecht]

Originally Posted by jgaiser

I'm curious what your excuses will be when Apple's appeal finally fails. So far they're batting 0 and I expect that trend will continue.

Don't hold your breath. Assuming Apple loses the appeal later this year (which I think is likely), they will be appealing to the Supreme Court, and it won't be over before 2016 at the earliest.

[pwalker8]

And linking to some dude's blog that says "yo, dude, Apple gets smacked down, Friggin' awesome, man!" doesn't exactly prove that the ruling was a smack down either. I posted to wall street journal link simply to show that there were actually other view, something that some might not realize if they simply stayed inside the "I hate Apple" echo chamber.

As I pointed out in that post, it's hardly a shock that the WSJ would take the stance that they have. It's been their consistent stance all along. If you read the WSJ, it's not so much that they are pro-Apple, that they dislike government intervention in private business. Sometime it helps to understand a source's history and where they are coming from when you are trying to judge how much weight to give their opinion.

I've already said that anyone who says they know how this is going to turn out doesn't know what they are talking about. Apple's appeal could very well fail. Since they haven't made their formal arguments and we don't know yet, what the appeal will be based on, it's very hard to to say. I personally think that Cote overstepped her bounds and failed to give adequate deference to the Supreme Court, but that opinion and $5 will buy you a cup of coffee at Starbucks. This will go on for quite some time. I fully expect it to go to the Supreme Court no matter which way the 2nd Appeals court rules unless something changes dramatically.

[Shane R]

It's easy to forget that Judge Cote gave the government less of a remedy than they asked for in the first place. Perhaps she was hoping it would be a quiet two years and then the issue would go away.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Shane R

What Judge Cote wrote in her judgement against Apple and what she instructed the monitor to do were at odds. The appeals court has instructed her and the monitor to stick to what her original judgement was.

It also appears that Apple had no objection to the antitrust monitor being in her original judgement, as it excepted it from appeal:





http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.co...ple-antitrust/

You forgot this part from the article:

She stressed that the companies' highest officials and lawyers had participated in the conspiracy, and expressed her belief in her written ruling that at least three Apple officials had lied in their testimony before her.

How was it unexpected that the monitor would ask to interview the highest officials? The result of the appeal makes it clear that this is what the monitor was supposed to do.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

It's a matter of economic theory and philosophy. In general, the free market economic theory holds that over time the only way a monopoly can survive is with the aid of the government. Thus, anti-trust isn't really needed as long as the government stays out of the picture.

To take the example of the ebook case. If the major publishers get together and set a price for ebooks, then over time, consumers will buy from cheaper authors and publishing companies. The big 5 can not enforce a price point one other entities. The same goes for agency pricing. The big 5 can insist on agency pricing, but if other publishers and independent authors are willing to allow the ebook store to set the price, then customers will tend to buy more of the cheaper books over time. In both cases, there is no need for anti-trust acts since any attempt to fix prices, or control supplies tends to fail over time.

That's all well and good, but I find it hard to rationalize all that in a landscape where anti-trust regulations and government intervention are a reality. I also find it hard to put much stock in the opinions and interpretations (concerning the specifics about the rulings of this and other anti-trust cases) of those who openly admit to seeing no need for anti-trust regulation in the first place. It's the ultimate bias: "Apple is innocent because we believe anti-trust regulation (and government intervention in general) sucks."

It's not a totally unworthy sentiment. It just doesn't have any bearing on this case. Now.

[Shane R]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

the result of the appeal makes it clear that this is what the monitor was supposed to do.

Apple is supposed to put good training in place, the monitor is supposed to make sure good training is in place.

I am giving the monitor a somewhat different function than that proposed by the plaintiffs. The monitor will not be charged with assessing Apple’s compliance generally with the terms of the final judgment. This could be a very expensive and intrusive undertaking. The monitor, however will have two other important tasks . . . .The monitor will evaluate Apple’s internal antitrust compliance policies . . . [and] will evaluate Apple’s antitrust training program.

Under the terms of the Injunction, the Monitor has two main tasks. Reviewing and producing recommendations and reports about: 1) Apple’s antitrust compliance policies and procedures; and 2) Apple’s antitrust training program. The Injunction provided that the Monitor would submit a written report to Apple, the plaintiffs, and the Court 180 days after the Monitor’s appointment assessing Apple’s antitrust compliance policies, procedures and training.

http://sdnyblog.com/wp-content/uploa...st-Monitor.pdf

[PatNY]

I find it very amusing that those trying to defend Apple refuse to back up questionable assertions with quotes from the principal players or documents involved ... and instead can only rely on parroting the opinions of some in the media whose objectivity is very much in doubt. As such, there should be no surprise if such assertions are only met with pure skepticism.

In case this has not yet been noted in this thread, The Wall Street Journal is the sister company of HarperCollins, one of the publisher defendants who conspired with Apple. The two companies are both owned by the News Corporation, who has been closely and directly linked to the shenanigans of the defendants. Steve Jobs once sent an email to James Murdoch of the News Corporation pleading for him to get HarperCollinns to “Throw in with Apple and see if we can all make a go of this to create a real mainstream e-books market at $12.99 and $14.99.” This is as about as “horizontal” as it can get when it comes to price fixing, and solid evidence such as this is why I think Cote’s judgment will in all likelihood stand unscathed. It’s hilarious reading quotes like this in light of Apple’s continued insistence that they did noting wrong. But back to the WSJ -- Given their relationship to some entities in the case, one can't really expect them to be objective at all.

As for the ruling by the appeals panel, anyone on a blog can claim whatever they want about what it means. But the fact is, the appeals panel did not add anything to the mix that wasn’t already outlined in Cote’s original ruling of September 5, 2013.

The primary thing Apple wanted out of the hearing was a continuance of the injunction that halted the monitor from doing his duties at least until the full hearing before the appeals court. They didn't get this and lost, plain and simple. They know it too, which is why there has not been one peep out of Cupertino regarding the decision since it came down. They've been as silent as a mouse!

--Pat

[jgaiser]

Originally Posted by bgalbrecht

Don't hold your breath. Assuming Apple loses the appeal later this year (which I think is likely), they will be appealing to the Supreme Court, and it won't be over before 2016 at the earliest.

Well.. Unless the Supreme Court declines to review the appeal. I know this is a pretty conservative court, but they've also managed some pretty reasonable decisions.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

It's a matter of economic theory and philosophy. In general, the free market economic theory holds that over time the only way a monopoly can survive is with the aid of the government. Thus, anti-trust isn't really needed as long as the government stays out of the picture.

To take the example of the ebook case. If the major publishers get together and set a price for ebooks, then over time, consumers will buy from cheaper authors and publishing companies. The big 5 can not enforce a price point one other entities. The same goes for agency pricing. The big 5 can insist on agency pricing, but if other publishers and independent authors are willing to allow the ebook store to set the price, then customers will tend to buy more of the cheaper books over time. In both cases, there is no need for anti-trust acts since any attempt to fix prices, or control supplies tends to fail over time.

In practice, government never stays out of the picture, as part of the excess profits (the purpose of a monopoly is to set prices at the maximum profit point, which cannot be reached in a truly competitive marketplace) is used to purchase favorable practices from government. It is immaterial whether it is a bribe, campaign contributions, or business to a company that the government member(s) have ties to.

You could even argue that patent, trademark, and copyright are government involvement in creating a monopoly, and should be abolished by free market economic theory...

[Shane R]

Originally Posted by jgaiser

Well.. Unless the Supreme Court declines to review the appeal. I know this is a pretty conservative court, but they've also managed some pretty reasonable decisions.

I think it's likely they lose and the monitor stays two years. They'll pay a hefty fine too.

I think it will be as effective as the MS antitrust case in the long run.