Apple gripes about antitrust monitoring

[murg]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Then why aren't OPEC executives arrested?

In the first place, OPEC is not a US based organisation, so US law doesn't apply to it.

Hmmm ... now that I think about, a second place is not necessary...

[Apache]

Originally Posted by murg

In the first place, OPEC is not a US based organisation, so US law doesn't apply to it.

Hmmm ... now that I think about, a second place is not necessary...

The same with the diamond cartel De Beers.
Apache

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Apache

The same with the diamond cartel De Beers.
Apache

Actually, it doesn't matter is they are based outside the US, it's more how much presence they have in the US. That why the EU does anti-trust cases against Apple, Amazon and Google.

[PatNY]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

It hardly shows that. The context that is missing is that price points was the price structure that the music industry had negotiated with Apple in iTunes. Apple wanted all music to be 99 cents, the music industry wanted multiple price points so they could charge more for the more popular music. Jobs was simply offering a similar price structure to the book industry.

In business, companies negotiate with other companies. Saying that you want to start selling ebooks and starting the negotiation isn't proof that you recruited and organized a conspiracy.

The language in that Jobs quote is direct evidence of Apple’s attempt to recruit one of the publishers into the plan. It’s clear that you think this plan was just a bilateral business agreement between 2 companies. But Cote, the DOJ, two appeals court judges -- and the majority of the people in this thread -- all believe that Jobs was recruiting Murdoch into the illegal horizontal price fixing scheme. There are lots of clues. Take the email itself. Had it just been Jobs and HarperColins, he likely would have said “throw in with Apple and see if we can make a go of this.” Instead Jobs said “throw in with Apple and see if we can all make a go of this” meaning more than just the two of them. But then, most importantly, there are the mountains of other evidence – other emails, phone calls, meetings, testimony -- and the timing of it all, which when viewed together, all paint a picture of collusion among all parties involved to fix prices.

ITunes/music pricing is totally irrelevant to this discussion. This is about ebooks, not music.

The fact that the contract ended up going in a totally different direction is pretty solid evidence that Apple wasn't the recruiter and organizer of a conspiracy, otherwise Apple would be selling ebooks like they do music, at various price points.

This makes no sense. First, the agreements Apple struck with the publishers were totally consistent with the aims of the conspiracy – to raise ebook prices to around 12.99 to 14.99 and to assure Apple a higher profit on ebook sales than would have been possible under the previously established system. Second, just because an alternative agreement may have been even more favorable for a participant doesn’t absolve them in any way from the act of planning or participating in an illegal act. Why would you think Apple could have just dictated terms to all the other members of the conspiracy anyway?

--Pat

[PatNY]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Conspiracy - company goes to the entire group and says, "let's all agree on a contract together". That's not what happened.

This is more or less what happened. It wasn’t necessary to meet with all the publishers at once. Apple (and especially Cue) acted as the go-between or the point person for the entire group.

not conspiracy - company negotiates with each company separately. That is what happened.

Yes, this is what happened. Unfortunately for Apple, the first scenario also happened, which is why they got into so much hot water.


--Pat

[PatNY]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Fairly interesting that Lohier simply found that Apple was per se guilty and disagreed with Livingston on the rest.

There's nothing of much significance here. Lohier agreed with Livingston and Cote on the only thing that really matters -- that Apple was per se guilty of conspiracy. And he never said Apple would be innocent if ROR had been used. He merely seemed to say their arguments in this area had some merit, while also making it clear that,regardless, corporate bullying is never the answer.

--Pat

[PatNY]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

If you sell someone a car that is later used as a get away car, that does not automatically make you an accessory to a crime.

However, if you helped plan the heist in the first place, and then later sold the robber the car that you knew beforehand was going to be used as a getaway car, you are guilty as hell. This is basically what happened in this case.

Your examples are interesting but not exactly analogous. They always seem to be missing a critical element.

--Pat

[murg]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Actually, it doesn't matter is they are based outside the US, it's more how much presence they have in the US. That why the EU does anti-trust cases against Apple, Amazon and Google.

OPEC is a coalition of governments. U.S. anti-trust laws don't apply to governments. And the US government has gone to war(s) to protect said governments ability to participate in OPEC.

Apple, Amazon and Google all run significant European operations.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by murg

OPEC is a coalition of governments. U.S. anti-trust laws don't apply to governments. And the US government has gone to war(s) to protect said governments ability to participate in OPEC.

Apple, Amazon and Google all run significant European operations.

Did you actually read what you quoted? Because you said the same thing that I did.

[Shane R]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Naughty Apple - guilty as sin

...and yet, unbowed, fundamentally unchanged, and in all likelihood unrepentant.

Just a waste of everyone's time and money.