Apple appeals to Supreme Court

[AnemicOak]

Apple has officially appealed to the US Supreme Court...

Apple Asks US Supreme Court to Overturn eBook Antitrust Decision

Apple asked the high court on Wednesday to review a June ruling that favored the U.S. Department of Justice, and found the company liable for engaging in a conspiracy that violated federal antitrust laws.

Apple in its petition said the June decision by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York contradicted Supreme Court precedent and would "chill innovation and risktaking."

"The Second Circuit's decision will harm competition and the national economy," Apple wrote.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by AnemicOak

Apple has officially appealed to the US Supreme Court...

Apple Asks US Supreme Court to Overturn eBook Antitrust Decision

That article is a little bit biased against Apple, unless I am reading this part wrong:

Apple could well be right, but even if it wins the most likely outcome is that Judge Cote will pen a 40-page ruling explaining in detail how Apple's conduct was illegal under the rule of reason.

Should that happen we will likely be in for another two years of appeals.

And I don't quite understand how that would work. Supreme Court means last ditch effort to get a decision overturned. If Apple wins they go free, if they lose they lose. How can there possibly be another round of appeals?

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

That article is a little bit biased against Apple, unless I am reading this part wrong:

And I don't quite understand how that would work. Supreme Court means last ditch effort to get a decision overturned. If Apple wins they go free, if they lose they lose. How can there possibly be another round of appeals?

Normally what happens is that even if the Supreme Court rules for the defendant, they remand the case back to the original judge with instructions to reconsider the case. Most of the time, the judge will simply dismiss the case, but sometimes the judge will do exactly as the the writer suggest. There is currently a case in front of the Supreme Court where the judge did exactly that (Fisher verse University of Texas). The case originally went to the Supreme Court in 2013 and the court found for Fisher, remanding the case back. The judge in question re-wrote the finding and found against Fisher again.

[tomsem]

Just because Apple has filed, it does not mean the SC has to take the case. Apparently that is the statistically likely outcome here.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by tomsem

Just because Apple has filed, it does not mean the SC has to take the case. Apparently that is the statistically likely outcome here.

Quite true, most cases are turned down. For the Court to grant certiorari (i.e. agrees to hear the case) normally it requires at least four of the justices to favor hearing it. That's not a hard rule, but rather normal practice. I would be rather surprised if the court does not agree to hear it though. It's a major case and one that challenges an earlier ruling by the SC.


https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/certiorari

[leebase]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

And if the Supreme Court rules in favor of the Cote Decision, will you finally admit that Apple broke the law?

Will you agree that Apple didn't if the SC rules the other way? Yeah, that's what I thought. Nobody's opinion is going to be changed by court rulings.

The funny thing is that there are no innocent babes here. Amazon is a monopolist that abuses their position whenever they can. The big publishers form a cabal rather than a monopoly but a use their position whenever they can.

Apple is a control freak and is making an obscene amount of profits. They have made an insanely popular platform which they totally control.

Hold your nose and pick your side.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by leebase

Will you agree that Apple didn't if the SC rules the other way? Yeah, that's what I thought. Nobody's opinion is going to be changed by court rulings.

The funny thing is that there are no innocent babes here. Amazon is a monopolist that abuses their position whenever they can. The big publishers form a cabal rather than a monopoly but a use their position whenever they can.

Apple is a control freak and is making an obscene amount of profits. They have made an insanely popular platform which they totally control.

Hold your nose and pick your side.

A Pox on both their Houses?

[AnemicOak]

In Amicus Brief, Authors Guild, ABA, B&N Back Apple

In an amicus brief filed on December 2, a coalition of authors groups and booksellers urged the Supreme Court to overturn a lower court decision finding Apple liable for its role in a 2010 conspiracy to fix e-book prices. In the 37-page filing, the Authors Guild, Authors United (the group organized by Douglas Preston in 2014), the American Booksellers Association, and Barnes & Noble, argue that Apple’s entry into the market in fact benefited consumers.

“Absent correction,” the brief states, the lower court decisions against Apple “threaten to undermine the very objective of antitrust law—to ensure robust competition.”

http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/b...ack-apple.html

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by AnemicOak

In Amicus Brief, Authors Guild, ABA, B&N Back Apple

http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/b...ack-apple.html

OMFG!
Let's all Get AMAZON!!!

Is this what you call legal collusion?

[tomsem]

I take it that SCOTUS has not rendered a decision on whether or not to take up the case. Maybe these third parties are getting worried that they will not (rightly so IMO, I don't think they will take it up).

At what point will we learn one way or the other? It seems they compile and circulate 'discuss lists', and this is used somehow to decide which things to hear, but my admittedly superficial research has not determined how this plays out. Is there some time limit after which things die by default?

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by tomsem

Is there some time limit after which things die by default?

Yes. Each case that goes to SCOTUS goes through a bunch of desk-monkeys that consider if a case is even worthy enough to include in the weekly (?) meetings the judges have to discuss each case that is worthy. If it doesn't make it to the meeting, it is already been dismissed (none of the judges sen it). If it goes to the meeting and the judges agree (vote) to hear it, they may hear it unless they change their mind later on. Or they dismiss it in meeting.

[Shane R]

Originally Posted by kennyc

OMFG!
Let's all Get AMAZON!!!

These are pretty weighty legal concepts at play, and simplifying them so robs them of such.

[Phogg]

Originally Posted by Shane R

These are pretty weighty legal concepts at play, and simplifying them so robs them of such.

That's pretty silly.

To come up with a claim that someone else damaged competition in the marketplace, the five Menendez Publishing Orphans had to simplify their appeal and evade the damage they did to Amazon's previously much less less anemic competitors.

Oh Wait, you were perhaps criticizing the zany appeal?

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Phogg

That's pretty silly.

To come up with a claim that someone else damaged competition in the marketplace, the five Menendez Publishing Orphans had to simplify their appeal and evade the damage they did to Amazon's previously much less less anemic competitors.

Oh Wait, you were perhaps criticizing the zany appeal?

I don't think they are in the least bit interested in actual legal issues. It's all "our side good, their side bad".

[DiapDealer]

B&N tagging along makes me giggle.

Amicus curiae ... riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.