DOJ publishes terms for settlement in Apple antitrust case

[Barcey]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

The overlapping contract performance windows are already in place as part of the publishers' settlement terms. They are not a new, relaxed proposal, but rather what is in place for the publishers.

I agree that since the publishers settled at separate times the terms all expire at different times. What the DoJ was proposing though was a 5 year term for Apple which although longer then the existing publisher settlement would have provided the opportunity for the publishers to do the same thing again. "We didn't collude, we all separately negotiated the same terms at the same time." I believe that what Judge Cote is suggesting is better then the DoJ proposal.

On the other point in regards to the external monitor, I hope what she was doing was sending a message to Apple. Stop the posturing, demonstrate you are taking this seriously and understand that you broke the law and I'll stay out of the app store and won't impose a 3rd party monitor in your business. Continue the posturing and you leave me no choice.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Barcey

On the other point in regards to the external monitor, I hope what she was doing was sending a message to Apple. Stop the posturing, demonstrate you are taking this seriously and understand that you broke the law and I'll stay out of the app store and won't impose a 3rd party monitor in your business. Continue the posturing and you leave me no choice.

Not sure that kind of subtlety will get through, though.

The judge is also making it part of the legal paper trail that she took Apple's concerns under consideration and looked at options other than the DOJ proposal in crafting *her* solution. She is a veteran of the bench and, as the trial ruling shows, she knows how to prepare appeal-proof rulings.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Not sure that kind of subtlety will get through, though.

The judge is also making it part of the legal paper trail that she took Apple's concerns under consideration and looked at options other than the DOJ proposal in crafting *her* solution. She is a veteran of the bench and, as the trial ruling shows, she knows how to prepare appeal-proof rulings.

Perhaps, however she has been overturned by the 2nd Circuit Court a number of times, including last year( US vs Aleynikov), when she has bought into various novel legal theories by government prosecutors. We will see what happens this time.

[fjtorres]

From Publishers Weekly:
http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/b...njunction.html

On the question of the DoJ’s proposed injunctive relief, Judge Cote deferred, and asked the parties to confer and see if they could come closer to agreement. But in a long preamble, she cited four lines of thinking, which included citing numerous cases that give the court wide latitude to fashion a strong injunction, as well as her own takeaways from the case—including her belief that the parties were “unrepentant” and that the publishers wanted higher e-book prices, and that they would likely to go back to price-fixing in the e-book market.

Cote said she was going to issue an injunction—but in a ray of hope for the defendants, she said she understood that the technology was moving fast and that no one could predict the future. As such, she said she did not want to fashion a lengthy injunction that could inhibit innovation. The judge also said she had no desire to regulate the App Store, but noted that Apple’s claim that the app store was not involved in Apple’s anticompetitive behavior was not true. She stressed the need to ensure that the app store could not be used as “an end run” around any injunction pertaining to the iBookstore.

[rdfry]

The only just punishment is to force Apple into chapter 7

[elcreative]

Originally Posted by rdfry

The only just punishment is to force Apple into chapter 7

Grow up...

[rdfry]

Originally Posted by elcreative

Grow up...

Why should I and why should you care.

[elcreative]

Originally Posted by rdfry

Why should I and why should you care.

Firstly I don't care, it was your well-being I thought of... secondly this has (on the whole ) been a serious discussion of the DoJ vs Apple settlement... thirdly Chapter 7 has absolutely no relevance to the thread - it's for bankruptcy and allocating assets for debts whereas Apple has more cash than your average Third World country...

[mrscoach]

I'm not so sure Apple doesn't have more cash than some First World countries. I'm pretty sure they have more than the USA.

[elcreative]

Originally Posted by mrscoach

I'm not so sure Apple doesn't have more cash than some First World countries. I'm pretty sure they have more than the USA.

I was just being conservative in my estimate... and I didn't want to upset any members of 1st World countries...

[pwalker8]

I was googling to try to see what the latest is on when consumers can start to see anything back from the publisher's settlements (end of this month is the rumor, but nothing official yet), and ran across an article on CNN from a few days ago talking about Judge Cote (rather negative article. It's easy to find if you are interested). In the article, they included a link to a judicial review site which rates various judges. Judge Cotes page is rather interesting. Here is the link.

http://www.therobingroom.com/Judge.a...=1403#comments

For those interested, take a look and scroll down through the comments. It's rather interesting. There are a number of reviews that complain that she tends to pre-judge cases before seeing the evidence. One comment references to her deciding who is the good guy and who is the bad guy and acting accordingly during the trial. There are numerous comments like this going back to 2009. It's not all negative. She gets high marks for preparation and attention to details. But all in all, I find it interesting that the same complaints that observers made about her in the Apple case have been made about her for a number of years. Doesn't mean she will be overturned, but it does give a bit of validity towards the complaints about her.

[tubemonkey]

The only thing that really matters is that Apple lost

[AnemicOak]

Citing Steve Jobs email, DOJ claims Apple changed in-app purchase to retaliate against Amazon

The DOJ on Friday filed a revised proposed remedy for Apple in the ebook case, following a hearing earlier this month with a judge and counsel for Apple. The proposal relates to a judge’s decision in July that Apple had conspired with publishers to set ebook prices. (Apple has vowed to appeal.)

The new proposed punishment (embedded below) might not seem all that different from the original proposed punishment, in which the DOJ wanted Apple to drop in-app purchasing restrictions for competitors like Amazon and aimed to restrict publishers from using agency pricing for five years instead of two. But it devotes more attention to Apple’s policies for in-app purchases and to the way that Apple sells content in general.

[pwalker8]

Cotes got overturned today in her earlier decision from the Apple vs Samsung case.

The DOJ totally ignored the distinction that Apple draws between physical objects and electronic content. That's why one can buy stuff via the Amazon app on the iPhone/iPad with no problem.