5 ms·

Apple to DOJ: Bite me

76 points by matan_a 14y ago

losethos 14y ago
God says... C:\Text\BIBLE.TXT to him, saying, Behold, the words of the prophets declare good to the king with one assent; let thy word therefore, I pray thee, be like one of their's, and speak thou good. 18:13 And Micaiah said, As the LORD liveth, even what my God saith, that will I speak. 18:14 And when he was come to the king, the king said unto him, Micaiah, shall we go to Ramothgilead to battle, or shall I forbear? And he said, Go ye up, and prosper, and they shall be delivered into your hand. 18:15 And the king sa
aresant 14y ago
"[AAPL] cuts the government's case to shreds" Wow, is CNN a news organization or a press release promotion mill? CNN's one-sidedness made me uneasy enough to research the contrarian opinion, this is the best summary I found: http://paidcontent.org/2012/05/14/e-book-class-action-new-details/ http://paidcontent.org/2012/05/14/e-book-class-action-new-de... Effectively the evidence in the govt's case shows that: a) AAPL recognized that they required the collusion of the top 5 publishers to set market pricing, and actively solicited them. b) AAPL suggested pricing to the top 5 publishers. I believe in due process, just pointing out that there is clearly more here than CNN's summary allows.
- ubernostrum 14y ago
  It's a CNN-branded opinion blog covering Apple, not a CNN news report.
  - nhebb 14y ago
    I searched the page for the words blog, opinion, and editorial => zero matches. It does look like an opinion piece, but they should at least label it as such.
    - raganwald 14y ago
      When I saw the words "Bite Me" in the title, it set certain expectations for what was to follow. I would have been surprised had it been anything but an opinion piece.
- fabjan 14y ago
  How is it price fixing when it's in your own store only?
  - arjunnarayan 14y ago
    The "most-favored nation" clause makes it so that it applies to all stores, not just yours.
tar 14y ago
This article is heavily biased and seems to have been published straight from Apple's PR department.
- cwp 14y ago
  So, if there happened to be a really clear-cut, one-sided case out there, how would an unbiased news organization report on it?
  - duaneb 14y ago
    "Apple filed response to DoJ." <Link to response.> Possibly a summary of claims.
    - MartinMond 14y ago
      Sorry, but if the situation is clear cut then a good news source should say exactly that. Just publishing X did Y and alleges Z leads to the current situation where creationists, global warming deniers and so on are given space in news reporting as if these issues were to be decided by personal opinion and not by facts.
      - koeselitz 14y ago
        No, absolutely not. An awful news reporting agency would say "creationists think X, but evolutionists rip them to shreds." That is bad news reportage. Good news reportage would say "creationists say X, evolutionists say Y, the facts that are evident are Z." This is clearly not what CNN have done with this piece. It would be nice if they had. The simple point is that engaging in inflationary and imprecise colloquial language like "totally rips it to shreds" renders the article pretty much useless for communicating clear facts, especially if there is one clear winner. Don't tell me who's right; that is pointless and communicates only opinion. Tell me the facts, and make them as stark and as clear as possible. "Totally rips it to shreds" is not a fact; it's vague cant wrapped up in metaphor. Bad reportage.
        14y ago
unimpressive 14y ago
In theory a news article is finished when all facts have been stated. In practice a news article is finished when all facts have been spun.
idspispopd 14y ago
Get the reply here: http://ia701206.us.archive.org/6/items/gov.uscourts.nysd.394628/gov.uscourts.nysd.394628.54.0.pdf http://ia701206.us.archive.org/6/items/gov.uscourts.nysd.394... The reply is persuasive in sections as to present Apple fostering competition in the eBooks market. (Lots of comparisons to Amazon's dominant position, indeed it does appear that the iBookStore is aimed at disrupting Amazon's stranglehold.) Which is not unusual, since competition would lead to Apple's gain. However what is clear is that Apple do have something to answer for, albeit a far less serious offence rather than Anti-trust/collusion. I suspect this came about so quickly as a result of Amazon lobbyists, rather than a legitimate concern of the government against Apple and the eBook market for the benefit of consumers. I'm of this thinking because the government is typically slow to act and rarely do so preemptive as they have done here. (That and Amazon owning nearly the entire eBook market, stands the most to lose.) Note, lobbying does not imply that Amazon forced the government, rather they could have simply alerted them to the situation. As for throwing publishers under the bus, that's a claim that lacks understanding of what a reply should entail. (I.E. you answer the case as it applies to you.)
- Steko 14y ago
  The DOJ antitrust dept has been so emasculated from doing it's actual job that just about the only thing it acts on are open and shut cases with hard evidence like the price fixing here. So some careerist at DoJ had a chance to buff his resume up with a high profile case, got some open and shut evidence and boom here we are. Apple may or may not have been party to this but no one cares and this will die a quiet death later on.
h84ru3a 14y ago
Given a choice between AAPL and AMZN as a source for purchasing "ebooks", which would you prefer?
- makomk 14y ago
  Given the ability for different resellers to compete on price, which Apple's anti-competitive rules have effectively taken away, we might not be stuck with a choice between AAPL and AMZN as a source for purchasing "ebooks".
  - h84ru3a 14y ago
    Maybe price won't be the most important factor, as some commenters have pointed out. Maybe the more important issue is the use of an "open format". I'd like to see "ebooks" that can be converted to plain text (and hence other typesetting formats). What are the chances of that?
- EvilTerran 14y ago
  Given those two options, I would choose... the Pirate Bay.
  - MatthewPhillips 14y ago
    this
- schraeds 14y ago
  Depends if you are more concerned about price or overall quality. Simply compare the ipad to kindle fire. One cost more and is well polished, the other is a cheap turd.
- schraeds 14y ago
  Depends if you are more concerned about price or overall quality. Simply compare the ipad to kindle fire. One cost more and is well polished, the other is a cheap turd.
- Steko 14y ago
jbhj 14y ago
Apple is rotten. Good job DOJ.
thechut 14y ago
It looks to me like whoever wrote this article has never seen an initial legal statement like this before. It's very common for lawyers to make these sorts of claims early on in an investigation or case. For example in a drunk driving suit, a good lawyer would immediately claim his clients rights were violated and this or that procedure wasn't followed properly. It usually gets you nowhere and is just legal posturing. Can any lawyers here give a more technical explanation of this happening?
samratashok 14y ago
huh?
mlader 14y ago
Apple and a number of publishers have already settled with the EU Commission [1], which began an investigation before even the DOJ. From a legal standpoint this is not an admission of guilt. Apple believed that either a) the legal costs of mounting a defense were about the same as the potential damages, b) they could not win in the European Courts (this could be because of the interpretation of their anti-trust laws), or c) the PR debacle would harm their brand and reputation too much. I would pick a combination of B and C in this case, though mostly B. As far as the DOJ anti-trust division is concerned, their job is to investigate and prosecute companies that allegedly partake in anti-competitive behavior that adversely affect consumer prices. They saw a rise in prices as competition increased, which is contrary to how price dynamics are supposed to work in an increasingly competitive market. Given that the source of this rise in prices was due to simultaneous pressure from publishers on Amazon to switch to an agency pricing model from a wholesale pricing model, it makes sense that the DOJ would investigate. This suit will likely take a few years to come to a conclusion. [1] http://www.macworld.co.uk/ipad-iphone/news/?newsid=3353332&olo=rss http://www.macworld.co.uk/ipad-iphone/news/?newsid=3353332&#...

76 points by matan_a 14y ago

God says... C:\Text\BIBLE.TXT to him, saying, Behold, the words of the prophets declare good to the king with one assent; let thy word therefore, I pray thee, be like one of their's, and speak thou good. 18:13 And Micaiah said, As the LORD liveth, even what my God saith, that will I speak. 18:14 And when he was come to the king, the king said unto him, Micaiah, shall we go to Ramothgilead to battle, or shall I forbear? And he said, Go ye up, and prosper, and they shall be delivered into your hand. 18:15 And the king sa

aresant 14y ago

"[AAPL] cuts the government's case to shreds" Wow, is CNN a news organization or a press release promotion mill? CNN's one-sidedness made me uneasy enough to research the contrarian opinion, this is the best summary I found: http://paidcontent.org/2012/05/14/e-book-class-action-new-details/ http://paidcontent.org/2012/05/14/e-book-class-action-new-de... Effectively the evidence in the govt's case shows that: a) AAPL recognized that they required the collusion of the top 5 publishers to set market pricing, and actively solicited them. b) AAPL suggested pricing to the top 5 publishers. I believe in due process, just pointing out that there is clearly more here than CNN's summary allows.

ubernostrum 14y ago
It's a CNN-branded opinion blog covering Apple, not a CNN news report.
- nhebb 14y ago
  I searched the page for the words blog, opinion, and editorial => zero matches. It does look like an opinion piece, but they should at least label it as such.
  - raganwald 14y ago
    When I saw the words "Bite Me" in the title, it set certain expectations for what was to follow. I would have been surprised had it been anything but an opinion piece.
fabjan 14y ago
How is it price fixing when it's in your own store only?
- arjunnarayan 14y ago
  The "most-favored nation" clause makes it so that it applies to all stores, not just yours.

tar 14y ago

This article is heavily biased and seems to have been published straight from Apple's PR department.

cwp 14y ago
So, if there happened to be a really clear-cut, one-sided case out there, how would an unbiased news organization report on it?
- duaneb 14y ago
  "Apple filed response to DoJ." <Link to response.> Possibly a summary of claims.
  - MartinMond 14y ago
    Sorry, but if the situation is clear cut then a good news source should say exactly that. Just publishing X did Y and alleges Z leads to the current situation where creationists, global warming deniers and so on are given space in news reporting as if these issues were to be decided by personal opinion and not by facts.
    - koeselitz 14y ago
      No, absolutely not. An awful news reporting agency would say "creationists think X, but evolutionists rip them to shreds." That is bad news reportage. Good news reportage would say "creationists say X, evolutionists say Y, the facts that are evident are Z." This is clearly not what CNN have done with this piece. It would be nice if they had. The simple point is that engaging in inflationary and imprecise colloquial language like "totally rips it to shreds" renders the article pretty much useless for communicating clear facts, especially if there is one clear winner. Don't tell me who's right; that is pointless and communicates only opinion. Tell me the facts, and make them as stark and as clear as possible. "Totally rips it to shreds" is not a fact; it's vague cant wrapped up in metaphor. Bad reportage.
      - 14y ago

unimpressive 14y ago

In theory a news article is finished when all facts have been stated. In practice a news article is finished when all facts have been spun.

idspispopd 14y ago

Get the reply here: http://ia701206.us.archive.org/6/items/gov.uscourts.nysd.394628/gov.uscourts.nysd.394628.54.0.pdf http://ia701206.us.archive.org/6/items/gov.uscourts.nysd.394... The reply is persuasive in sections as to present Apple fostering competition in the eBooks market. (Lots of comparisons to Amazon's dominant position, indeed it does appear that the iBookStore is aimed at disrupting Amazon's stranglehold.) Which is not unusual, since competition would lead to Apple's gain. However what is clear is that Apple do have something to answer for, albeit a far less serious offence rather than Anti-trust/collusion. I suspect this came about so quickly as a result of Amazon lobbyists, rather than a legitimate concern of the government against Apple and the eBook market for the benefit of consumers. I'm of this thinking because the government is typically slow to act and rarely do so preemptive as they have done here. (That and Amazon owning nearly the entire eBook market, stands the most to lose.) Note, lobbying does not imply that Amazon forced the government, rather they could have simply alerted them to the situation. As for throwing publishers under the bus, that's a claim that lacks understanding of what a reply should entail. (I.E. you answer the case as it applies to you.)

Steko 14y ago
The DOJ antitrust dept has been so emasculated from doing it's actual job that just about the only thing it acts on are open and shut cases with hard evidence like the price fixing here. So some careerist at DoJ had a chance to buff his resume up with a high profile case, got some open and shut evidence and boom here we are. Apple may or may not have been party to this but no one cares and this will die a quiet death later on.

h84ru3a 14y ago

Given a choice between AAPL and AMZN as a source for purchasing "ebooks", which would you prefer?

makomk 14y ago
Given the ability for different resellers to compete on price, which Apple's anti-competitive rules have effectively taken away, we might not be stuck with a choice between AAPL and AMZN as a source for purchasing "ebooks".
- h84ru3a 14y ago
  Maybe price won't be the most important factor, as some commenters have pointed out. Maybe the more important issue is the use of an "open format". I'd like to see "ebooks" that can be converted to plain text (and hence other typesetting formats). What are the chances of that?
EvilTerran 14y ago
Given those two options, I would choose... the Pirate Bay.
- MatthewPhillips 14y ago
  this
schraeds 14y ago
Depends if you are more concerned about price or overall quality. Simply compare the ipad to kindle fire. One cost more and is well polished, the other is a cheap turd.
schraeds 14y ago
Depends if you are more concerned about price or overall quality. Simply compare the ipad to kindle fire. One cost more and is well polished, the other is a cheap turd.
Steko 14y ago

jbhj 14y ago

Apple is rotten. Good job DOJ.

thechut 14y ago

It looks to me like whoever wrote this article has never seen an initial legal statement like this before. It's very common for lawyers to make these sorts of claims early on in an investigation or case. For example in a drunk driving suit, a good lawyer would immediately claim his clients rights were violated and this or that procedure wasn't followed properly. It usually gets you nowhere and is just legal posturing. Can any lawyers here give a more technical explanation of this happening?

samratashok 14y ago

huh?

mlader 14y ago

Apple and a number of publishers have already settled with the EU Commission [1], which began an investigation before even the DOJ. From a legal standpoint this is not an admission of guilt. Apple believed that either a) the legal costs of mounting a defense were about the same as the potential damages, b) they could not win in the European Courts (this could be because of the interpretation of their anti-trust laws), or c) the PR debacle would harm their brand and reputation too much. I would pick a combination of B and C in this case, though mostly B. As far as the DOJ anti-trust division is concerned, their job is to investigate and prosecute companies that allegedly partake in anti-competitive behavior that adversely affect consumer prices. They saw a rise in prices as competition increased, which is contrary to how price dynamics are supposed to work in an increasingly competitive market. Given that the source of this rise in prices was due to simultaneous pressure from publishers on Amazon to switch to an agency pricing model from a wholesale pricing model, it makes sense that the DOJ would investigate. This suit will likely take a few years to come to a conclusion. [1] http://www.macworld.co.uk/ipad-iphone/news/?newsid=3353332&olo=rss http://www.macworld.co.uk/ipad-iphone/news/?newsid=3353332&#...