Apple to DOJ: Bite me

http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2012/05/26/apple-to-doj-bite-me/?hpt=hp_t2

by matan_a • 14 years ago

76 33 14 years ago

tech.fortune.cnn.com

aresant• 14 years 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-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• 14 years ago

It's a CNN-branded opinion blog covering Apple, not a CNN news report.

nhebb• 14 years 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.

fabjan• 14 years ago

How is it price fixing when it's in your own store only?

arjunnarayan2• 14 years ago

The "most-favored nation" clause makes it so that it applies to all stores, not just yours.

tar• 14 years ago

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

cwp2• 14 years 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?

duaneb2• 14 years ago

"Apple filed response to DoJ." <Link to response.> Possibly a summary of claims.

raganwald2• 14 years ago

As noted elsewhere, this is aopinion piece and thefore is entitled to present one side of the story without attempting to summarize the entire situation. It's like the difference between a political editorial and political coverage in a newspaper.

The important question is whether the one side it presents is presented coherently and without fallacy.

jasonlotito• 14 years ago

And, has been noted elsewhere as well, where on the page does it say the piece is just an opinion piece?

I'll save you the trouble: it doesn't.

So, while you maybe right, CNN doesn't indicate in any way that this is the case.

unimpressive• 14 years 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• 14 years ago

Get the reply here: 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.)

Steko2• 14 years 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.

h84ru3a2• 14 years ago

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

EvilTerran• 14 years ago

Given those two options, I would choose... the Pirate Bay.

MatthewPhillips• 14 years ago

this

Steko2• 14 years ago

"It's a no-brainer"

'No brains' is about right given the way you've arranged this straw man.

Fact of the day: Apple doesn't set prices under the agency model.

Tloewald2• 14 years ago

I pick Amazon most of the time simply because I can read Kindle books on more devices. This isn't because of any good thing Amazon has done but rather its successful pursuit of snticompeititive policies:

1. Kindles won't read non kindle ebooks. (The kindle fire might if you know how, but it's not easy)

2. iPad will read all competiting ebooks.

3. Amazon's policies coerce publishers to keep prices low, in particular generating a revenue poverty trap for publishing books at prices between $10 and $20.

Karunamon• 14 years ago

>1. Kindles won't read non kindle ebooks.

Every Kindle ever sold will read PDFs, and with software like Calibre, you can convert every modern ebook format to it.

makomk• 14 years 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".

h84ru3a2• 14 years 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?

thechut• 14 years 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?

mlader• 14 years 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&#...

Apple to DOJ: Bite me

Related Stories