Apple loses e-books appeal
Ping!
If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me.
Posted on 06/30/2015 12:35:49 PM PDT by Swordmaker
A divided federal appeals court on Tuesday upheld a judge's ruling that Apple Inc (AAPL.O) had conspired with five publishers to increase e-book prices, in a win for the U.S. Justice Department.
By a 2-1 vote, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed that the conspiracy violated federal antitrust law, and that the judge acted properly two years ago in imposing an injunction to prevent a recurrence.
The ruling would force Apple to pay consumers $450 million under a 2014 settlement of a class action with 33 state attorneys general and lawyers, unless it files another appeal and wins. The settlement was contingent on Apple's civil liability being upheld.
"While we want to put this behind us, the case is about principles and values," Apple said in a statement. "We know we did nothing wrong back in 2010 and are assessing next steps."
Writing for the majority, Circuit Judge Debra Ann Livingston said Apple's actions "unreasonably restrained trade," rejecting arguments that the company acted independently with its own business interests in mind.
"The district court did not err in concluding that Apple was more than an innocent bystander," Livingston wrote.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me.
Found this one today:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/102792032
Is interest in the Apple Watch dissipating?
Uptin Saiidi | @uptin
Friday, 26 Jun 2015 | 3:12 PM ETCNBC.com
Since the recent launch of Apple Watch, investors have been eagerly watching consumers’ reaction to the new wearable. For the most lucrative of buyers, interest may be waning.
According to a new study by MBLM, a brand intimacy agency, millennials are dissatisfied with the watch. Many reported the original thrill of using it began to dissipate after 30 days, with the watch starting to feel like a weak extension of their iPhone. Some even reported feeling guilt over wearing the Apple Watch, saying it was an ostentatious symbol of wealth, while others said the watch is simply frivolous.
Wearables are often notorious for having a high ditch-rate, with some people ditching them after an average of 60 days.
“The initial demand for the Apple Watch looks lackluster,” Brian Blair, managing director at Rosenblatt Securities, told CNBC’s “Power Lunch” on Friday.
“It’s not clear what the killer app is,” he said. “It’s nice to get notifications, but it’s a nonessential product.”
I agree that this is a weird decision. Of course what comes out of our legal system these days that isn’t weird? At the time, Apple’s position in the ebook market was definitely not a ‘monopoly’ in any form of the term. I’d say that was still the case, but I don’t really watch the numbers on that closely. I generally buy straight from the published for ebooks anyway, that way I don’t have to worry about silly DRM stuff and other issues.
Apple violated federal antitrust law in a conspiracy with five book publishers to fix ebook prices, according to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The court ended a long-running legal battle with a big blow to Apple, calling its ebooks price-fixing scheme “the supreme evil of antitrust.”
Apple is a dominant force in so many digital markets, but when it comes to ebook sales, it’s a small fish compared to Amazon. That didn’t stop the court from finding Apple guilty. With this decision, the company must pay consumers $450 million in a related conditional class-action settlement.
This ruling upholds a 2013 decision that found Apple guilty of colluding with book publishers to raise ebook prices in order to screw Amazon and other book retailers. “We conclude that the district court correctly decided that Apple orchestrated a conspiracy among the publishers to raise ebook prices,” the 2-1 court decision reads.
Since Amazon was dominating the ebook sales industry by setting low $10 prices for books, Apple tried to change the playing field by working with publishers to make sure they wouldn’t agree to Amazon’s pricing scale. The publishers involved—the so-called “big five” Harper Collins, Penguin, Simon & Schuster, Hachette and Macmillan—settled before trial, but Apple refused.
After the guilty decision in 2013, the Department of Justice and 33 state attorneys proposed that Apple break its agreements with publishers and allow companies like Amazon to link to their own bookstores. Apple was not down with that. It called the DOJ’s proposal a “draconian and punitive intrusion” and filed for appeal, maintaining that it didn’t violate antitrust law. That strategy backfired today.
“Apple did not conspire to fix ebook pricing and this ruling does nothing to change the facts. We are disappointed the Court does not recognize the innovation and choice the iBooks Store brought for consumers. While we want to put this behind us, the case is about principles and values. We know we did nothing wrong back in 2010 and are assessing next steps,” an Apple spokesperson told Fortune.
http://gizmodo.com/apple-will-pay-450-million-for-conspiring-to-fix-ebook-1714920431
Strange that your own article doesn't have the data to back up their FUD headline. . . instead it concludes with this:
"Morgan Stanley recently found that demand for Apple Watch is 20 percent higher than the first generation iPhone. There is, after all, few examples of any new product immediately being massively adopted by consumers. I smell desperation in the air.In a note put out by FBR Capital Markets, Dan Ives said Apple Watch sales are not only strong, with five million units predicted to have sold, but the watch is now a major product catalyst for the entire wearable market.
Most stores have an abundance of units in stock, Blair noted. "I think many estimates for the calendar year will have to come down."
What a stupid, mis-informed statement. Of COURSE the stores have "an abundance" of the Apple Watches in stock. . .this article was written and published on June 26, 2015, the day that Apple finally had caught up with the initial orders and had now had sufficient quantities to be able to release the Apple Watch for sale in their retail stores. The stores were not even allowed to sell Apple Watches directly to the public before June 26th! That makes that statement deliberately misleading.
It was also on the day that Apple was making the Apple Watch available in ten more nations where there was pent-up demand. Very strange timing, don't you think?
Singapore greets Apple Watch with a shrug
There were line-ups at the Singapore Apple stores. . . but Singapore had a strong gray market in Apple Watches being brought in from the Hong Kong access to the online Apple Store before the official availability.
I just read through MBLM's report on the Apple Watch and only a few of their respondents claimed what this article states, others LIKED the Apple Watch and found it very useful. The comments of reported in this article were cherry picked from MBLM's report. For example, ONE respondent found he/she felt the #349 Apple Watch was an ostentatious symbol of wealth. . . and only one other said it was "simply frivolous," and he did not even own one. SHEESH!
I think that Samsung is backing these Astroturfing FUD articles and is running scared since their flagship phone is tanking in sales. . . which would have a bad effect on their smartwatch sales.
CNBC does not publish astroturf. There is nothing in it for them.
CNBC may not, but their headline is not supported by the information or the source material. Ergo, the author of the article is questionable as to why HE would write such a factually questionable article saying such things as that Apple Retail stores have "Most stores have an abundance of units in stock, Blair noted. "I think many estimates for the calendar year will have to come down," without bothering to check why they have a large stock since it was the FIRST DAY they could be sold in the Retail Stores! That is just poor journalism or he's deliberately misleading, i.e. agenda driven astroturfing. . . or he just doesn't know the subject he is writing about, in which case he is demonstrably incompetent to be writing about it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.