Replies

Apple will most likely appeal this decision to either the entire Banc of the appeals court or to the US Supreme Court as they really did nothing wrong, never, ever being involved in the actions of the publishers until after the collusion occurred and then offered a perfectly legal agency model of selling books that increased competition in the e-books market place. The original ruling was insanity as Amazon was the monopolist in the e-books market—with 90% plus of the market and was truly fixing prices of the e-books that accounted for 80% of e-books sales to keep other competitors from ever entering the market. This and the original ruling turns the purpose of the law, which is to foster competition, on its head. To quote Dickens, "The law is a ass."

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