If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Evil Apple in trouble again
In article , R. Mark Clayton
wrote: Even I saw the US DoJ stating they were intending to prosecute Apple for this on, so I think I am informed. intending to prosecute does not mean winning. the latest reports about the lawsuit say the doj is likely to lose. Sadly a number of publishers [apparently including [sadly] UK's Harper Collins) have already settled, but in reality they were snared by Apple insisting on them paying $$$ if they wanted to sell on the Apple platform. If they publishers want to cover their costs then they have to add 50% to the customer price so that Apple can take their 30% cut. nonsense. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Evil Apple in trouble again
nospam wrote in
: In article , R. Mark Clayton wrote: Even I saw the US DoJ stating they were intending to prosecute Apple for this on, so I think I am informed. intending to prosecute does not mean winning. the latest reports about the lawsuit say the doj is likely to lose. Sadly a number of publishers [apparently including [sadly] UK's Harper Collins) have already settled, but in reality they were snared by Apple insisting on them paying $$$ if they wanted to sell on the Apple platform. If they publishers want to cover their costs then they have to add 50% to the customer price so that Apple can take their 30% cut. nonsense. Really? Try being in retail production in a big way and not doing what Walmart wants you to do. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Evil Apple in trouble again
In article , Rich
wrote: Really? Try being in retail production in a big way and not doing what Walmart wants you to do. so why aren't you pushing for a lawsuit against walmart? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Evil Apple in trouble again
BTW this looks a bit off topic for this group.
"nospam" wrote in message ... In article , R. Mark Clayton wrote: Even I saw the US DoJ stating they were intending to prosecute Apple for this on, so I think I am informed. intending to prosecute does not mean winning. the latest reports about the lawsuit say the doj is likely to lose. Sure Eric Holder knows nothing about the law, that is why he is Attorney General of the USA! Sadly a number of publishers [apparently including [sadly] UK's Harper Collins) have already settled, but in reality they were snared by Apple insisting on them paying $$$ if they wanted to sell on the Apple platform. If they publishers want to cover their costs then they have to add 50% to the customer price so that Apple can take their 30% cut. nonsense. TRUE! "Hachette, HarperCollins and Simon and Schuster have already settled." See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17681137 'HarperCollins, Hachette and Simon & Schuster have all settled the claims, but Penguin and Macmillan still face litigation. Macmillan has said the DoJ's settlement terms are "too onerous". ' http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolog...ixing-row.html I love the irony of Apple blasting another maker for "monopolistic practices"! BTW Macmillan's statement implies they accept they are wrong in principle but are haggling over the quantum. It is very difficult to plead not guilty to conspiracy when your fellow conspirators have already put their hands up and presumably split lots of beans. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Evil Apple in trouble again
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Evil Apple in trouble again
In article , R. Mark Clayton
wrote: Even I saw the US DoJ stating they were intending to prosecute Apple for this on, so I think I am informed. intending to prosecute does not mean winning. the latest reports about the lawsuit say the doj is likely to lose. Sure Eric Holder knows nothing about the law, that is why he is Attorney General of the USA! and your point is what? Sadly a number of publishers [apparently including [sadly] UK's Harper Collins) have already settled, but in reality they were snared by Apple insisting on them paying $$$ if they wanted to sell on the Apple platform. If they publishers want to cover their costs then they have to add 50% to the customer price so that Apple can take their 30% cut. nonsense. TRUE! if you agree it's nonsense, why did you write it? "Hachette, HarperCollins and Simon and Schuster have already settled." they did, but we don't know why they settled. maybe they did collude among themselves, or maybe they didn't but couldn't justify the expense of litigation. I love the irony of Apple blasting another maker for "monopolistic practices"! why? amazon had a monopoly on ebooks with 90% of the market and was pricing ebooks below cost to keep out the competition. if it weren't for apple, they'd still have a monopoly. BTW Macmillan's statement implies they accept they are wrong in principle but are haggling over the quantum. it doesn't imply any such thing. It is very difficult to plead not guilty to conspiracy when your fellow conspirators have already put their hands up and presumably split lots of beans. yet two publishers and apple are not pleading guilty. it's also very difficult to be guilty of conspiracy when you weren't in attendance at the meetings where the alleged conspiracy took place. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Evil Apple in trouble again
In article , tony cooper
wrote: yet two publishers and apple are not pleading guilty. I don't know, and I'm sure you don't, if Apple is guilty of anything. i never said i knew, but you and everyone else have already tried and convicted apple and the publishers with little to no research on the case (reading a couple of web pages does not count). However, not pleading guilty has nothing to do with being guilty or not being guilty. Absolutely nothing. if someone is not guilty, they will plead not guilty. Apple has deep pockets and considerable cash reserves. They can afford to take on a costly legal defense. It drags out the decision and allows them to continue to do what they have been doing unless there's been an injunction filed. true, apple can afford litigation. Many companies and individuals "cop a plea" or plead guilty even though they feel they are innocent of wrong-doing. The costs, even if they have to pay a fine, can be far less than a defense in court. that's a possible reason why three publishers settled, which i've already pointed out. Companies often plead guilty, or plead to lesser charges, because a known result can be better than an unknown result when the company is listed on the stock market. that also could be part of why three publishers settled, and the stock market doesn't matter. they might not want some things made public that would be public if it went to trial. Evidently, Apple doesn't worry about this since the overall strength of their share price offsets the downside. or maybe they want to litigate because they didn't do what is alleged. Do you think you will ever get to the point where, instead of blindly defending Apple, you will actually think out the situation logically? i have. do you think you will ever get to the point that instead of blindly arguing with everything i post, you will actually read what i write rather than twist it into something it isn't and then argue against what i didn't say? and i don't blindly defend apple. i often criticize them, and quite harshly too. i also refute the bogus and outright false apple-hating bull**** you and other people post. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Evil Apple in trouble again
nospam wrote:
In article , tony cooper However, not pleading guilty has nothing to do with being guilty or not being guilty. Absolutely nothing. if someone is not guilty, they will plead not guilty. Or so you say. Some will plead guilty because they want to protect others. Some will plead guilty because they fear they'll be convicted of a different, worse crime (of which they may be guilty or not). Some will plead guilty because they were paid for it or blackmailed or browbeaten into pleading guilty. Some will plead guilty because they need this kind of publicity to end quickly, more than being proven innocent. etc. You really live in a fantasy world, maybe an utopia even ... -Wolfgang |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Evil Apple in trouble again
In article , Wolfgang
Weisselberg wrote: However, not pleading guilty has nothing to do with being guilty or not being guilty. Absolutely nothing. if someone is not guilty, they will plead not guilty. Or so you say. Some will plead guilty because they want to protect others. Some will plead guilty because they fear they'll be convicted of a different, worse crime (of which they may be guilty or not). Some will plead guilty because they were paid for it or blackmailed or browbeaten into pleading guilty. Some will plead guilty because they need this kind of publicity to end quickly, more than being proven innocent. all possible, however, they're the exceptions. You really live in a fantasy world, maybe an utopia even ... no, i live in the real world, unlike some others here. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Evil Apple in trouble again
"tony cooper" wrote in message ... On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 11:34:12 -0400, nospam wrote: yet two publishers and apple are not pleading guilty. No Apple are pleading not guilty and the other two are arguing about the penalty. I don't know, and I'm sure you don't, if Apple is guilty of anything. However, not pleading guilty has nothing to do with being guilty or not being guilty. Absolutely nothing. Apple has deep pockets and considerable cash reserves. They can afford to take on a costly legal defense. It drags out the decision and allows them to continue to do what they have been doing unless there's been an injunction filed. Many companies and individuals "cop a plea" or plead guilty even though they feel they are innocent of wrong-doing. The costs, even if they have to pay a fine, can be far less than a defense in court. Companies often plead guilty, or plead to lesser charges, because a known result can be better than an unknown result when the company is listed on the stock market. Evidently, Apple doesn't worry about this since the overall strength of their share price offsets the downside. Do you think you will ever get to the point where, instead of blindly defending Apple, you will actually think out the situation logically? -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Evil Apple in trouble again | nospam | Digital Photography | 15 | April 20th 12 01:11 AM |