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.

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.

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?

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.

On 4/13/12 8:06 AM, in article , "R.
Mark Clayton" wrote:

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!


Fast and Furious!!!

You got any illegal weapons you need to get rid of? Holder's your man!

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.

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.

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

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.

"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