Judge Thinks Apple Will Lose E-Book Price-Fixing Case 150
Nerval's Lobster writes "Apple could face a difficult time winning its court case against the U.S. Department of Justice over e-book pricing, according to the federal judge overseeing the trial. 'I believe that the government will be able to show at trial direct evidence that Apple knowingly participated in and facilitated a conspiracy to raise prices of e-books,' U.S. District Judge Denise Cote said during a May 23 pretrial hearing, according to Reuters, 'and that the circumstantial evidence in this case, including the terms of the agreements, will confirm that.' Apple's legal counsel is a bit perturbed over her comments. 'We strongly disagree with the court's preliminary statements about the case today,' Apple lawyer Orin Snyder wrote in a statement also reprinted by Reuters. The Justice Department has asserted that Apple, along with those publishers, conspired to raise retail e-book prices in tandem 'and eliminate price competition, substantially increasing prices paid by consumers.' Apple battles Amazon in the e-book space, with the latter company achieving great success over the past few years by driving down the price of e-books and Kindle e-readers; while Apple co-founder insisted in emails to News Corp executive James Murdoch (son of Rupert Murdoch), that Amazon's pricing was ultimately unsustainable, the online retailer shows no signs of flagging with regard to its publishing-industry clout."
Good (Score:5, Insightful)
E-book pricing is a sham.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, yes it is. When it costs more to buy the ebook than it does to buy a 500 page printed document you know something is fundamentally wrong.
That's what beancounters do in every company (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Apple is Evil (Score:5, Insightful)
Publishers are the ones tying books to devices, with DRM. No-one is forced to put DRM on their Kindle books, it's a publisher's option.
Then, after those publishers have tied readers to their Kindle by putting DRM on their books, they complain that other stores can't compete with Amazon because all the readers have Kindles.
Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)
We call that sort of justice cruel and unusual for a reason.
A few lashes with a raton cane is painful, but I think most people would consider it less cruel than going to jail for a couple years. Many people in jail have families, which often fall apart once "dad" is gone, resulting in another generation of criminals. People sentenced to longer sentences are more likely to be recidivist than people receiving shorter sentences for similar crimes. Jail is appropriate for physically violent people, but for others it is counter-productive.
If Tim Cook goes to jail, that will cost the taxpayers more than $40k in direct expenses, and cost millions more by removing a smart and capable executive from productive activity. If he gets ten lashes on the buttocks instead, he can be back at work the next day, as long as he has a standing desk [wikipedia.org].
What you suggest is blatantly illegal in the United States, and rightly so.
Well, it certainly isn't because of public opposition. When an American citizen was sentenced to caning [wikipedia.org] in Singapore for vandalizing cars, Singapore's ambassador went on TV to defend the sentence, and the response from Americans was overwhelmingly in favor of the sentence. Singapore has a far lower crime rate than America. The caning leaves welts, but does not break the skin. Between lashes, it is dipped in alcohol to both sterilize and soften the cane.
If you had a choice of spending a year in jail, or a few lashes, which would you prefer? Which would stick in your memory better the next time you thought about committing a crime?
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
It doesnt matter what I or the people who supported Singaporean punishment prefer, as long as the 8th stands, its illegal.
The 8th amendment does not ban corporal punishment. It bans "cruel and unusual" punishment. Caning would not be unusual if it was adopted as a standard sentence, and it should not be considered "cruel" if the canee prefers it over incarceration.
You lost any moral high ground at this point.
Since under current law, DEATH is considered an acceptable and non-cruel sentence, I don't think advocating spanking puts me very low on the moral slope.