Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Books The Almighty Buck The Courts Apple

Apple $450 Million e-Book Settlement Wins Court Approval 93

Posted by samzenpus from the red-light-green-light dept.
An anonymous reader writes A week after Judge Denise Cote put forward concerns over a proposed settlement with consumers over e-book price-fixing in the iBookstore, she has given Apple preliminary approval for its $450 million settlement. "The proposed settlement agreement is within the range of those that may be approved as fair and reasonable, such that notice to the class is appropriate," Cote said. "Preliminary approval is granted." Cote set a final fairness hearing for Nov. 21.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple $450 Million e-Book Settlement Wins Court Approval More

Apple $450 Million e-Book Settlement Wins Court Approval

Comments Filter:

  • pocket change in Apple's world (Score:3, Informative)

    by turkeydance ( 1266624 ) on Sunday August 03, 2014 @08:05PM (#47596051)
    take it and it's over. it's only USD$ after all, and they'll print some more.

    • Eh, a half billion used to sound like a lot of money at one time.

    • The fed has almost a century of history of hitting it's target monetary growth target of 2%. At what point will the sun arriving every morning convince you that it will arrive tomorrow?

      • What monetary growth target is that? The one they stopped setting in July of 2000?
        • No. The one that has accelerated under Obama.

          Haven't you noticed food prices going up? Surprise! Food hasn't been getting any harder to grow. We're producing more than ever before. So it's not "market forces". What could it be?

          Short-lived commodities like food are among the first to be seriously affected by inflation. Add to that a wholly unjustified rebound in housing prices, and inflation has actually been pretty high.

          I don't know what kind of "monetary growth" it is that you're referring to, but
          • You completely understood the term "monetary growth target". The "target" is the key word here, where the Fed would say that they wanted growth in the money supply to match some target. In 2000 they stopped issuing the money supply target. This was back when they claimed there was some connection between money supply and economic results. Now they don't make that claim for the most part and have even stopped tracking certain measures of money supply.
            • Ugh of course that first line should say "misunderstood"
            • You are correct. I missed the word "target".

              Given that, though: while they may have stopped publishing a target, they certainly have not stopped expanding the money supply. And the fact that they've "stopped tracking some measures" is rather ominous.

              And I doubt they've really stopped tracking them. They just aren't publishing them, because they don't want people to panic. But a lot of economists aren't being fooled. Many have been raising alarm bells. Not to mention those who warned about these polici
              • Yes, they stopped stopped publishing the measures since they no longer kept to a 'target' as the parent had claimed. As far as I can tell, it stays relatively non-inflationary as long as that extra money doesn't circulate. Since a lot of it just sits in an account to polish up the banks' balance sheets we avoid most of the inflation. Plus the velocity of money is very sluggish. The financial markets are all on edge wondering when the Fed might act to pull some of it back as velocity picks up. Regardless, ev
                • Go compare prices in the supermarket to what they were 3-4 years ago. Then come back and tell me again why it's not inflationary.
                  • I didn't say it was not inflationary, I said we avoid most of the inflation. There was an implied "most of the inflation some models might expect given the growth in the money supply"

                    • As far as I can tell, it stays relatively non-inflationary as long as that extra money doesn't circulate.

                      It sure sounded like you were saying that to me.

                      Further, most of the money isn't "sitting there". Housing is booming again, and Wall Street is at record highs again. The overall economy might be sluggish that that doesn't mean the cash itself is stagnant. We have easily identifiable bubbles going on, even now.

                    • relatively

                    • Relative to what? This was my point: inflation is NOT low. It is quite high right now. Despite "official" government figures.
                    • Inflation is quite low right now relative to Weimar Germany, for example. Or the inflation experienced by Zimbabwe and Argentina at various points in the past.

                    • Inflation is quite low right now relative to Weimar Germany, for example. Or the inflation experienced by Zimbabwe and Argentina at various points in the past.

                      Heck, inflation right now is quite low compared to 2007 - who was PotUS back then again? Obama? Clinton?http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/historical-inflation-rates/

                    • Heck, inflation right now is quite low compared to 2007 - who was PotUS back then again? Obama? Clinton?http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/historical-inflation-rates/

                      If you knew how CPI was actually calculated, you would never have posted that link. These are exactly the "official" government figures that don't come close to reflecting reality.

                      According to CPI, Chateaubriand is equivalent to a rump roast, and a 10-acre estate with a mansion is economically equivalent to a 0.25-acre plot with a 3-bedroom home. That may be a very slight exaggeration, but not much.

                      It's just not a reflection of reality, and hasn't been for decades. It's designed to hide inflation.

                    • So why don't you show us the real real figures, instead of just pretending you have any?

    • Knowing how these things work, Apple will probably use it as a tax write down.

  • I've been reading a description of the case, and what Apple did actually seems fair... Amazon was "dumping" in an effort to eliminate competition. Publishers setting prices is no different than video game console manufacturers setting prices, IMO.

    The real crime is charging over $10.00 for an e-book at all. I know all the shills for publishers will say the bulk of the cost is in formatting the books, but to charge just as much... and sometimes MORE, than the printed book is absolutely ridiculous... no pape

Slashdot Top Deals

"What man has done, man can aspire to do." -- Jerry Pournelle, about space flight

Close