Feeds

back to article Judge: Evidence will likely show Apple DID fix ebook prices

The US judge who will decide the ebook price fixing case has suggested the government will be able to show that Apple was part of the conspiracy, before the trial has even begun. In a somewhat unusual move, US District Judge Denise Cote said at a pretrial hearing that she thought the Department of Justice would be able to show …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
Silver badge
Go

Break it up!!

Standard Oil 2.0

I jest, but then again I will be highly amused should Apple get a kicking in court.

2
1

"she did stress that her view wasn't final"

Is she not supposed to the the bloody judge?

And is the process not to sit down and hear the evidence from both sides and THEN make a judgement?

I know this is Apple and they are guilty as sin, but aren't they at least supposed to pretend to go through the motions?

9
3
FAIL

Re: "she did stress that her view wasn't final"

Wot 'e sed. Seriously. Disclosure is one thing (pre-trial, in the US, I believe), but summary judgement is entirely something else.

What's the point in having a trial, if the Judge has already all-but-decided the outcome?

So much, then, for "due process of law".

While I do agree that Apple are, on the balance of probability, as guilty as sin for all manner of stupidities, in a criminal trial, a judge has to be seen to be remaining to be objective - at least when speaking before a verdict is issued at the end of a trial.

This judge just laid herself open to being recused, at much expense to the US public purse, from the trial, and for a new trial judge to be appointed in her place.

This cannot help anyone, in the long run.

2
5

Re: "she did stress that her view wasn't final"

Looks like basically all she said was the DoJ has a good case, which is sort of a no brainier since if they didn't Apple probably would have got it tossed by now.

She also qualified the statement saying that she had not read all the briefs yet. I don't really see an issue here and if it helps the parties settle, like they probably eventually will anyways, and quit wasting tax payer money, I am good with it.

5
1

Re: "she did stress that her view wasn't final"

Obviously you missed something that I said:

<blockquote>a judge has to be seen to be remaining to be objective - at least when speaking before a verdict is issued at the end of a trial.</blockquote>

(Emphasis added)

Justice must be seen to be blind, and weighing up ALL the evidence, not making up its' mind along the way, with or without caveats of outcome.

The whole point is that a judge does NOT have the luxury of speaking their mind until after they have heard the evidence and delivered a verdict in a trial; were someone else connected with this trial (other than the judge or prosecution/defence team) to make a statement of similar content as this judge just did, I dare say that they'd be up for a Contempt Of Court charge.

I trust what I said is a little clearer for you, now.

Enjoy your weekend, by the way :-)

4
4
Silver badge
Pint

Re: "she did stress that her view wasn't final"

"Apple has consistently denied being involved in price-fixing"

Which is odd, considering half a dozen other companies in the alleged cabal have fessed up and settled!

Talk about an absurdly untenable position. It's like all your mates getting caught for their role in a robbery, all of them saying you were involved and being found guilty and then trying to say that you were in fact not guilty.

"I know this is Apple and they are guilty as sin, but aren't they at least supposed to pretend to go through the motions?"

The 'motions' have already been and gone for the most part. Apple is the kid with chocolate on their face, claiming to have not touched the cookie jar.

6
1
Silver badge
Meh

Re: "she did stress that her view wasn't final"

Don't know why you got downvoted.

At any rate only the statues & drawings of Justice are blind. In reality the scales of Justice are already weighted because the judgements are made by Humans. Personally I prefer this as if judges didn't include emotions and feelings things would be even more screwy than they are now. I'll take my chances with a Human with Human emotions any day over the truly dispassionate view a computer would provide.

0
2

@Roger Stenning

Having been at one end or the other of several courtroom battles over the past 20 years, at pre-trial where both parties have been brought before the court, and both parties have presented summary evidence in order to justify full proceedings, the Judge has usually turned to one of the parties and said (and I approximate this) "If the following evidence can be demonstrated to be true in court, then you will probably lose. I would recommend you go away with Mr xxxxxx and come to an agreement rather than take this to trial".

To me this has always been common sense. Judges are not fools, and from speaking to several from an IT support perspective and 2 I know personally, they are also nothing like you see on TV, and they point out that trials in Film and TV have very little similarity to what goes on in real life. The "shocking revelation" near the end of the trial never happens. More often than not the Judge tells one of the parties (and again I approximate this) "you are talking bollocks,don't take it to trial"

When I read what this judge has done and said, this is all that has happenned. The high public interest of this case has ensured that the Judges comments have been magnified within the media, but it is still nothing outside of what happens day in day out in court.

10
0
Silver badge

Re: "she did stress that her view wasn't final"

"Which is odd, considering half a dozen other companies in the alleged cabal have fessed up and settled"

Not quite. If they had "fessed up" then they would have admitted to breaking the law, at which point it goes to court. What has happened is a payment has been made without duress or admission of liability to make the prosecution go away. The prosecution accept the payment as being approx. equal to the likely fine in a court less the money saved by not going to court.

1
1
404
Bronze badge

Lindsay Lohan

Right there - that is the state of US courts. Nothing really surprises me anymore concerning that word with the eternally changing definition, 'justice'.

Any one of us would have already been through jail/rehab and moved on with our lives years ago...

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: "she did stress that her view wasn't final"

@Don Jefe

"Don't know why you got downvoted."

Because they can. Seen a growing trend here for posts to be down voted for no other reason that I can see other than that there's a Down Vote button for them to use.

2
4

Re: "she did stress that her view wasn't final"

really i gotta wonder how much apple "donated" to the judges favorite charity of choice for her to say this?

a) judgement goes apples way - nothing more said.

b) judgement goes against apple - thrown out of court on appeal due to non-impartial judge using this statement as proof.

apple lawers must be happily jerkin themselves into a right frothy mess over this one

1
0
Silver badge

Re: @Roger Stenning

Yes that is common sense. However I would say there is a world of difference between

"If the following evidence can..." and "I believe the government will..."

The first leaves open the possibility of impartiality. The second one? Not so much. She's supposed to have the good sense to know the difference.

0
0
Flame

My understanding of American Law is weak but a couple of things spring to mind

If all of them settle for millions of dollars where does that money go?

IE will my ebooks get cheaper/ will I be partially refunded for those I purchased in the past?

The wonderful thing about ebooks is they are generally purchased electronically so someone must have records.

If the government gets the money id be tempted to say they don't need it but we all know that isn't true!

<-- the irony of a digital copy of Fahrenheit 451 is not lost on me

2
0
Silver badge

My understanding of American Law is weak but a couple of things spring to mind

Obviously as some of my responses will show.

If all of them settle for millions of dollars where does that money go?

You'll never know because not only is the settlement out of court, it is also sealed. All to protect the innocent you understand.

IE will my ebooks get cheaper/ will I be partially refunded for those I purchased in the past?

No, but it is important that you think this will be the case. It maintains the illusion that this is all about justice and not just shaking down corporations for filthy lucre.

The wonderful thing about ebooks is they are generally purchased electronically so someone must have records.

Actually, not necessarily so. In fact, certain information is likely to be required to be destroyed within a 30 (90?) day period after you make the purchase. Information that makes it impossible to refund the money directly to you. You understand of course, don't you?

If the government gets the money id be tempted to say they don't need it but we all know that isn't true!

Actually not true, but again, it is important you continue to think that. It justifies future shakedowns of corporations for filthy lucre.

<-- the irony of a digital copy of Fahrenheit 451 is not lost on me

0
0
g e
Silver badge
Pint

POPCOOOOOORN!

Nom

0
0
Pint

Re: POPCOOOOOORN!

Hardly...

*yawn*

0
0
Anonymous Coward

US Govt wins....

I guess the US govt will be "repatriating" some of Apple's earnings one way or another mmm?

What goes around comes around and I think a lot of govts will be looking at that cash pile Apple refuse to "repatriate". Well funny :)

0
0
Devil

Re: US Govt wins....

If Apple have to repatriate some of their overseas loot (unlikely I know, but if the fine is big enough....) to pay the fine, the icing on the cake will be having to pay the tax they're avoiding by leaving it abroad.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

personally...

I'm not familiar with the detail behind this, nor do I care to take time out of my life reading up on it...so long as something is happening which results in Apple being hurt, then I am happy

2
1
FAIL

Judge's Comments?

Shouldn't the judge say nothing at all until all evidence is put forward and a judgement is made?

Wouldn't this give Apple grounds for it to be thrown out on the basis that the judge was forming opinions based on what she thought was going to be produced as evidence?

I'm not a fan of Apple, but a trial should be fair.

3
4
Anonymous Coward

Re: Judge's Comments?

This is a pre -hearing, where both sides try to show evidence it's worth bothering with.

If Apple are just saying, we didn't do it, and the G'ment are saying we have a mountain of evidence to say you do, then she is simply saying, goign buy these loose facts, she can't see any reason why they won't win the case.

What it shoudl do is get Apple to get their ass into gear.

2
1

Dumb. Really dumb.

This is the same legal foolishness shown by Judge Jackson in the Microsoft trial.

This will certainly be grounds for appeal, and maybe even for a motion for her to recuse herself.

Dumb.

1
3
Silver badge
Pint

Yes, the emails proved that they conspired to fix prices

...slightly lower than the competition.

Nail them for tax cheating.

Then abandon them for the boring Black & White Flat GUI theme coming with iOS 7.

0
1
This topic is closed for new posts.