back to article Apple asks judge to axe ebook price-fixing watchdog

Apple has asked a New York court to kick the antitrust monitor the beaks appointed off the company's payroll, accusing him of being biased against the fruity firm. Cupertino has been complaining about the court-appointed external compliance monitor Michael Bromwich practically since he got the job, saying that his fees are …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. g e
    Headmaster

    *Sigh*

    Apple really are like a small over-privileged child with rich parents and an over active hubris gland.

    I hope they die on their arse. Well, we're allowed to dream.

    1. jai

      Re: *Sigh*

      wish i could charge $1100 an hour just for talking to people...

      1. Geoff Campbell Silver badge

        Re: wish i could charge $1100 an hour just for talking to people...

        You can.

        Whether or not you will get paid is, of course, an entirely separate discussion. And probably quite a short one.

        GJC

      2. g e

        Re: *Sigh*

        There's more money in price-fixing.

        Unless you get caught.

    2. big_D Silver badge

      Re: *Sigh*

      I think Apple should be watched, but it does sound like the appointed watcher is abusing his position. Generally I think Apple have abused their position and their losing the case was the right decision, but I have to side with them against Bromwich, based on what has so far been reported.

      Maybe the court should pay for the work, then it would probably drop to under $20 an hour. :-D

      1. Eddy Ito
        Facepalm

        Re: *Sigh*

        "Maybe the court should pay for the work, then it would probably drop to under $20 an hour."

        And the court gets it money from where? In these parts the courts are funded by we taxpayers. Because nothing is more fair than screwing the little guy to protect the little guy from being screwed by corporate price fixing schemes of a company worth roughly 4.9x10^11 dollars. Oh and good luck finding someone competent to do the job for $20/hr or have you missed the news stories of last months fast food worker strike? Oh, perhaps Apple could find someone they could pay in iPhone apps.

    3. Gordon 10
      Terminator

      Re: *Sigh*

      To be fair to apple its not likely a lawyer who charges $1100 is the shy and retiring, dragged himself up from the ghetto type.

      Suspect its very much a case of Megashark vs Crocosarus. I'll get the popcorn in.....

    4. Oh Homer
      Paris Hilton

      Re: Poor Apple

      My heart really bleeds for this unscrupulous, litigious, 485.89 billion dollar, overpriced-toy maker.

      How dare that nasty man force them to conduct business ethically?

      Clearly he must be stopped, so that Apple can resume racketeering "business" as usual.

    5. csumpi
      Devil

      Re: *Sigh*

      Apple: We don't like this restriction on price manipulation.

      NSA: We need a new backdoor to iDevices.

      Apple+NSA in unison: Deal!

  2. Eradicate all BB entrants

    Dear Apple .......

    ....... remember the 30% you want from in app purchases? This is the karmic payback.

    1. Eponymous Howard

      Re: Dear Apple .......

      I think the developers who have netted $7bn aren't too unhappy with the model.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Dear Apple .......

        Absolutely, they would have hated to have 8.5 or 10 billion.

      2. csumpi

        Re: Dear Apple .......

        "I think the developers who have netted $7bn aren't too unhappy with the model."

        Haha. Yeah. You wish. In reality, this is how that $10bn got divided:

        $3bn -> Apple

        $5bn -> Facebook user acquisition

        $2bn -> developers

        Happiest? You bet. The Zuck.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Dear Apple .......

      30% is peanuts.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Dear Apple .......

      Do you freetard asshats really not understand commerce?

      1. Eradicate all BB entrants

        Re: Dear Apple .......

        Do you AC's not understand 'in app purchases'? You know, where Apple wanted a 30% slice on every purchase through, for example, the Kindle app?

        Imagine if the MS/Linux distro you used demanded 30% of every purchase from Steam you made.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Dear Apple .......

          @ Eradicate all BB entrants

          Apple process the transactions, pay the bank/credit card charges, provide and support the infrastructure. 30% is nothing and equally fair. All the other app stores are adopting the same successful model, no real surprise. No developer want to be responsible for all that hassle.

          1. Eradicate all BB entrants

            Re: Dear Apple .......

            I'm not talking about the initial 30% cut from the original app sale on Apples store, I am referring to when Apple wanted a 30% cut of purchases made through an app that had nothing to do with them except it was running on one of their devices.

            At least on 4chan they have the courtesy to read your post before trolling.

            1. Andrew Lobban

              Re: Dear Apple .......

              I agree with you on the 30% from in-app purchases, but I have often wondered about the following scenario, and I'll be interested in opinion here.

              If there was no profit share on in-app purchases do you think we would suddenly see currently expensive apps made available for free with an activation charge as an in app purchase, i.e. cut Apple/Google out of their 30%? I wonder if this is why there is an insistence on the 30% applying to the in-app purchases as well. Many additional app features are already available as in-app purchases so I wonder if this is the thinking from Apple.

              It would be tempting to say they should look at things case by case (kindle for example) but that would be extremely resource intensive and open to much interpretation hence the blanket policy. And in the case of kindle, I'm sure they were hoping some ibook purchases would occur as a result of that being nice and integrated, The kindle app though, much to amazons credit, is still far superior to ibooks.

          2. John Wilson

            Re: Dear Apple .......

            "Apple process the transactions, pay the bank/credit card charges, provide and support the infrastructure. 30% is nothing and equally fair"

            About 1-2% covers the bank/credit card charges. You're seriously suggesting the other 28-29% of *in-app purchases* covers the infrastructure? They've already taken a chunk out of the app price. They're double-dipping into other people's money. And let's add into this that with the App store, you *must* use their payment system, or your app is rejected. There's plenty of developers who do the payment systems much, much cheaper than 30%.

            And seriously, 30% is nothing? It's a third of every in-app transaction! So no, it's not "nothing", and it's not "equally fair".

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Dear Apple .......

              John, actually thats not right, in the UK at least, the banks charge ~20p to process every single transaction, whether its £0.50 or £1000. So for all those 69p app transactions, Apple (Google charge exactly the same 30% btw) basically makes nothing at all if the purchase is made with a UK debit card. Its not as clear cut as it first seems. What would be really interesting would be to know what the profit is after everything has been paid for, Bank Charges, Servers, Electricity, People etc...

              1. Eradicate all BB entrants

                Re: Dear Apple .......

                Quite close AC but not quite there. While Visa/Mastercard/et al do charge various figures for transactions, this is an individual processing charge. Once your company hits a certain number of charges a year this individual charge will be changed to a flat rate for all processing. Depending on the deal worked out with the merchant services Apple could be down to 1-2p per transaction.

                A bit similar to MS OEM licensing, I doubt Dell or HP pay much more than £10 per WIndows license.

              2. csumpi
                Paris Hilton

                Re: Dear Apple .......

                " in the UK at least, the banks charge ~20p to process every single transaction, whether its £0.50 or £1000"

                Yeah. When you move a couple bucks around.

                Or you really don't think Apple gets a better rate?

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: Dear Apple .......

                  I don't understand why so many posters think that 30% is excessive.

                  My photographs sell through a giant agency based somewhere in Washington state.

                  for every $100 they sell a picture for I get $45. On top of that when it gets converted to £s I lose a little more, and then I have to pay tax on the amount that goes into my account.

                  I would love a 30% commission rate.

                  On the other hand. I don't have to market, track, bill, chase, operate an office or spend time on the phone talking to clients.

                  I just watch the money going in to the bank every 3 months.

                  1. Eddy Ito

                    Re: Dear Apple .......

                    If you apply for and get a job online through the browser in iOS, does Apple get 30% of your salary because it's an in-app purchase?

              3. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: Dear Apple .......

                Apple wouldn't be paying the banks, the processing is done by Visa, Mastercard, American Express, etc. Apple is large enough to go direct and bypass the banks. Many retailers will go through a bank for their processing though.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Dear Apple .......

          Oh, a bit like the US wanting a cut of the profits Apple make in different countries. Or are you one of those "what's his cake and to eat it" fandroids?

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Pot of Apple tea

    Calling kettle black.

  4. returnmyjedi

    I gave up on the Apple statement after the first sentence. The US is desperately in need of a plain English campaign. I currently work for a US based company and the combination of the ridiculously tongue twisted emails I receive from them and having to fill in US government documents I'm surprised that anyone can be bothered to fill in any form in America (the forms for Obamacare are Orwellian in their double speak).

  5. David Webb

    Monopoly

    When you're a convicted monopolist you got to take the blows, not whine about it.

    1. Steve Todd

      Re: Monopoly

      Erm, they weren't convicted as a monopolist. They don't have the market share in books to be anything close to a monopoly. They were convicted of conspiring to fix book prices. The monopoly power in the market is Amazon, who had distorted prices so much that the publishers were on Apple's side over there needing to be a change.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Monopoly

      Who's the convicted monopolist?

      It's not Apple.

  6. kmac499

    Mummy Mummy...

    My babysitter is taking all my sweets and not letting me watch TV and making me do my home work and it's just SO UNFAIR...

    Well Kid if you hadn't broken the other kids toys you wouldn't need a babysitter,,,

    1. Psyx

      Re: Mummy Mummy...

      It's more that the babysitter is charging $200 an hour and deciding that they should also hang around to make sure your MOT is valid, see the kids to school, rifle through your undies drawer, do a H&S study on your house, grass you up to the local council about putting stuff in the wrong bins, let the police know about your stash... and bill you for doing so.

      I don't think there's much argument about Apple needing oversight. I'm not weeping for them over that. But it does suck that the Court appointed a scam artist to do the job.

  7. Phil W

    Weasel

    I'm not generally on Apple's side in many arguments, but I have to say it does sound from the article like the guy is deliberately causing trouble and making life difficult for Apple.

    I'm not opposed to people causing trouble and making life difficult for Apple per se, but when the person doing it is a court appointed monitor for a specific area, trying to stick his nose into everything I think it is a bit out of line.

    You wouldn't expect a traffic warden to insist on performing a full body search of you and everyone in your car after telling you can't park somewhere or giving you a ticket.

    1. g e

      Re: Weasel

      That's his job cos Apple were working-broken within the law, getting them to work within the law by definition means he'll be making life difficult. It's corporate rehab.

    2. This post has been deleted by its author

      1. Phil W

        Re: Weasel

        "Frankly i think the guy is on to things Apple is not wanting others to find out about."

        Indeed, that may well be the case, but unless those things are specifically related to antitrust practices it's not his job.

        1. This post has been deleted by its author

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Weasel

            "AND!!!! just how will you know until you "find out"?

            That's the catch 22 position.

            The guy needs to probe the rotten apple to the core.

            5000 pounds of Apple cavity search recommended."

            ----------------------------------------

            Thanks for justifying our "spy on everyone" approach.

            regards,

            NSA

            1. This post has been deleted by its author

    3. DragonLord

      Re: Weasel

      Note that one of the complaints is that he's wanting to interview top execs who Apple claim wouldn't have had anything to do with ebooks. This is despite the fact that quite often the people at the top will have an informal conversation and then it will turn into something formal with the right people.

  8. Eponymous Cowherd
    Thumb Down

    Booo Hooo......

    The nasty man is being mean to us.

    Typical bully, Beats up anyone smaller then them, but goes crying home to mummy when they get a taste of their own medicine.

  9. Stretch

    Waaaaaaaaaaah!

    He won't let us gouge the sheeple and he keeps looking at the illegal things we are doing! Waaaaaaaah!

    "the guy is deliberately causing trouble and making life difficult for Apple."

    Then I, for one, would like to give him a cookie.

  10. Gordon 10
    Big Brother

    Watchdog or Auditor

    It would be interesting to know whether by the terms of the court settlement he was tasked to be a watchdog or an auditor. The difference being a true watchdog would be justified in pro-actively chasing down "leads" whereas an auditors role is more like a review of whats been submitted, in which case any chasing down should be purely related to more information requests around the submission.

    It has to be said though - how was this guy chosen? It sounds like a pretty sweet gig that he's milking for all its worth. I would love to understand the trail of influence application process that got him the job........

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      The monitor is a long time friend of the judge

      The whole appointment stinks to high heaven. If an impartial monitor wanted to look into some stuff that's related to the case he was appointed to monitor, that's one thing.

      I think Apple should be within their rights to demand someone else be appointed. They can't keep refusing to work with everyone, but it sounds like this guy is on a fishing expedition and wanting to look into things totally unrelated to the case. While Apple haters may cheer that on, that's not what the law allows.

      It is as if Google lost a court case regarding search and the monitor wanted to interview the CEO of Motorola and the head programmer for Android.

  11. auburnman

    Did the monitor get the option of refusing the job when the court appointed him? Maybe he doesn't want it and is actively trying to get himself punted. As much as sticking it to Apple could be amusing to the right person, compliance checking sounds like boring work that could drag on for years while your skillset and reputation erode.

    On the subject of $1100/hr, I wonder how much that is in comparison to Apple's legal counsel? It would be good if he mentioned what the regular lawyers at Apple get paid in a court rebuttal.

  12. K Cartlidge
    Facepalm

    Apple are not being unreasonable.

    There are a few comments about the irony/cheek of Apple complaining about overcharging, the point being that Apple themselves overcharge.

    There is, however, a big difference.

    Apple's customers have a choice. If they choose to pay Apple's prices then by very definition they are not being overcharged - they are paying what they are willing to pay and Apple are pricing accordingly.

    You may not agree with their pricing, given that other vendors charge less, but their customers do.

    This court-appointed gentleman however is simply billing what he/his company chooses on the assumption that Apple have no choice at all.

    I'm not a great Apple fan, but there is a very big difference between the two situations. Where there is a genuine alternative it is not overcharging to ask what the market will bear. In this case, there is no choice at all and so Apple are not being hypocritical challenging it in court.

    Downvote at your leisure.

    1. Eponymous Cowherd

      Re: Apple are not being unreasonable.

      "Apple's customers have a choice. If they choose to pay Apple's prices then by very definition they are not being overcharged - they are paying what they are willing to pay and Apple are pricing accordingly.

      The difference is that Apple and their price-fixing cartel buddies were forcing customers of other vendors to pay inflated prices in order for them to keep their own inflated 30% markup on eBooks.

      I choose to read my eBooks on a Kindle, yet I was being forced to pay more because of Apple.

      1. Juan Inamillion

        Re: Apple are not being unreasonable.

        "I choose to read my eBooks on a Kindle, yet I was being forced to pay more because of Apple and their price-fixing cartel buddies."

        There fixed that for you.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Apple are not being unreasonable.

        You are not forced to use Apple's services.

        Amazon may have offered you an app on your Apple device. You're neither forced to use that app nor that device.

        1. David Ward 1

          Re: Apple are not being unreasonable.

          "Amazon may have offered you an app on your Apple device. You're neither forced to use that app nor that device."

          Except that the whole point of the cartel was that they (the publishers) would not enable the book to be sold elsewhere for less either, so if you buy from the kindle app on an apple device you pay the same price or less than from the kindle store on a kindle.

  13. Alan Denman

    "Not like me"

    anyone else noticed that whenever Apple's case is extra weak so many posts seem to start 'I'm not normally in support of Apple but..' ?

    So it is just like you, and you and you and you.

    1. This post has been deleted by its author

    2. K Cartlidge

      Re: "Not like me"

      Or, I *don't* normally support Apple *but* on this occasion happen to think their case is *not* weak.

  14. TheWeenie

    @ Phil W

    You wouldn't expect a traffic warden to insist on performing a full body search of you and everyone in your car after telling you can't park somewhere or giving you a ticket.

    Shhh - you'll give them ideas!

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: @ Phil W

      Some blokes pay good money for that!

  15. Big_Ted
    Big Brother

    First thing the Judge should do

    I ask Apple to provide a statement of how many hours of lawyers time they paid for in the past 12 months, what the total payout for it was and a per hour rate from that then the most expensive lawyers invoices must be provided to see what they charge. Then she should bdemand that the lawyers moaning about the charge must provide invoices they have sent to Apple so the court can make a comparison.

    If it turns out they are paying lawyers anywhere close to this then they should be held to be in contempt of court and liable to a big fine.

  16. Michael Jecks

    Monopoly vs Cartel

    What I find incomprehensible in all this is, publishers and Apple tried to fix prices at a level agreed by the businesses - why? To prevent Amazon taking down all publishing in their race to the bottom. It's blatantly obvious that, by preventing Apple and various publishers from operating an unofficial price-fixing arrangement as used to operate in all Western countries (and still operates in places like France) to protect authors, the American legal system has handed the market to a monopolist - Amazon. Authors will see their incomes slashed still further, publishers will be driven out of business, and only one firm will benefit.

    I do have a personal interest. I'm an author. Amazon demands massive discounts on the books it sells. That means the authors see their income collapse by the same percentage (we tend to be paid based on net receipts). So personally I'd infinitely prefer to see Apple and others being allowed to set their prices at an economically sustainable level.

    1. ElReg!comments!Pierre

      Re: Monopoly vs Cartel

      > operating an unofficial price-fixing arrangement as used to operate in all Western countries (and still operates in places like France)

      Bollocks. No place has a "prefered nation" clause like the one that got Apple in hot water.

      > Amazon demands massive discounts on the books it sells. That means the authors see their income collapse by the same percentage

      The relationship between sale price and author remuneration depends entirely on the editor, and then on your contract with the editor.

      > (we tend to be paid based on net receipts)

      Who's your editor? Most contracts I've seen are of the "variable upfront payment + small amount per copy sold"; I don't think I've ever seen one that actually mentionned the editor's net income. But obviously I haven't seen them all.

      > So personally I'd infinitely prefer to see Apple and others being allowed to set their prices at an economically sustainable level.

      It's not what Apple and others were caught for. Don't be fooled, the agency model they were going for would have allowed Apple to pressure the editors as much if not more than what Amazon is doing. Amazon is driving the price down (partially) by subsidizing the books (selling at a loss), which means that the publisher is getting more money than what the end customer pays. Apple would have driven the prices down by pushing for a lower price from the editors (while keeping a bigger cut for themselves, of course). That's demonstrably worst for the customer and potentially worst for the publisher too (although it could be better for the publisher, depending on how benevolent and selfless Apple would feel).

      1. The_Idiot

        Re: Monopoly vs Cartel

        <

        Most contracts I've seen are of the "variable upfront payment + small amount per copy sold"

        >

        True, mostly, for big name publishers.

        Rather less true (or, potentially totally untrue because I don't know all of them) for Indie and small market publishers where there is no upfront payment, but a higher royalty rate,

        In fact one of the ongoing issues with some of the 'professional' authors' associations (for example the Authors Guild and the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America the last time I looked at either) is that their membership requirements include a minimal total upfront payment from a number of books, hence eliminating all authors not in such arrangements. So such an author could sell 99999999999999999 books through self publishing, or through small market publishing, and still not qualify for membership (and I'm talking about people like Joe Konrath, not me (blush)). Of course, people like the good Mr Konrath aren't likely to worry too much, and more power to them! :-)

      2. Tim Bedford

        Re: Monopoly vs Cartel

        Except that the average book price went down during the period Apple is accused of anti-trust violations. The Library and Book Trade Almanac figures show this. The almanac is compiled by an old an respected company in the publishing field, R. R. Bowker.

        Amazon had a monopoly on online book sales. Having a monopoly is not illegal, only abusing that position is. However entering a market against and entrenched competitor is hard. Apple sought to break into the market and provide competition. Something that can only help consumers.

        We can't blame Amazon for fighting to maintain their position, but we can blame the American government for being hoodwinked by them.

  17. Crady

    So it's ok for 'them' to rip people off with the ebook pricing to what probably made them millions of dollars but having got caught they are crying about the legal system ripping them off...oh the irony of it all.

  18. Sureo

    What does Apple pay their lawyers?

    I don't hear them whinging about that. And it must be plenty.

  19. John Tserkezis

    Price fixing isn't a problem.

    Until you no longer have any control over fixing the price of the team that monitors it...

    Sorry Apple, it appears that not *everyone* can be bought.

  20. Old Timer

    Surely any monitor just needs to check any new contracts to see if they comply with the court ruling? That's quite a simple job. Questions over whether this man is worth US$1100 an hour are raised because he is outsourcing the work to another set of lawyers (and earning an admin fee on their costs) as he doesn't not have the specific knowledge.

    1. Anthony Hulse

      Nepotism

      Indeed. He basically got the gig because he's friends with the judge. If you read Apple's complaints he's even trying to charge them for the training he needs in order to fulfil the mandate his friend has appointed him to do, because he doesn't actually know what he's supposed to be doing.

      The judge in favouring her mates over appointing somebody competent has given Apple the perfect get out clause. In their position I'd be complaining too. They'd be mad not to.

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like