In the UK
They would have called in the Peelers.
Apple's objections to its court-appointed antitrust monitor show exactly why the fruity firm needs an outsider keeping watch on its competition practices, the judge in the case has said. US District Judge Denise Cote released a full opinion on why Apple needs the monitor after deciding on Tuesday to reject the company's bid to …
They would have called in the Peelers.
In-Steed - and if one of them was the good Lady Emma, I'd buy extra popcorn! :-).
...which stands for Lame Out Loud.
Seriously Apple....you make billions upon billions of dollars in profits and charge your customers through the roof for your products and have almost no profit sharing with your retailers whom you make jump through so many hoops just to have the "privilege" of selling your junk.
I think you can manage a little bit of "imposition". Grow up and shut up.
Don't forget the shareholders, either
Or the tax man.
Apple must surely be the most recalcitrant violator in history. Watching it flail around, like a delinquent child having a tantrum, is both amusing and quite disturbing. It needs more than just a monitor, it needs a straightjacket, a padded cell and an antipsychotic injection.
You exaggerate almost as much as The Register and that vulture rag does a lot of exaggerating.
"...have almost no profit sharing with your retailers whom you make jump through so many hoops just to have the "privilege" of selling your junk. I think you can manage a little bit of "imposition". Grow up and shut up."
But this imposition won't rectify that at all. Why doesn't the court just take 1% of the eBook gross for three years and distribute that to the wronged book sellers? That might help, instead you get:
"Seven of the eleven people interviewed have been lawyers".... so lawyers talking to other lawyers. So lawyers have figured out how to rake off a larger portion of Apple's profits. I don't know why anyone supporting a desperate retailer would support this. Or perhaps they already have a large contingent of lawyers talking to other lawyers raking off their profits, and advising them to support this silly monitoring? One thing about lawyers, is they are great about building virulent business models.
And here you are yet, posting to it
I think you have missed the point; it seems to be Apple who is trying to prevent the monitor actually doing his job, and is putting up lawyers to argue with him. If (and this is a big ask for any US corporation of any size) Apple were to behave logically and rationally, they could try co-operating with the monitor and so not employing lawyers at all. That would also reduce the amount they get billed by the monitor. Instead, it looks like he turns up on the doorstep to see Fred Bloggs, and instead gets a lawyer who wants to explain to him why Mr. Bloggs is too busy/too irrelevant/too important to talk to him.
Don't forget the shareholders, either
I totally despise Apple, and if they went into receivership tomorrow I would probably be in the hospital after a very intense drunken celebration, but the one thing I hate more is misinformation. AAPL pays a quarterly dividend. Last quarter that was 3.05 USD/share (yielding 2.26%). At 892.6M shares outstanding, that's about 2.7 billion USD last quarter.
You can argue if that's enough or not, but they do give it.
How can they get their hand back in the cookie jar while mum is watching?
They still don't admit they did anything wrong. And now this monitor is getting in the way of them not doing anything wrong again.
... constitutes “irreparable harm” to Apple then the standard for irreparable harm is low indeed.» Judge Cote obviously fails to understand that looking cross-eyed at Apple subjects that frail entity to «irreparable harm»....
In fairness to Apple, having to pay $1,100 an HOUR to someone who has no expertise in areas of monopolies, so then had to employ other lawyers that Apple ALSO has to pay, to then interview staff who have nothing to do with the iBooks-Publishers agreements seems a little rich. I mean, what on earth does Jony Ive have to do with negotiating contracts with Reuters?
The reason this lawyer has interviewed mostly lawyers is because, hell, that who does the contract negotiations.
I think the real reason he want to interview all these guys is because he is associated with Samsung's legal representation in the US. Fact!
Also, in fairness to Apple - the DOJ has single handledly given the entire ebooks market to Amazon. Well done them. The next thing we'll see is the decreasing spend on books and ebooks. Oh wait...
How would one know if the staff in question isn't involved with publisher agreements? Only one way to found out - ask them. You make it sound like they were subjected to torture or something...
"... he is associated with Samsung's legal representation in the US. Fact!"
Did they both go to the same law school or something like that? Details!
You don't think Apple already have an highly paid team of shysters on retainers already?
There is no "in fairness to xxx" (whichever multi-billion company is in question at the time) - they subvert and pervert taxation laws, they overcharge, they (Apple) do not (unless forced to) comply with consumer protection legislation in whichever markets they operate, they are just not nice and too big.
I would love to see some of these companies broken up into totally independent businesses for their various "products".
Sorry, this was written after lunch (hic) - it probably makes no sense to anyone other than my shrink.
Apple makes billions and billions of dollars in profit each year. His fee is a non-existent cost to Apple. If there was an award for bad corporate citizen, Apple would win hands down!
You lost me at "In fairness to Apple".
Greedy money grabbers, meet mr. Greedy Moneygrabber.
What goes around, comes around.
"I think the real reason he want to interview all these guys is because he is associated with Samsung's legal representation in the US. Fact!"
Try providing the sources of your claims, rather than just hoping adding "Fact!" at the end of a line of bullshit convinces people.
Then again, the shills for Apple have never been known for intelligence, accuracy, or truth. Any company that puts more time into aesthetics than quality, reliability, or even common sense, will always have their version of "911 Truthers" to spread the message.
Fuck fairness to Apple.
Apple is not a teenager that needs to learn a life lesson. Apple is a multinational corporation with highly-paid managers listening to highly-paid consultants telling it what can be done. It has made corporate decisions based on making profit - like every other company - and has been caught doing wrong.
Punishment is deserved, not fairness.
Keep it up.
Wall of unformatted text: check
Calls for death: check
Blatant disregard for facts getting in the way of ill-formed opinion as given to him by his fruity overlords: check
Now, we just need to check his bank balance to work out if he is just a rabid fanboi, or a shill.
Accidentally replied to the wrong post. My above post was meant for the guy below.
Let me guess, you were abducted by aliens and experimented on?!
Yes, and they seem to have "probed" his brains out.
Not Aliens. He was test subject. Now expect the rest of society to sound just like him. Puts on her tin foil hat and crawls inside of lead lined bunker.
Death Penalty, Mr Katt?
Now I know some fanbois can get a bit, well, fanatical. You however, take the batshit-crazy religious-fruitloop cake. Death to the unbelievers, next?
Are you real, or rubber?
There is something odd about "James Katt". Just look at his previous posts - he is almost a parody of an Apple fanboi.
That's gonna leave a mark.
Bromwich is sitting on a load of dough, and a big tax liability unless he can learn how to pay no tax like Apple.
"But Daddy, I don't want a baby sitter"
Seems the court's response was the same as mine. "Tough cookies kid, you're getting one."
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017