

Apple to DOJ: Bite me - matan_a
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2012/05/26/apple-to-doj-bite-me/?hpt=hp_t2

======
tar
This article is heavily biased and seems to have been published straight from
Apple's PR department.

~~~
cwp
So, if there happened to be a really clear-cut, one-sided case out there, how
would an unbiased news organization report on it?

~~~
duaneb
"Apple filed response to DoJ." <Link to response.> Possibly a summary of
claims.

~~~
MartinMond
Sorry, but if the situation is clear cut then a good news source should say
exactly that.

Just publishing X did Y and alleges Z leads to the current situation where
creationists, global warming deniers and so on are given space in news
reporting as if these issues were to be decided by personal opinion and not by
facts.

~~~
koeselitz
No, absolutely not. An awful news reporting agency would say "creationists
think X, but evolutionists rip them to shreds." That is bad news reportage.
Good news reportage would say "creationists say X, evolutionists say Y, the
facts that are evident are Z." This is clearly not what CNN have done with
this piece. It would be nice if they had.

The simple point is that engaging in inflationary and imprecise colloquial
language like "totally rips it to shreds" renders the article pretty much
useless for communicating clear facts, _especially_ if there is one clear
winner. Don't tell me who's right; that is pointless and communicates only
opinion. Tell me the facts, and make them as stark and as clear as possible.
"Totally rips it to shreds" is not a fact; it's vague cant wrapped up in
metaphor. Bad reportage.

~~~
ForrestN
I think you're conflating style and substance a little too fully. I can
appreciate your objection to "ripped it to shreds," but that's not a very
substantive objection to the reporting/analysis.

Your desire not to be told who is right is problematic. Just because opinions
on the shape of the earth differ doesn't mean the news media must refrain from
telling it's readers the truth. If you want to compare press releases and come
to your own conclusion you don't need a staff of reporters for that.

------
idspispopd
Get the reply here:
[http://ia701206.us.archive.org/6/items/gov.uscourts.nysd.394...](http://ia701206.us.archive.org/6/items/gov.uscourts.nysd.394628/gov.uscourts.nysd.394628.54.0.pdf)

The reply is persuasive in sections as to present Apple fostering competition
in the eBooks market. (Lots of comparisons to Amazon's dominant position,
indeed it does appear that the iBookStore is aimed at disrupting Amazon's
stranglehold.) Which is not unusual, since competition would lead to Apple's
gain.

However what is clear is that Apple do have something to answer for, albeit a
far less serious offence rather than Anti-trust/collusion.

I suspect this came about so quickly as a result of Amazon lobbyists, rather
than a legitimate concern of the government against Apple and the eBook market
for the benefit of consumers. I'm of this thinking because the government is
typically slow to act and rarely do so preemptive as they have done here.
(That and Amazon owning nearly the entire eBook market, stands the most to
lose.)

Note, lobbying does not imply that Amazon forced the government, rather they
could have simply alerted them to the situation.

As for throwing publishers under the bus, that's a claim that lacks
understanding of what a reply should entail. (I.E. you answer the case as it
applies to you.)

~~~
Steko
The DOJ antitrust dept has been so emasculated from doing it's actual job that
just about the only thing it acts on are open and shut cases with hard
evidence like the price fixing here. So some careerist at DoJ had a chance to
buff his resume up with a high profile case, got some open and shut evidence
and boom here we are. Apple may or may not have been party to this but no one
cares and this will die a quiet death later on.

------
mlader
Apple and a number of publishers have already settled with the EU Commission
[1], which began an investigation before even the DOJ. From a legal standpoint
this is not an admission of guilt. Apple believed that either a) the legal
costs of mounting a defense were about the same as the potential damages, b)
they could not win in the European Courts (this could be because of the
interpretation of their anti-trust laws), or c) the PR debacle would harm
their brand and reputation too much. I would pick a combination of B and C in
this case, though mostly B.

As far as the DOJ anti-trust division is concerned, their job is to
investigate and prosecute companies that allegedly partake in anti-competitive
behavior that adversely affect consumer prices. They saw a rise in prices as
competition increased, which is contrary to how price dynamics are supposed to
work in an increasingly competitive market. Given that the source of this rise
in prices was due to simultaneous pressure from publishers on Amazon to switch
to an agency pricing model from a wholesale pricing model, it makes sense that
the DOJ would investigate. This suit will likely take a few years to come to a
conclusion.

[1] [http://www.macworld.co.uk/ipad-iphone/news/?newsid=3353332&#...</a>

------
thechut
It looks to me like whoever wrote this article has never seen an initial legal
statement like this before. It's very common for lawyers to make these sorts
of claims early on in an investigation or case.

For example in a drunk driving suit, a good lawyer would immediately claim his
clients rights were violated and this or that procedure wasn't followed
properly. It usually gets you nowhere and is just legal posturing.

Can any lawyers here give a more technical explanation of this happening?

------
aresant
"[AAPL] cuts the government's case to shreds"

Wow, is CNN a news organization or a press release promotion mill?

CNN's one-sidedness made me uneasy enough to research the contrarian opinion,
this is the best summary I found:

[http://paidcontent.org/2012/05/14/e-book-class-action-new-
de...](http://paidcontent.org/2012/05/14/e-book-class-action-new-details/)

Effectively the evidence in the govt's case shows that:

a) AAPL recognized that they required the collusion of the top 5 publishers to
set market pricing, and actively solicited them.

b) AAPL suggested pricing to the top 5 publishers.

I believe in due process, just pointing out that there is clearly more here
than CNN's summary allows.

~~~
ubernostrum
It's a CNN-branded opinion blog covering Apple, not a CNN news report.

~~~
nhebb
I searched the page for the words blog, opinion, and editorial => zero
matches. It does look like an opinion piece, but they should at least label it
as such.

~~~
raganwald
When I saw the words "Bite Me" in the title, it set certain expectations for
what was to follow. I would have been surprised had it been anything but an
opinion piece.

------
unimpressive
In theory a news article is finished when all facts have been stated.

In practice a news article is finished when all facts have been spun.

------
h84ru3a
Given a choice between AAPL and AMZN as a source for purchasing "ebooks",
which would you prefer?

~~~
EvilTerran
Given those two options, I would choose... the Pirate Bay.

~~~
MatthewPhillips
this

