backtop


Print 38 comment(s) - last by retrospooty.. on Aug 30 at 10:39 AM

Those who don't settle with the DOJ are often broken up for face stiffer consequences

Apple, Inc. (AAPL) was found guilty in July by U.S. District Judge Denise Cote of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York of costing customers "millions of dollars" by entering into secret deals with eBook publishers and offering to reward them for blacklisting Apple's competitor Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN). However, Apple remains resolute and defiant in its most recent briefing rejecting arguments from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) who are trying to convince it to accept a settlement offer.

I. Judge Reject's Apple's "Hypocritical" Demands

While some aspects of the DOJ's proposed settlement -- such as allowing competitors to offer link to direct content sales portals which Apple does not receive a cut from -- represent a fundamental assaults on Apple's "walled garden" model, Apple's decision not to settle is somewhat surprising given the potential severity that a trial could have for it, both in terms of image and in  the possibility of even more severe punishments.

Judge Cote had ordered both parties to submit letter briefs to the court discussing their goals in reaching a settlement.

Apple iPad
Apple rejected a proposed DOJ settlement after a judge found it guilty of e-book antitrust violations.  [Image Source: Telegraph]

The DOJ in a court brief argued that Apple should accept most of its terms and scoffed at Apple's proposal to allow it to "police itself".  The DOJ lawyers comment:
 
[G]iven Apple’s unwillingness to appreciate that its conduct violated the antitrustlaws and harmed consumers, it is difficult to understand how leaving it to the company to solely police itself going forward will remedy its antitrust violations and deter future ones.

Request for E-book Letter by Mikey Campbell



Apple's legal team --- which the DOJ says is not interested in playing by the rules, but is rather hired to "[enhance] its capabilities in defending litigation against antitrust violations" -- fires back arguing:

[The plaintiffs] did not submit a focused letter.  Instead they filed a 12-page broadside masquerading as a brief repeating their prior arguments and largely ignoring this Court's core guidance.  They also attached 72 pages of documents -- many simply pulled off the internet, and none in the trial record.  The brief did not express the Court's concerns, but rather is a transparent effort to again attack the credibility of Apple and its counsel, and obtain an injunction wildly out of proportion to the issues and evidence in this case, in order to punish Apple for defending itself at trial.
...
The parties have been litigating long enough to understand what it means to file letters setting forth their positions.There is simply no excuse for plaintiffs' disregard of the Court's order, and their inclusion of non-record material on issues not adjudicated by this Court in this case.

DOJ Proposal Brief by Mikey Campbell



But Apple itself commits the same offense that it accused the DOJ of -- villainizing its rival in the brief and repeating its own arguments.  For example it writes:

Apple feels compelled to reiterate that its commitment to legal compliance, including antitrust compliance, is unconditional, and steadfast... Apple's [self-policing] compliance training... is intended to address legal obligations... Apple's defense of the case... should not be a basis to impose external monitoring.

In other words, Apple attacks the DOJ for repeating its arguments, yet repeats its own arguments in many places in its own brief.  Perhaps for that reason Judge Cote rejected Apple's "demand" that the DOJ submit a new "more focused" brief.

II. More Severe Punishments Could Await Apple at Trial

With the parties set to meet again on Tuesday, it appears that Apple is treading on dangerous ground.  The company has already struggled to defend itself in the case.  Apple's internet software and services chief, Eddy Cue, who masterminded the e-book deals, admitted that his company was responsible for raising e-book prices.  He appeared to concede that his company's deals later drove up e-book prices from the former de facto rate of $10 to $15.  Asked if Apple (or Amazon) customers complained about the higher prices, he commented, "They may or may not have, I can't recall."

And Judge Cote has largely sided with the DOJ lawyers even as Apple has tried the same failing tactics over and over again in an effort to escape punishment.

[Image Source: CNET]
 
Many argue the DOJ brings antitrust actions far too rarely, and when it does bring them it seldom does so without strong and conclusive evidence.  For that reason, most companies who are ruled likely guilty during preliminary hearings decline to go to trial.  Indeed Apple's publishing partners who once allegedly conspired with it to damage Amazon have all agreed to DOJ settlements.

In 1999 the DOJ met another stubborn tech superpower -- Microsoft Corp. (MSFT).  Microsoft agreed to settle (eventually) after being found guilty in a Judge's statement of fact, but after struggling in an appeal offered to do otherwise.  Microsoft's settlement similarly was viewed as onerous within the company, but was viewed as modest at best by outside observers.

But ultimately Microsoft's decision to settle was driven heavily by the fear that the DOJ would use its ultimate power to exact a "death penalty" of sorts, breaking up the abusive company into smaller corporate subunits.  That's precisely what the DOJ did in its case against U.S. vs. AT&T.

AT&T glass
AT&T was broken up in the 1980s after it refused to settle with the DOJ.
[Image Source: Reuters/Shannon Stapleton]

While a DOJ breakup of Apple seems unlikely given the Obama administration's cozy relationship with the Cupertino company (late company co-founder and CEO Steven P. Jobs was President Obama's technology campaign director back in 2011), cash rich Apple could certainly be smacked with large fines or other more dangerous punishments, should it continue to refuse to cooperate and take the case to court.

Sources: Apple Insider, DOJ Brief, Apple Brief





Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

ooo, scary
By superstition on 8/27/2013 10:18:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
In 1999 the DOJ met another stubborn tech superpower -- Microsoft Corp. (MSFT). Microsoft agreed to settle (eventually) after being found guilty in a Judge's statement of fact, but after struggling in an appeal offered to do otherwise. Microsoft's settlement similarly was viewed as onerous within the company, but was viewed as modest at best by outside observers.

Microsoft was slapped on the wrist. The case was farcical.
quote:
But ultimately Microsoft's decision to settle was driven heavily by the fear that the DOJ would use its ultimate power to exact a "death penalty" of sorts, breaking up the abusive company into smaller corporate subunits.

Or, it could have been the fact that the settlement was a gift to MS.




RE: ooo, scary
By Reflex on 8/27/2013 10:31:53 PM , Rating: 1
Had it right the first time. The case was a farce. It was a prime example of government interference in a market that was both new and sorting itself out, and if the past decade proved anything it is that MS's monopoly, which never changed, diminished in power on its own.

I do generally support strong anti-trust enforcement. The case against Apple in the eBook space is open and shut in my opinion. But the DOJ vs MS case was just ludicrous and never should have been permitted to proceed.


RE: ooo, scary
By sprockkets on 8/27/2013 10:47:29 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
But the DOJ vs MS case was just ludicrous and never should have been permitted to proceed.


And why? MS could have been tried on any number of things that were anti competitive, the DOJ kept it simple and went for their abuse of the browser.

If you think the simple act of bundling IE with Win98 was the issue, you better do some research and find out why MS was busted for abusing their position in the old "PC" market. Heck, MS had to be taken to court by spyglass, for flat out stealing the source code to build IE in the first place.


RE: ooo, scary
By Reflex on 8/28/2013 1:46:19 AM , Rating: 2
I am aware of that, and the 1996 ruling against them for bundling office. None of that changes the fact that bundling IE was a pretty poor reason to take MS to court, and that is why the case was gutted on appeal and the findings of fact were almost entirely thrown out.

Pointing out that MS did legitimately bad things(they did) in the past does not make that specific case a good one. It wasn't.


RE: ooo, scary
By sprockkets on 8/28/2013 9:49:05 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
I am aware of that, and the 1996 ruling against them for bundling office.


MS never bundled office.

quote:
None of that changes the fact that bundling IE was a pretty poor reason to take MS to court, and that is why the case was gutted on appeal and the findings of fact were almost entirely thrown out.


The only thing that happened was another administration came into town, and cut a deal, with people speculating at the time and now in hindsight makes sense - they gave them access to zero day vulnerabilities to have the NSA spy on us.

quote:
Pointing out that MS did legitimately bad things(they did) in the past does not make that specific case a good one. It wasn't.


I could go on for ten pages about the abuse of MS monopoly. I could reference the fact that MS themselves lied in their own anti trust trial that removing IE would make Windows run slower.


RE: ooo, scary
By JasonMick (blog) on 8/28/2013 10:57:05 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
MS never bundled office.
Yea I LOLed @ that.

Microsoft give Office away for free with Windows? Surely he jests.

The only reason they have always bundled Internet Explorer for free is because no one would pay for it.


RE: ooo, scary
By Reflex on 8/28/2013 2:30:43 PM , Rating: 2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Micr...

They entered into a consent decree in 1994 to not force OEM's to bundle other software with Windows. This came on the heels of MS offering large carrot and stick type incentives to OEM's to include Office on every PC shipped.

As for IE, no one would ever pay for any web browser, even in the beginning. Among other things the court case made clear that Navigator never made Netscape any money, it was their web server software that they were profiting from.


RE: ooo, scary
By Just Tom on 8/28/2013 5:06:43 PM , Rating: 2
Bundling does not necessarily mean giving it away for free. MS tied Windows' sales to Office sales by offering incentives to manufacturers to include Office on new machines. You should know that.


RE: ooo, scary
By Flunk on 8/29/2013 3:58:05 PM , Rating: 2
Actually they bundled Office Home with Windows RT. All 12 copies they sold.


RE: ooo, scary
By Reflex on 8/28/2013 2:41:22 PM , Rating: 2
A new administration does not mean new judges, new evidence and new arguments. The case was not re-argued at appeals. Yet the appeals court tossed out virtually everything.

It may assuage your need to feel there was a conspiracy for the case to have been overturned, but the truth is it was not a very good case, the prosecutor and the judge were highly unethical and faced discipline afterwards, and MS never got a fair trial.

Or, you know, new administration and conspiracies if that makes you sleep better at night.


RE: ooo, scary
By flatrock on 8/29/2013 10:19:52 AM , Rating: 2
Microsoft DID bundle Office in that it was offered at a severely discounted price if purchased with a new computer, and since Office was Microsoft's cash cow, this was bay far the most significant abuse Microsoft was accused of. However, it wasn't why Microsoft was charged with breaking anti-trust laws.

They were charged with bundling a product that they had always offered for free, and who's integration into the OS definitely benefited consumers. Before the trial ended it became clear to people watching closely that Netscape had been making large boasts about their big plans of how they were going to make the OS insignificant while their code base had become an unmanageable mess that Mozilla eventually had to rewrite from the ground up. Microsoft's IE had caught up in features to Netscape far more because Netscape's progress had stalled. Than because Microsoft made what in hindsight is an obvious decision that the browser was becoming an integral part of the OS.

Microsoft did arguably have a monopoly in PC operating systems, but Netscape's pushing the DOJ to file charges seems to have been far more about making excuses to to their shareholders to cover for the lies they had been telling them about Netscape's future potential.

Anderson got treated like a victim when he should have been locked up for securities fraud instead.

The whole DOJ case was a circus that was far more about making MS look bad because of testosterone laden bantering by developers and managers. It relied far more on a smear campaign than on facts and centered around IE on a version of Windows that was reaching end of life by the time the case started.

It was a complete farce. There were things Microsoft was doing that were both anti-competitive and bad for consumers, but the browser wasn't one of them. Their actions may have been anti-competitive, but there was little evidence of harm to consumers then and even less in hindsight.

Anti-trust law is necessary, but could also be easily misused by the government, and the government generally is very cautious about bringing charges. The case against MS over IE stands out as an overly capricious and scary use of the law.

If they had gone after MS over bundling Office it would have been different, but going after them over IE never made sense, and it always seemed like the DOJ was trying to sensationalize things as much as possible to distract people from that. It played out more like a surreal Hollywood drama than a court case.


Stretching it a bit?
By Reflex on 8/27/2013 7:42:15 PM , Rating: 3
While a DOJ breakup of Apple seems unlikely given the Obama administration's cozy relationship with the Cupertino company

Um, that is a federal government decision that rulings based around Standards Essential Patents should not be a bar to sales of a product. Most patent reformers agree with this, and it would have been likely ruled the same way even if the parties had been reversed.

SEP's are not nor should they be a weapon.




RE: Stretching it a bit?
By sprockkets on 8/27/2013 10:11:21 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
SEP's are not nor should they be a weapon


The ITC and the standards body, ETSI, both agree that injunctions on SEPs are allowed if and only if reverse patent hold up is exhibited.

Guess what? Apple did just that. That's the only reason the ITC allowed the ban in the first place. The administration's decision chose to ignore that simple fact and issued a manufactured excuse to let Apple off the hook.


RE: Stretching it a bit?
By Reflex on 8/27/13, Rating: -1
RE: Stretching it a bit?
By sprockkets on 8/27/2013 10:41:50 PM , Rating: 6
It's not a nice theory - it is the law. Read the ITC decision yourself.

quote:
Apple also criticizes Samsung for tying some of its license offers to the settlement of litigation. We find Apple's argument to be somewhat hypocritical. The following sentence from Apple's submission to the Commission on April 10, 2013, indicates that Apple has no intention of paying Samsung any royalties until after the conclusion of litigation:
If the Commission were to determine that the '348 patent is valid, infringed, and enforceable -- and it should not for all the reasons the ALJ found and Apple previously briefed -- and if that judgment were affirmed on appeal, Apple would stand ready to pay FRAND royalties.
Resp. Apple Inc.'s Reply Submission at 20 (April 10, 2013) (public version April 12, 2013).
Apple's position illustrates the potential problem of so-called reverse patent hold-up , a concern identified in many of the public comments received by the Commission.20 In reverse patent hold-up, an implementer utilizes declared-essential technology without compensation to the patent owner under the guise that the patent's owner's offers to license were not fair or reasonable. The patent owner is therefore forced to defend its rights through expensive litigation. In the meantime, the patent owner is deprived of the exclusionary remedy that should normally flow when a party refuses to pay for the use of a patented invention….

Samsung can hardly be accused of patent hold-up when it has licensed its declared-essential patents -- including the '348 and '644 patents -- to more than 30 companies.

Apple and some public commenters have also argued that issuing a remedy for a patent owner that has breached its FRAND obligation would result in patent hold-up, undermine SSOs, and thereby harm competitive conditions in the U.S. economy and U.S. consumers. Whatever the merits of such arguments, they are inapt to the facts of this investigation. As we have determined above, Apple has not proved that Samsung violated a FRAND obligation, and Samsung has widely licensed the '348 patent. We need not decide here whether some future investigation showing evidence of patent hold-up or of harm to SSOs would require a different analysis



The judge in the Moto vs MS case just ruled that injunctions on SEP are allowed.

quote:
As discussed above, in certain circumstances seeking injunctive relief may constitute a breach of the RAND commitment, whereas in other circumstances such conduct may be proper.


Quoting you:

quote:
The administration is preventing a situation that would have been overturned in court anyways. SEP's only mean that Apple would be obliged to pay for the patents if found to be infringing, there is no way Samsung can prevent them from using such patents as they are licensed under FRAND terms.


Qualcomm is on record stating that the patent, while part of a standard, isn't essential. It merely enhances it. Apple could live without it.

As stated above, apple wouldn't pay unless it made Samsung spend money on litigation to force them otherwise.

The administrations only recourse for overturning an ITC decision is for "public policy." The public isn't harmed by apple not being able to abuse a patent it doesn't feel like paying.


RE: Stretching it a bit?
By Reflex on 8/28/13, Rating: -1
RE: Stretching it a bit?
By sprockkets on 8/28/2013 9:44:18 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
The Judge in the Moto vs MS case pointed out that in other circumstances it *may* be proper, but this circumstance is remarkably similar to the Moto vs MS one.


Actually he's leaving it up to the jury to decide on the facts as MS decided to sue Motorola 14 days after offering an FRAND rate and they went straight to ITC bans.

quote:
As for the rest, you are already misrepresenting the judge and the law. This would not have stood in any court, and that is the reason the administration overruled it.


Like apple you are choosing to only see the side of the coin that benefits you. Unfortunately the facts of the case say otherwise.


RE: Stretching it a bit?
By Reflex on 8/28/2013 2:38:56 PM , Rating: 1
If only I was an Apple fan....oh wait, I'm not. But you know that, you've sparred with me on this topic on Ars for years and your just as fanatical as you always were.


RE: Stretching it a bit?
By ritualm on 8/30/2013 3:40:40 AM , Rating: 2
What a load of bullcrap.

Your position all along has been "Apple is right, everyone else is wrong, Apple can dictate the market how it wants and everyone else can suck off Cupertino's left nut".

In even simpler words: you are testerguy's second account.

Keep 'em comin', son.


RE: Stretching it a bit?
By retrospooty on 8/30/2013 10:39:30 AM , Rating: 2
"In even simpler words: you are testerguy's second account."

Similar MO, but he would have to crank up the aggression, condescension, conceit, and insults about 3x to be in Tester league.


RE: Stretching it a bit?
By tng on 8/28/2013 1:30:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
While a DOJ breakup of Apple seems unlikely given the Obama administration's cozy relationship with the Cupertino company

Um, that is a federal government decision that rulings based around Standards Essential Patents
Well the Obama admin has seen fit to inject itself in the judicial system more than a few times before, often making very public criticisms of verdicts or just using the power of the Executive branch of government to stay decisions or overturn them.

I would not put it past them here and it may be one of the reasons why Apple seems to be so stubborn about accepting any DOJ settlement.


Broken up? No way
By Milliamp on 8/28/2013 4:12:01 AM , Rating: 2
There isn't a chance in hell the government would ever consider breaking up Apple over something like ebook pricing of all things.

Even though you said it wasn't likely I don't see the point of mentioning it.




RE: Broken up? No way
By MozeeToby on 8/28/2013 11:03:10 AM , Rating: 2
While I agree it highly unlikely to happen, I could imagine a result that forces Apple to spin off it's ebook business. I wouldn't call spinning off one extremely minor department "broken up" but I suppose there's an argument to be made.


RE: Broken up? No way
By mritter1981 on 8/28/2013 11:20:46 AM , Rating: 3
It is possible, unlikely but, still possible. AT&T was broken up (for a good reason). I could however see crApple's mobile division being splintered from the main company (if they piss off the DOJ enough).


RE: Broken up? No way
By lightfoot on 8/28/2013 9:40:04 PM , Rating: 5
Yes way. Apple should be broken up. Apple should be broken up into a software and hardware platform company (remember what Apple used to be) and a digital media sales company (iTunes.)

Before you start crying about how Apple and iTunes couldn't possibly survive without the synergy between the two, let me just mention that I agree. Most Apple products and services are crap, and the only reason people buy into the Apple prison is because they have no choice.

Imagine if Sony (who makes televisions and stereo systems) owned a music and film business, for arguments sake, lets call them Sony Pictures and Sony Music. That's all good right? And not too different from Apple and their whole iTunes arrangement. Now imagine if Sony said "if you want to watch Sony movies, or listen to Sony music, you have to buy a Sony TV and a Sony Stereo, and the content that you purchase will not work on any other device. Sounds pretty evil doesn't it?

That's exactly what Apple is using iTunes for. It is not just a value added service that they provide for their platform customers, it is a weapon that they use to beat competitors with. The threat of withholding content from iTunes is enough for most other media companies to capitulate to any of Apple's demands, no matter how onerous.

This last point is perhaps the most critical. Why else would five book publishers have all agreed to contract terms that blatantly stated that Apple was guaranteed a 30% profit margin even when the publishers themselves would almost certainly get paid less than they were by Amazon? It was the threat of iTunes, and the knowledge that without Apple and iTunes, they had no path to the millions of customers who have chosen to use an Apple platform.

Prior to Apple's bookstore, it was far easier to purchase books from Amazon and B&N - in app purchases were allowed, until Apple decided it wanted to own that pie.

Apple is evil, and it must be destroyed.


RE: Broken up? No way
By flatrock on 8/29/2013 10:54:38 AM , Rating: 2
Actually Apple has always made some decent hardware, their printers back in the 80s are an example.

The time to force a split in Apple was when the iPod was a monopoly in music players and they tied it to iTunes and then used it to leverage themselves into the Phone market.

I think doing so would have been justified, but I think it would have also been a mistake.

The iPod wasn't a revolutionary product. I owned some of the earlier digital music players that came out before it. The had absolutely horrible interfaces. The iPod wasn't revolutionary, but it was a far more polished and usable product. It became so popular because it was a better product, and it wasn't completely tied to the iTunes store.

The iPhone wasn't completely tied to the iTunes store, but they did leverage iTunes and their iPod line to launch the iPhone, and the iPhone was and is tied to the Apps store which is integrated with iTunes.

However, they didn't do it then, and the iPod market isn't all that important in today's market of smartphones being common.

The biggest reason the iPhone gained market dominance wasn't that Apple tied it to their other products, it was because it was a superior product to the competition, and it is a bad idea to punish innovation and superior design.

There was a point where you could have argued that Apple may have had a monopoly in the smartphone market, but the barrier to entry obviously wasn't too high for Android to chip away and then surpass Apple's market share.

Since they aren't a monopoly their whole closed garden business model isn't illegal, and it does offer benefits to some customers. Customers who it doesn't benefit have a choice.

Apple's collusion with publishers is a separate issue, and forcing Apple to allow direct sales on the iPhone by other book retailers would prevent the problem, but it is the collusion, not their business model that is illegal.

I don't like Apple's business model. I don't own an iPhone, and won't buy another iPod. However, I don't think Apple should be forced to change business models as long as people have other viable choices.

Apple does have a history of arrogantly feeling the rules don't apply to them, so self-policing without oversight is laughable at best. They must be forced to accept oversight. If they try to prevent and obstruct such oversight, then the courts have little choice but a structural solution. However, forcing a company to be split into pieces should be the last resort. It is extreme, and since Apple isn't even a monopoly it doesn't seem like an appropriate solution.

As Apple's market share slowly shrinks they also have less ability to abuse the market in this way. What publisher is going to agree to not sell their books cheaper to other retailers when they would lose most of their sales if the other retailers revolt?

Apple needs to be slapped down hard. They should be sued for billions. They raised the prices by a third, and should be facing triple damages. I don't know what the total gross book sales numbers add up to during that time, but that is the kind of damages they are facing and should be facing. That plus monitoring should be sufficient.


Hopefully
By distinctively on 8/27/2013 7:38:22 PM , Rating: 5
Hopefully we won't have to hear Apple's regurgitated excuses in the comments below. Hearing their deceit from the court room in enough.




RE: Hopefully
By marvdmartian on 8/29/2013 7:24:33 AM , Rating: 2
Google's motto: DO NO WRONG

Apple's motto: ADMIT NO WRONGDOING


RE: Hopefully
By retrospooty on 8/29/2013 10:09:51 AM , Rating: 2
I am pretty sure Apple's motto's are...

To customers: "Fool them once, shame on them. Fool them twice, shame on them."

Legal issues: "You cant copy that, I copied it first"


Fight on Apple!
By EasyC on 8/28/2013 7:48:48 AM , Rating: 5
Please, continue to fight! You have every right to! And in the end, I hope you get b*tch smacked to kingdom come. I know you haven't done well since Steve left, and I'm not the type to kick someone while they're down, but for you I'll make an exception. You've practiced anti-consumer tactics for far too long. It's time to knock you down a peg or ten. Go DOJ, Go!




Time to grab some popcorn
By Fidget on 8/28/2013 11:17:37 AM , Rating: 2
All the money Apple saves with offshore tax shelters should allow it to mount a formidable legal defense. Maybe even counter sue the DOJ for copyright infringement claiming it holds patents on the shape of Eric Holder's Mustache.




RE: Time to grab some popcorn
By spaced_ on 8/28/2013 5:25:53 PM , Rating: 2
I think you're onto something.

Looks like Steve Jobs himself has prior art: http://osxdeveloper.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/me...
http://cache.gizmodo.com/assets/images/4/2010/01/5...

Shave or be sued Eric.


Sub title has an error in it
By ptmmac on 8/28/2013 10:50:15 PM , Rating: 2
"Broken up or face", "not for face"

Jason do you ever proof your work?




RE: Sub title has an error in it
By Reflex on 8/28/2013 11:41:22 PM , Rating: 1
Jason does not understand basic science or the history of the industry he covers. Why would you expect him to understand basic grammar?


Smells like victory to me
By Tony Swash on 8/29/13, Rating: -1
RE: Smells like victory to me
By retrospooty on 8/29/2013 10:15:31 AM , Rating: 2
"Smells like victory to me :)"

Losing the case and getting assigned an external monitor because the judge doesn't trust you to follow the law... Ya, smells like victory to everyone. :P


RE: Smells like victory to me
By Tony Swash on 8/29/2013 3:34:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
getting assigned an external monitor


Who will simply oversee Apple’s internal antitrust compliance policies and employee training on them. Wow that's what I call punitive :)


RE: Smells like victory to me
By retrospooty on 8/29/2013 7:43:10 PM , Rating: 2
Judge... "Given Apple’s unwillingness to appreciate that its conduct violated the antitrustlaws and harmed consumers, it is difficult to understand how leaving it to the company to solely police itself going forward will remedy its antitrust violations and deter future ones"

You can spin it anyway you want... You will anyhow. ;)


"I want people to see my movies in the best formats possible. For [Paramount] to deny people who have Blu-ray sucks!" -- Movie Director Michael Bay













botimage
Copyright 2015 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki