9 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
9 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

Should the DOJ keep it's hands off of Internet business?

by garyv
6 replies
  • OFF TOPIC
    • |
As you've probably heard, Apple was caught in a scheme with several publishers fixing ebook prices. And by law the contracts were terminated, and fines were levied.

However, yesterday the DOJ said they'll be attempting to add a bit more to Apples's punishment. They'll have to allow all competing brands to have links in the apple store. - And if you haven't figured it out - That's absolutely the same as saying that WalMart has to let Kmart put it's products on the shelves of Walmart. Talk about not understanding how internet business works. - OR - perhaps they know all too well how it works - and the rumors of them having large internet companies in their pocket are true. The DOJ is turning more Chicago by the day.

Here's the article: Links 3 Aug: Apple Gets Attacked By The Department Of Justice - Forbes

And the DOJ's proposal: USDOJ: Department of Justice Proposes Remedy to Address Apple’s Price Fixing

Unbelievable.
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    Isn't price fixing illegal?

    And...

    If your interpretation of the events are true, it's not a good thing.

    We'll see how it actually shakes out.

    I like the Chicago reference. (LOL!)
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8358493].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author garyv
      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

      Isn't price fixing illegal?
      Yes it's definitely illegal - and there are laws in place to remedy, which includes terminating any contracts with those helping to price fix, and paying fines. That extra part was added on by the DOJ outside of normal law. The other thing that I forgot to add is that the DOJ is also demanding that they have an employee of the DOJ always there monitoring from now on. - If those are not draconian measurements, then I don't know what is.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8358509].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Kay King
        Yes, it's illegal - but this proposal for remedy is another over reach by a DOJ that has become rather well known for over reaching its authority.

        the DoJ is arguing that it should have extensive oversight over Apple's operations following the company's loss in the recent case against it about trying to fix the e-book market.
        Apple lost the case - and there will be consequences. This, though, is way out of line to me.
        Signature
        Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
        ***
        Dear April: I don't want any trouble from you.
        January was long, February was iffy, March was a freaking dumpster fire.
        So sit down, be quiet, and don't touch anything.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8358982].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author whateverpedia
          Originally Posted by garyv View Post

          The other thing that I forgot to add is that the DOJ is also demanding that they have an employee of the DOJ always there monitoring from now on. - If those are not draconian measurements, then I don't know what is.
          Let me play Devil's Advocate here. Perhaps (it's possible), Apple behaved in such an untrustworthy manner in this CRIME, that oversight may actually be needed, to stop any further crimes being committed and ultimately protect consumers. After all consumers are the victims of this CRIME.

          In Australia we have the authorities "holding inquiries" into why Australian's pay so much more for software than other countries. Apple, as well as Adobe, Microsoft and others, are "co-operating".

          http://www.zdnet.com/why-do-aussies-...re-1339314647/

          'We'd love cheaper prices': Apple defends high costs | News.com.au

          Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

          Apple lost the case - and there will be consequences.
          Zactly.

          Taking off the Devil's Advocate hat...

          This is actually an example of good government. Authorities with limited budgets, on behalf of consumers, up against behemoths with massive budgets.

          A win for consumers, in other words, you. The authorities have protected you from bad guys.

          Isn't that what they're supposed to do?

          As far as embedding someone "inside" the company, you might like to note that the DOJ is "arguing" for this to happen. Not demanding, but arguing.

          It appears to be nothing more than a threat to keep the b@st@rds honest.

          Speaking on behalf of at least 23 million consumers (ie the population of Australia) who are being shafted by these criminals, I say nail them to a wall if that's what it takes to get them to behave within the law and stop seeing consumers as an impediment between the consumers cash and themselves.

          Bravo the authorities (in this case).
          Signature
          Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?
          So that blind people can hate them as well.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8359356].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author garyv
            Originally Posted by whateverpedia View Post

            Let me play Devil's Advocate here. Perhaps (it's possible), Apple behaved in such an untrustworthy manner in this CRIME, that oversight may actually be needed, to stop any further crimes being committed and ultimately protect consumers. After all consumers are the victims of this CRIME.

            In Australia we have the authorities "holding inquiries" into why Australian's pay so much more for software than other countries. Apple, as well as Adobe, Microsoft and others, are "co-operating".

            'We'd love cheaper prices': Apple defends high costs | News.com.au



            Zactly.

            Taking off the Devil's Advocate hat, I disagree entirely with the premise of the post.

            This is actually an example of good government. Authorities with limited budgets, on behalf of consumers, up against behemoths with massive budgets.

            A win for consumers, in other words, you. The authorities have protected you from bad guys.

            Isn't that what they're supposed to do?

            As far as embedding someone "inside" the company, you might like to note that the DOJ is "arguing" for this to happen. Not demanding, but arguing.

            It appears to be nothing more than a threat to keep the b@st@rds honest.

            Speaking on behalf of at least 23 million consumers (ie the population of Australia) who are being shafted by these criminals, I say nail these pr!cks to a wall if that's what it takes to get them to behave within the law and stop seeing consumers as an impediment between the consumers cash and themselves.

            Bravo the authorities (in this case).

            We have consumer laws in place - and we have a process in place to set and make those laws. I have no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is when one branch of our government decides it will bypass all of our processes including the law itself. They then becomes no better than those they are meant to protect us from. I'd much rather pay too much for an e-book than have an overbearing thuggish justice system any day.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8359367].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    Once you say "illegal" -- "over reach" is a moot point. Our DOJ is doing a bunch of interesting stuff like this right now. At them moment - rule of law seems to be completely eradicated from our court system. It apparently is a matter of what they want to do that will make them the most money. If you can look at our legislation and our corporations right now...........and can't see we're being run as a corporate entity, then I don't know what more clues you need.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8359285].message }}

Trending Topics