Ondrej Holzman Apple last summer lost the court case, which was about artificially inflating the price of e-books, but until now he didn't have to pay a cent for it. But now things are moving and the plaintiff wants Apple to pay up to $840 million…
Steve Berman, who represents consumers and the 33 US states involved in the case, claims that consumers had to spend an extra $280 after the introduction of the iPad and the iBookstore to buy e-books. However, according to Berman, replacing the damages with this amount is not enough, the Californian company should pay up to three times. That's exactly what he will be asking for in the upcoming court proceedings.
The agency model that Apple deployed with several e-book sellers raised dollar prices by 14,9 percent, according to one of Apple's witnesses. Apple charged $9,99 for each book instead of the usual $12,99 for which Amazon sold e-books. That percentage would mean $231 million in damages, but according to Berman, who cites his witness, a Stanford economist, the percentage increase is even higher — 18,1%, for a total of $280 million.
Bernan will then consider Apple to pay three times that amount after the trial so that the money can be fairly divided between the various states and customers who are suing Apple. If Judge Denise Cote really decided that way, it wouldn't be too much of a problem for Apple, because $840 million is only half a percent of its financial reserves as of the end of last year.
The case with electronic books has been dragging on since the summer of last year. Since then, the anti-monopoly has constantly come under fire Superintendent Michael Bromwich, with which Apple has big problems and to which she was finally only two weeks ago by the Court of Appeal temporarily suspended.
A new court proceeding, in which compensation should be calculated, the payment of which will be demanded from Apple, is scheduled for May of this year.
I understand well that if a roll from one bakery costs 3 crowns in one store, I have to demand through court that it also costs 3 crowns in every other store, otherwise is it wrong?
I don't quite understand the controversy even though I read all possible articles about it. I don't understand why Apple should pay compensation to customers. Even if Apple set prices at $30 per book, no one is forcing people to buy the book, right? If they want a $9,99 book, let them buy a Kindle. It would then have to pay compensation for each sold application that is also created for Android and is for less money or free.
I don't know, I don't understand it. Instead of the US being happy to have such a technology company that pays high taxes, they will continue to throw sticks under their feet. It is precisely because of this that funds and capital are transferred to tax havens. If they treated Apple and other companies like those who pay them a living, everyone would be happy. But they treat them like a cheap tax bank, so don't be surprised that they have money and other assets stored in other states.
Well, simply Apple took advantage of its monopoly on tablets when it launched the iPad (it practically had a monopoly at the time) and agreed with various publishers to increase book prices. Probably as if all the bakers said to themselves that a roll would cost 50 CZK. This move was directly against Amazon with the Kindle, which had no tablet (only a reader). Another proof should be that Apple has forbidden applications to have a purchase link and payments via the appstore must be used, so you have to pay for the content that the application provides you with 30% of Apple's. This move was again directly aimed at Amazon - see the court proceedings. (Just so we won't be surprised when Apple charges us to browse the internet)
Publishers preferred to confess to the cartel with Apple because it meant smaller fines for them.
Apple pays nothing in the US because it cares about the US and wants to maximize profit (just like other companies - why wouldn't it produce in the US otherwise, right).
And the law and the law should apply to everyone equally. Not that Apple will get a pardon from Obama for its fraud and copying and Samsung will not.
the fact that apple had a monopoly should not be taken as a mistake. why is apple to blame for simply having better development than others? should they have waited until samsung copies it in a few years as an iphone and when they agree to sell ebooks with amazon?
as far as 30% of apple is concerned, the book is as expensive as from amazon and the users only paid for mediation. OK, maybe this is a bit unfair, but still, no one forced these people. they could have taken the $3 and trotted to the nearest bookstore and bought that classic book. but people in the USA are lazy and comfortable so they prefer to pay extra.
the fact that they banned links to another eshop in the application is certainly wrong, but they should be punished for this at most. but even then only minimally because the sellers also used apple's monopoly where they sold their books and used the appstore to distribute their app, so they rented something from apple and should pay.
I don't know, it seems to me that the whole world is turning upside down. everyone judges everyone for every bullshit. it's disgust.
as an end customer, if I buy something in a store that they don't have elsewhere, or that they have with limited options, I still have to expect a higher price. And if the second store somehow wises up and starts offering the same thing cheaper with the same services, I won't go and sue the first store for violating the terms of competition and for having a cartel. I just can't get enough of this
Of course, he couldn't blame the fact that he had a monopoly. For knowingly abusing him, yes. The point about those prices is that the publishing houses, which are supposed to compete with each other, colluded against the customers and Apple helped them in this to their advantage. If they didn't agree, they wouldn't be able to raise the prices of ebooks.
Paying for application content can be compared to paying a computer manufacturer for watching a movie on the Internet or for a discussion under this article. Again, with iOs, this is possible due to Apple's monopoly on enabling applications that you can install on your device. If there was a competing appstore from which it would be possible to install applications on iOs, this would not be possible.
You turned the situation around in the last paragraph. First there were cheaper goods, and then Apple and publishers made a cartel to raise prices in their favor.
A monopoly on anything is usually evil.
So, actually, for the fact that someone invents something for his own profit, we will punish him. When Intel offers a new processor, it is also initially overpriced. For books, customers still had the option not to buy or to buy elsewhere and in a different way. Plus, the sellers agreed to it!
Does someone in the online store refer you somewhere where you can buy cheaper??? What kind of stupidity is this?
Apple wanted to enter the e-book market. Thanks to the iPad, he had the power to move market prices in his favor. But for this he needed the cooperation of the publishing house, who would also make money thanks to this agreement on the artificial increase in prices. So "of course the sellers agreed to it" In addition, there was evidence in court that Apple, for example, blackmailed publishers by saying that if they did not raise the prices of their books, they would cancel their access to the appstore and iBooks and their existing applications.
Of course, the customer paid for it. Because either they buy overpriced books from Apple or they have to buy a new device where the free market works.
It's like with mobile operators in the Czech Republic. How is it possible that everywhere in Europe they call for much lower prices? Because our operators made an agreement and, unlike the American Ministry, no one punished this cartel here. Yeah, and you don't like it. After all, everyone has the right to set their own prices. Well, it's not a monopoly of the only three operators, after all you can move abroad!
No one forced them to Appstore, they could sell books in the existing way. I will also put goods in my shop at my price and either someone will buy it or I will lower the price. Yes I can move out or I pay. Or the customer will pressure them to lower prices. When the customer pays, what to do?