Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > News > Tech News > Cote appears to soften in Apple-DOJ trial questioning

Cote appears to soften in Apple-DOJ trial questioning
Thread Tools
MacNN Staff
Join Date: Jul 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2013, 10:41 PM
Additional testimony and questioning in the DOJ e-book price-fixing trial against Apple has turned the nature of the case -- which has already become more into a inquiry of Amazon's misdeeds than of Apple's -- so far away from where the DOJ wanted it to go that even Apple's own lawyers sat up and took notice when Judge Denice Cote asked a key question during Friday's hearing. Cote, who in various pre-trial statements had made it crystal clear she believes the DOJ's original claims against Apple, injected doubt into a key part of the prosecution's case.

Cote, who had thus far been stone-faced in her reactions to various witnesses and had asked perfunctory questions to clarify remarks or gird various attorneys' attempts to badger those on the stand -- even avoiding any reaction to a videotape playing of Steve Jobs' brilliant introduction of the iPad, which had a noticeable emotional effect on most others in the courtroom -- suddenly asked detailed questions of Amazon executive (and book deal negotiator) Laura Porco, who had submitted written testimony earlier in the day.

In her statement, Porco said that the week before Jobs introduced the iBookstore, five of the six major publishers told her that "they were requiring Amazon to switch its terms [from the "wholesale" model publishers considered ruinous to the "agency" model Apple and the publishers favored] because that's what Apple required them to do." This contention -- that Apple created or at least facilitated a conspiracy to force Amazon to abandon its loss-leader pricing model and raise the price of e-books to consumers -- is the entire lynchpin of the DOJ's charges against the iPhone maker. The alternative option -- that the publishers came to the conclusion that they must change their deal with Amazon because of the clever way Apple had structured its agreements with them -- would not amount to conspiracy or collusion, at least on Apple's part.

Cote focused on the next sentence of Porco's testimony: "[The publishers] said their agreement with Apple included restrictions around consumer pricing that made it technically impossible to remain on reseller [meaning the "wholesale" pricing model] terms with Amazon or any other retailers." At the time, Amazon had used its monopoly position in the e-book market to win "wholesale" pricing, meaning that it paid publishers about half of the suggested retail price of the e-books and then priced them as it wished.

As it turned out, the company opted to price them predatorily, taking increasing losses on the e-books to sell them at a $10 standard rate for new releases. Publishers were unhappy with this both because it severely cannibalized print sales (which retailed for an average of $26) and because they feared that Amazon would eventually force them to reduce the $12-13 wholesale price in order to stop taking losses on each sale, after it had ensured that no other company could enter the e-book market.

Cote asked Porco if the "restrictions" she referred to could be what the publishers were referring to when they said apple "required" them to change their terms. As Fortune columnist Philip Elmer-Dewitt put it: "in other words, were the publishers' long-standing deals with Amazon now off because of the structure of their agreement with Apple [rather than any] direct instructions from Apple?"

It was the first time that the judge had asked a question that seemed sympathetic to Apple's position on the charge. In addition, the question put the entire core of the DOJ's case into doubt. According to trial observers, Apple's lawyers immediately noticed the change in tone and seized the advantage with the next witness, Google executive Thomas Turvey -- who had negotiated similar "wholesale" deals with publishers prior to Google's launch of an e-bookstore.

As reported earlier, Turvey changed his testimony and admitted that his written testimony was drafted "with the help of" Google lawyers, meaning he was unsure of certain statements made in his own submitted testimony. When challenged, he could not remember any details, names of the representatives, could not produce any notes of the meetings, admitted he hadn't contacted Google with the allegations, and backtracked significantly on his previous claim that representatives of the (then) six publishers told him Apple required them to switch to an agency model due to their contracts.

By the end of questioning, he would only suggest that the representatives "likely" told "someone on his team" about the alleged Apple tactics. Turvey, who appeared shaken by the ordeal of cross-examination, is set to return to the stand on Monday and may face questions on the extent of his testimony's "construction" by attorneys when he faces Judge Cote then.
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Oct 2009
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2013, 11:29 PM
Oh, man... this case is taking a pretty dramatic turn. I would probably die of laughter if Apple wins this after all the months of people saying that Apple was guaranteed to fail.
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jul 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 8, 2013, 02:06 AM
I agree, drumbot - so many tech analysts and reporters have stated categorically that Apple is guilty and could not win this case. I haven't seen one writer/reporter/analyst/blogger who said Apple even had a chance.
Senior User
Join Date: Jan 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 8, 2013, 08:12 AM
Not only those, but all the publishers too that opted to plea deal w/ DOJ rather than go to court. It seems Apple made a decision based on principle rather than pocketbook.
Forum Regular
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Collinsville, IL, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 8, 2013, 09:22 AM
Don't get your hopes up. This is a done deal. It's a show trial to give the impression of impartiality and fairness. Apple will be found guilty and the class action lawsuits will flow like water over a cliff.
Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 8, 2013, 02:45 PM
your comment
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Seattle
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 8, 2013, 04:35 PM
Quote: "... the case -- which has already become more into a inquiry of Amazon's misdeeds than of Apple's -- so far away from where the DOJ wanted it to go that even Apple's own lawyers sat up and took notice when Judge Denice Cote asked a key question during Friday's hearing."

That's great news. Apple's lawyers are demonstrating great talent. From the start it's Amazon that should have been under investigation rather than Apple. This DOJ lawsuit has been stupid or something worse.

Personally, I don't live under any illusion that ethics play a major role in the decision making at Amazon, but it is very different from Microsoft. Even in defeat during the 1990s, Microsoft seem to keep plunging ahead. Their geeky upper ranks seemed unable to pick up the warning signals. But in Amazon's case, a single legal defeat seems to turn them around. I suspect that's because, if you look at their upper management ranks, there are a lot of lawyers there. Lawyers do listen to the signals that courts send. I suspect there are a lot of worried frowns in Amazon's corporate offices right now. This attack on Apple isn't quite turning out like they'd hoped.

It may even affirm the legitimacy of agency book prices, something that as an author I strongly support. If I lower the price of an ebook to encourage sales, I don't want Amazon, Apple or anyone ruling that the price remains high. And if Apple wins, it should be a lesson to all the publishers who caved rather than fight. Their out-of-court settlements are still binding.
Author of Untangling Tolkien and Chesterton on War and Peace
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:25 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2