Jump to content

Invite Scene - #1 to Buy, Sell, Trade or Find Free Torrent Invites

#1 TorrentInvites Community. Buy, Sell, Trade or Find Free Torrent Invites for Every Private Torrent Trackers. HDB, BTN, AOM, DB9, PTP, RED, MTV, EXIGO, FL, IPT, TVBZ, AB, BIB, TIK, EMP, FSC, GGN, KG, MTTP, TL, TTG, 32P, AHD, CHD, CG, OPS, TT, WIHD, BHD, U2 etc.

LOOKING FOR HIGH QUALITY SEEDBOX? EVOSEEDBOX.COM PROVIDES YOU BLAZING FAST & HIGH END SEEDBOXES | STARTING AT $5.00/MONTH!

ExtraTorrent | Apple Got Rid of Pricing Control


Guest

Recommended Posts

Apple somehow managed to get a court to defer using an external monitor to protect readers from its anti-trust antics. Previously, a court ordered the tech giant to work with a monitor after Apple was found guilty of running a cartel to jack up the price of e-books. However, the company denied all allegations and refused to work with the appointed monitor even after it had been found guilty by the court. When the probation officer complained, Apple claimed he was biased and demanded he was removed.

Apple.jpg

Now it looks like the US appeals court have backed the company’s antics. The court has given Apple a reprieve from an external monitor appointed to oversee its compliance with antitrust laws after Apple had been found guilty. It was decided that the company shouldn’t have to have a monitor while going through the appeals process. Apparently, the logic is that the appeal will prove that the tech giant is innocent and a monitor will never be appointed anyway.

Strangely enough, the US Department of Justice didn’t oppose the short stay but claimed that it will fight Apple’s effort to get rid of the monitor. In response, the company complained that the probation officer had been too intrusive, seeking interviews with top execs and board members, while charging an inflated $1,100 per hour for his services.

It looks like Apple has forgotten that it has broken the law and wouldn’t have to pay that fee if it hadn’t formed an illegal cartel with the book publishers in the first place. The company moaned that the monitor’s activities could interfere with its ability to develop new products. It also insisted that US District Judge, who in a non jury trial found Apple guilty of a price-fixing conspiracy with major book publishers, improperly granted the monitor too much power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Check out what our members are saying

  • Our picks

×
×
  • Create New...