Posted on 12/27/2013 11:02:52 PM PST by TsonicTsunami08
There are a handful of companies you don’t want to mess with, and one of them is Apple (NASDAQ:AAPL). The tech giant has serious clout these days, and its support or endorsement could mean the world for struggling startups and new technology. Unfortunately for many, though, Apple doesn’t exactly give out its approval liberally, and in fact, it has no problem handing out the opposite. Developers behind Bitcoin, the digital currency, learned that lesson the hard way recently as they faced several rejections from Apple, and questioned why the Cupertino, California-based company seemed to have it out for them.
(Excerpt) Read more at wallstcheatsheet.com ...
Who cares what apple thinks!Let the market decide what will be instead of the corporate goofballs and the bankers.We need a major shake up in the currency world these days and competition so we can trim the fat from these hogs.
iMoney?
Read the article. Apple appears to be playing it precisely by the book after that ridiculous e-book verdict was handed down and do not actually ‘have it out’ for Bitcoin.
Apple doesn’t like anything that it hasn’t made a version of for itself, so it is more than likely that it has something like Bitcoin in the works.
What verdict are you talking about? Have a link?
Apple was colluding with publishers and engaging in price fixing they just weren't good enough at hiding it.
What verdict are you talking about? Have a link?
Oops, sorry!
Maybe because bitcoin has little history and what history does exist suggests that it will not survive.
Just sayin’
Maybe because bitcoin has little history and what history does exist suggests that it will not survive.
Just sayin’
Even people who were wanting Apple to lose said it was a ridiculous verdict.
See immediately prior post above for link to article with further info.
FROM THE LINKED ARTICLE:
“...Apple takes rules and regulations extremely seriously, and it is clear that it is doing the same with Bitcoin. If Bitcoin is eventually recognized by a government entity in some regions or countries, Apple might employ the same system, but for now, it is clear that the company has no problem playing it safe and steering clear of the digital currency.”
So I suspect that Apple is simply taking its attorneys’ advice and keeping on safe legal grounds.
Apple colluded with book publishers to fix ebook prices.
Apple was accused of that by the US Government (can we say “Obama”) who wants to control everything inside businesses. But keep in mind, Apple does not agree that this is the case and they are still fighting this case, legally. We haven’t gotten to the end of the case, yet.
Apple won’t accept Monopoly money either.
This is the Obama Administration’s overreach into all things and trying to control and run everything. This case received the Obama Administration’s approval to try and weasel their way into all things Apple.
Behind Apple’s mutiny against its court-ordered e-books monitor
http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2013/12/02/apple-ebook-court-monitor/
Apple is taking aim not just at the court-ordered monitor in the e-books antitrust case, but also at U.S. District Judge Denise Cote herself.
FORTUNE — On Thanksgiving eve, Apple filed court papers launching a searing attack on the court-ordered monitor who had been appointed barely a month earlier to oversee its compliance with an antitrust decree relating to its sale of e-books.
Apple accused the monitor, Michael Bromwich, a partner at the law firm of Goodwin Procter, of charging excessive fees, behaving in an “unfettered and inappropriate manner,” relying on “secret communications with the court,” evincing “incredibly disruptive” mission creep, and acting in ways that threatened to turn him into an “quasi-inquisitional” offshoot of the federal judge who appointed him in violation of the constitutional principle of separation of powers.
Melissa Schwartz, a media relations specialist at Bromwich’s consulting firm, The Bromwich Group, said Bromwich was out of the country and unavailable to comment. A Justice Department spokesperson said that any response from it would be made in court.
The more eye-catching of Apple’s claims were its accusations that Bromwich was already insisting on meeting every member of Apple’s executive team and board, including former U.S. Vice President Al Gore, Jr., and the company’s legendary product designer, Sir Jonathan Ive — neither of whom had anything to do with antitrust compliance issues, according to Apple (AAPL). In addition, the papers noted, Bromwich was demanding that Apple pay a 15% “administrative fee” to his consulting firm on top of his $1,100 hourly rate and the $1,025 hourly fee of antitrust lawyer Bernard Nigro, who was appointed to assist him because of Bromwich’s lack of antitrust experience. (Nigro heads the antitrust group at the law firm of Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson, where Bromwich was a partner from 1999 to 2010.)
But legal fees are clearly not the crux of this dispute. Many of the top partners at Apple’s own outside counsel on the e-book matter, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, bill more than $1,000 an hour, and its appellate ace, Ted Olson, reportedly charged $1,800 per hour on one bankruptcy matter in 2012.
Apple, Simon & Schuster appeal price-fix ruling in e-book case
http://www.theverge.com/2013/10/4/4802952/apple-simon-schuster-appeal-price-fixing-ruling-in-e-book-case
Apple will continue to fight the allegations that it conspired with some of the largest book publishers to fix e-book prices. Apple notified the Second Circuit Court of Appeals that it intends to appeal a July district court decision that found Apple violated antitrust laws.
In addition, Apple and Simon & Schuster, the CBS-owned book publisher, also notified the appeals court that they want it to toss out an injunction imposed on Apple by US District Judge Denise Cote. The judge ruled last month that Apple must accept monitoring by a third party to ensure that the company complies with antitrust laws. Apple was also ordered to sever any agreements with the top five book publishers that restrict retail ebook prices.
APPLE FACES LONG ODDS
Orin Snyder, Apple’s lead attorney wrote “Apple also hereby appeals from any and all orders and rulings that were adverse to it.” Legal experts told All Things D in July that Apple faces long odds at overturning Cote’s decision because of “extensive factual findings and careful application of law.”
In 2012, the Department of Justice filed a civil lawsuit against Apple and five of the six largest book publishers and accused them of agreeing in secret to raise and fix ebook prices. All the publishers previously settled with the government. The case is a blemish to Apple’s reputation as a consumer-friendly company and leaders have denied any wrongdoing. According to GigaOm, Apple doesn’t have to file its appeal until next year.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.