PG on the DOJ/Apple price fixing trial
Jun. 14th, 2013 09:31 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
walkitoutThe Passive Voice is an entertaining blogger that I learned about through reading the always enjoyable Nate Hoffelder at The Digital Reader. PG ("Passive Guy") is a lawyer, but this particular blog is more about publishing and writing. Many of PG's posts are extensive quotes/links to other news items/blog entries and then sparse but fantastic commentary on those quotes. I don't link to or mention this blog often, but I really like it a lot, and have been checking in more regularly to see if he has interesting things to say about the Apple anti-trust trial that is currently in progress.
http://www.thepassivevoice.com/06/2013/court-hears-terse-testimony-in-e-book-trial/
PG first points to HuffPo coverage of Sargent, CEO of MacMillan, saying things about AG Holder, the DOJ, the case, etc. All of that is sort of surprising (people usually clam up after they settle) but sort of not (this is not the first time Sargent has spoken on the record inappropriately and hilariously). PG then explains how settlements often work and why Sargent speaking in this situation may well be a Terrible Idea. His last sentence is priceless:
"These folks prove absolutely nothing to anybody by acting like brats in court when they’ve already lost their case. Even your basic cocaine dealer knows better than that."
The whole thing is worth your time, including the linked-to HuffPo coverage. It's really a lesson in, this is why everyone says no comment whenever a reporter asks a genuinely useful and interesting question.
PG has other coverage of the trial; it is all worth reading as well. Here's his comment on the draft vs. sent Jobs' e-mail question, directly addressing coverage of the same issue over at AllThingsD:
http://www.thepassivevoice.com/06/2013/doj-misfires-on-jobs-email-in-apple-e-book-case-it-was-a-discarded-draft/
http://www.thepassivevoice.com/06/2013/court-hears-terse-testimony-in-e-book-trial/
PG first points to HuffPo coverage of Sargent, CEO of MacMillan, saying things about AG Holder, the DOJ, the case, etc. All of that is sort of surprising (people usually clam up after they settle) but sort of not (this is not the first time Sargent has spoken on the record inappropriately and hilariously). PG then explains how settlements often work and why Sargent speaking in this situation may well be a Terrible Idea. His last sentence is priceless:
"These folks prove absolutely nothing to anybody by acting like brats in court when they’ve already lost their case. Even your basic cocaine dealer knows better than that."
The whole thing is worth your time, including the linked-to HuffPo coverage. It's really a lesson in, this is why everyone says no comment whenever a reporter asks a genuinely useful and interesting question.
PG has other coverage of the trial; it is all worth reading as well. Here's his comment on the draft vs. sent Jobs' e-mail question, directly addressing coverage of the same issue over at AllThingsD:
http://www.thepassivevoice.com/06/2013/doj-misfires-on-jobs-email-in-apple-e-book-case-it-was-a-discarded-draft/