Search results for: apple

Less than a month ago, Judge Cote found Apple liable for knowingly participating in an illegal price-fixing conspiracy with five book publishers to raise e-book prices and eliminate price competition in violation of the antitrust laws.  This morning, the Department of Justice, joined by thirty-three state attorneys general, filed a brief in support of their proposed remedial injunction which would require Apple “to take proactive steps to ameliorate the harm its conspiracy caused to competition and consumers” including by permitting any e-book retailer offering e-books through Apple’s App Store “include in its e-book app a hyperlink to its own e-bookstore, without paying any fee or commission to Apple.”  A hearing on remedies is set for August 9.

Continue Reading DOJ and State AGs Propose a Remedy in Apple E-Books Price-Fixing Case

Today, Judge Sullivan granted Greenlight’s motion to preliminarily enjoin the Apple shareholder vote on “Proposal Number No. 2.”  That proposal sought to amend Apple’s Articles of Incorporation to make four changes, including to eliminate Apple’s “blank check” authority to issue preferred stock.  Prior posts on the cases are here.

Continue Reading Judge Sullivan Grants Einhorn’s PI, Blocking Apple Shareholder Vote

Today, Apple responded to Greenlight Capital’s motion for preliminary injunction blocking a shareholder vote on a plan which Greenlight claimed would eliminate Apple’s ability to issue preferred stock.   Greenlight had argued that the plan was “bundled” with other proposed amendments to Apple’s articles of incorporation (as “Proposal No. 2”)  for a single up or down vote, and that “bundling” violates SEC “unbundling” rules. (For the details of Greenlight’s motion, see our previous post.)

Continue Reading UPDATE: Apple Opposes Greenlight PI Motion

In an opinion today, Judge Cronan granted summary judgment to Sacha Baron Cohen (and other defendants) in a case over his interview of Roy Moore, the former Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, that was broadcast as part of the television show “Who is America?“.

Judge Cronan ruled that the claims against Cohen and others were barred by a waiver that Moore had signed, and that, in addition, claims by Moore’s wife — for international infliction of emotional distress — were barred by the First Amendment.

For purposes of the First Amendment analysis, Judge Cronan found that the interview, in which Cohen played the role of an Israeli “Anti-Terrorism Expert” named “Gen. Erran Morad,” was obvious satire, and was not making factual assertions about Moore:

In light of the context of Judge Moore’s interview, the segment was clearly a joke and no reasonable viewer would have seen it otherwise. The segment began with an absurd joke (i.e., “Gen. Erran Morad” boasting about once killing a suicide bomber with an iPad 4, but luckily he had purchased AppleCare), followed soon by footage of numerous news reporters commenting on the accusations brought against Judge Moore.

At this point, it should have been abundantly clear to any reasonable viewer that Defendants were using humor to comment on those accusations, rather than making independent factual assertions or even remarking on the truth or accuracy of the allegations.

The actual interview of Judge Moore then became even more absurd. No reasonable viewer would have interpreted Cohen, in his over-the-top “Erran Morad” character, waving a wand that supposedly detects enzymes emitted by pedophiles in the vicinity of Judge Moore as stating facts about Judge Moore. Nor would a viewer have reasonably believed that this gadget—which “Erran Morad” contended also was able to detect hidden tunnels used by terrorists—doubled as a device that also could detect enzymes secreted by pedophiles.