Unites States of America v. Apple, Inc. et al

Filing 130

FILING ERROR - DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY - REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 114 MOTION to Intervene for Purposes of Appeal.. Document filed by Bob Kohn. (Brower, Steven) Modified on 9/21/2012 (db).

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK __________________________________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff, v. APPLE, INC., HACHETTE BOOK GROUP, INC., HARPERCOLLINS PUBLISHERS, L.L.C. VERLAGSGRUPPE GEORG VON HOLTZBRINK PUBLISHERS, LLC d/b/a MACMILLAN, THE PENGUIN GROUP, A DIVISION OF PEARSON PLC, PENGUIN GROUP (USA), INC. and SIMON & SCHUSTER, INC., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No.12-CV-2826 (DLC) MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN REPLY TO OPPOSITION OF THE UNITED STATES TO MOTION BY BOB KOHN FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF APPEAL Table of Authorities Cases Broadcast Music v. CBS, 441 U.S. 1 (1979) ................................................................................................. 3 Buckeye Coal & Ry.Co. v. Hocking Valley Ry. Co., 269 U.S. 42, 49 (1925)................................................ 5 Country Squire Assocs. v.Rochester Comm.Sav. Bank, Inc., 203 B.R.182, 183 (2d Cir. BAP 1996) .......... 7 Flying J Inc. v. Van Hollen, 578 F.3d 569 (7th Cir. 2009) ...................................................................... 4,5,7 FTC. v. Indiana Fed’n of Dentists, 476 U.S. 447, 459 (1986),..................................................................... 3 Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc., 551 U.S.877 (2007) ................................................ 3 Mass. Sch of Law at Andover, Inc. v. United States ("MSL"), 118 F.3d 776 (D.C. Cir. 1997)............ 2,3,4,5 Massachusetts v. Microsoft Corp., 373 F.3d 1199, 1234-36 (D.C. Cir. 2004) ....................................... 4,5,7 McCarthy v. Kleindienst, 741 F.2d 1406 (D.C.Cir. 1984) ........................................................................... 4 NCAA v. Board of Regents, 468 U.S. 85 (1984) ........................................................................................... 3 Northeastern Telephone v. AT&T, 651 F.2d 76, 87-9 (2d Cir. 1981) .......................................................... 3 Northwest Wholesale Stationers v. Pacific Stationery & Printing Co., 472 U.S. 284 (1985) ...................... 3 NYNEX Corp. v. Discon, Inc., 525 U.S. 128 (1998) ..................................................................................... 3 SEC v. United States Realty & Improvement Co., 310 U. S. 434, 459 (1940) ............................................. 4 United States v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., 642 F.2d 1287, 1290-94 (D.D.C. 1982) ................................ 1,6 United States v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., 552 F.Supp. 131 (D.D.C. 1982)................................................ 1 United States v. Keyspan Corp., 783 F. Supp.2d 633 (S.D.N.Y. 2011)........................................................ 3 United States v. LTV Corp., 746 F.2d 51 (D.C.Cir. 1984) ......................................................................... 1,2 United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. v., 310 U. S. 150 (1940) .............................................................. 3 United States v. Thomson Corp., 1997-1 Trade Cas. (CCH) ¶71,735, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1893 at *15 (D.C.C. February 27, 1997) ................................................................................................................... 2,7 Statutes Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §2 ........................................................................................................................... 3 Tunney Act, 15 U.S.C. §16(f)(3) .................................................................................................................. 4 Rules ANTITRUST GUIDELINES FOR THE LICENSING OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY (DOJ/FTC 1995) .................. 3 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 24 .......................................................................................... passim Articles & Treatises Al Kohn & Bob Kohn, KOHN ON MUSIC LICENSING (Wolters Kluwer, 4th Edition 2010) .......................... 2 Scott McCloud, UNDERSTANDING COMICS (HarperCollins, 1993) .............................................................. 2 ii Court Documents * Amicus Brief of Bob Kohn, 12-cv-2826, Docket No. 110 (September 4, 2012) ........................................... 2 Amicus Brief of Bob Kohn (proposed), 12-cv-2826, Docket No. 97 (August 13, 2012) .............................. 2 Competitive Impact Statement, 12-cv-02826, Docket No. 5 (April 11, 2012) ............................................. 3 Letter from Bob Kohn to Judge Cote, 12-cv-2826, Docket No. 122 (September 12, 2012) ........................ 3 Memo in Support of Kohn Motion to Intervene, 12-cv-2826, Docket No. 115 (September 7, 2012) .......... 3 Opinion & Order re: Amicus Participation, 12-cv-02826, Docket No. 108 (August 28, 2012) ................... 2 Opinion & Order re: Final Judgment, 12-cv-2826, Docket No. 113 (September 5, 2012) ........................... 3 Opinion & Order re: Stay & Intervention, 12-cv-2826, Docket No. 121 (September 10, 2012) .................. 1 Opp'n of U.S. to Kohn Motion to Intervene, 12-cv-02826, Docket No. 127 (September 17, 2012) ... passim * The Court’s Docket is available at http://dockets.justia.com/docket/new-york/nysdce/1:2012cv02826/394628/. iii 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Dated: September 20, 2012 Respectfully submitted, ______________________ BOB KOHN BOB KOHN (California Bar No. 100793) 140 E. 28th St. New York, NY 10016 +1-408-602-5646 bob@bobkohn.com /s/ Steven Brower By: _______________________ STEVEN BROWER [PRO HAC] California Bar No. 93568 BUCHALTER NEMER 18400 Von Karman Ave., Suite 800 Irvine, California 92612-0514 Tel: +1.714.549.5150 Fax: +1.949.224.6410 Email: sbrower@buchalter.com Pro Bono Counsel to Bob Kohn 8

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?