Join Date: May 2009
Location: 26 kly from Sgr A*
Device: T100TA,PW2,PRS-T1,KT,FireHD 8.9,K2, PB360,BeBook One,Axim51v,TC1000
POD services is clearly separate from pbook retailing so that was a pretty clear case of bundling.
But ebookstores in ereaders isn't bundling separate products any more than XBL in XBOXes is bundling, so that road is closed. Walled gardens are legal.
And, yes, Amazon does have agreements with the publishers. At the publisher's terms, as a condition to get access to the content. Again; Agency Conspiracy. They are not buddies.
Their case hinges on proving that the publishers insist on DRM to *favor* Amazon. That is not going to happen. Because Amazon is not the only company using a proprietary DRM; so is Apple, so is Kobo, so is Nook... All DRM schemes are proprietary. Even the watermark DRM schemes.
And if requiring DRM on content is illegal, then they'll have to explain why the Congress saw fit to protect encryption DRM with the DMCA bill.
The choice they claim is lost is a smokescreen; consumers have a choice of vendors for their walled garden readers just as they have a choice of walled garden smartTVs, walled garden smartphones, and walled garden gaming consoles.
There is no inherent right for *vendors* to sell into somebody else's proprietary platform and that has been clear since the 80's and the Nintendo/Atari Games (aka Tengen) lawsuits. Look to the remedies and you'll see they are not looking to do the consumers any favors: what they really want is a payout. That's what the declaration of antitrust they want is all about.
This lawsuit is not about consumers or ebooks or even DRM; all those claims are mistated and/or misrepresented. What isn't misrepresented is their desire to be able to sue, afterwards, in civil court for big bucks.
It's all about quick cash from deep pockets.