Quote:
Originally Posted by stonetools
2. The DOJ says, repeatedly, that the settlement will only last two years and the publishers can go back to "full agency" after that. The strong hint I get from that is that a return by full agency by the BPHs is likely, if not inevitable, and the DOJ knows that.
|
My understanding was that the agency model wasn't the problem, the collusion was the problem. If I've understood correctly, there wouldn't have been a lawsuit if the publishers had all independently agreed to an agency model.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stonetools
3. The DOJ thinks that Amazon won't abuse its monopoly position (should they regain that) by raising consumer prices. It doesn't really explain why Amazon would not do that.
|
I saw it as the DOJ deciding that it will deal with Amazon abusing it's monopoly position if and when that happens. Some assume that Amazon will obtain and abuse a monopoly, some think that won't happen. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me to wait for them to break the law before doing something about it.
I don't really have an opinion on the settlement itself, but I am curious about one thing. Presumably the companies that have settled think that it's in their best interests to do so. Why are some people so intent on not allowing them to do what they believe is in their best interests?