View Single Post
Old 05-25-2012, 10:08 AM   #15
DiapDealer
Grand Sorcerer
DiapDealer ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DiapDealer ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DiapDealer ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DiapDealer ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DiapDealer ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DiapDealer ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DiapDealer ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DiapDealer ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DiapDealer ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DiapDealer ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DiapDealer ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
DiapDealer's Avatar
 
Posts: 27,549
Karma: 193191846
Join Date: Jan 2010
Device: Nexus 7, Kindle Fire HD
Quote:
Originally Posted by LovesMacs View Post
Apple says DoJ "sides with monopoly, rather than competition" because five or six publishers agreeing to raise prices at the same time is such an essential part of competition, right?
Yes. Potentially illegal businesses practices should be overlooked when the participants claim to have "done it for the greater good of our industry."

"Siding with a monopoly" is a red herring (not that I can blame them for spinning it that way). Even if the agency model could be incontrovertibly proven to be the best possible arrangement for the future of the ebook industry... that has absolutely no bearing on whether or not they played within the rules to bring the agency model to fruition. The ends do not justify the means in our legal system—and the DoJ is investigating (and indicting based on their findings) those means.

That's all. The rest is hooey. The DoJ is not responsible for protecting the continued existence of any particular industry model.

Last edited by DiapDealer; 05-25-2012 at 10:12 AM.
DiapDealer is offline   Reply With Quote