07-11-2013, 01:25 PM | #226 | |||
Grand Sorcerer
Posts: 11,732
Karma: 128354696
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
|
Quote:
http://beldar.blogs.com/beldarblog/2...racy-case.html Read. Bookmark. Wait for the appeal to come back stamped: Concur. But do remember this: Don't even try to bad mouth Cote. It won't work. Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by fjtorres; 07-11-2013 at 01:28 PM. |
|||
07-11-2013, 01:34 PM | #227 | ||
Grand Sorcerer
Posts: 5,185
Karma: 25133758
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: SF Bay Area, California, USA
Device: Pocketbook Touch HD3 (Past: Kobo Mini, PEZ, PRS-505, Clié)
|
Quote:
And publishers were not powerless. They could've left. They could've sold books to other places at a discount They could've supported other ebookstores, pushed for non-DRM ebooks to allow customers to switch from Kindle to Sony to Nook to Kobo and not care about what store they bought at. They could start promoting themselves as a brand, teaching the public to associate certain kinds of books with certain publishers. Right now, genre readers are familiar with publishers but "mainstream/lit" readers often aren't--and that's because those publishers have always ignored readers; readers aren't their customers. All publishers had to do to break Amazon was change their focus from "distributor = customer" to "reader = customer;" from that point, there were hundreds of ways they could shift their business practices to not be locked into Amazon. Quote:
Apple, I expect, wanted the clickthrough accounting system more than anything else--they didn't want to have to sort out different books' wholesale-vs-retail pricing, didn't want to deal with bargains and how that changed the numbers. Wanted a simple percentage and no hassles--but knew that couldn't compete with other bookstores. |
||
07-11-2013, 01:36 PM | #228 | |
Grand Sorcerer
Posts: 11,732
Karma: 128354696
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
|
Quote:
If they'd actually read the ruling they'd know the judge already dealt with the rule of reason argument. She covered all the bases, chapter and verse. Guilty. With treble damages and monitoring coming up next. The money they can easily afford but shining a light in the dark places at Apple? More cases are coming. |
|
07-11-2013, 01:55 PM | #229 |
Karma Kameleon
Posts: 2,940
Karma: 26738313
Join Date: Aug 2009
Device: iPad Mini, iPhone X, Kindle Fire Tab HD 8, Walmart Onn
|
I find it amusing the folks who think it so hard for a customer to "not buy a book they think is too expensive" expect publishers to forgo millions of dollars in revenue from their number 1 and most important retailer and just "sell their books elsewhere if they don't like Amazon's pricing".
|
07-11-2013, 02:04 PM | #230 |
Addict
Posts: 284
Karma: 4478866
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Toronto, ON
Device: Kindle 3, iPad 3, Nexus 10, Nexus 5
|
leebase, I'm curious... Are you saying you don't believe Apple broke the law, or that they did but that they were justified in doing so because of Amazon's behaviour?
I know you've said a lot in this thread, and I'm not asking you to repeat it all, I'm just not sure which of the above is your stance. |
07-11-2013, 02:17 PM | #231 | |
Grand Sorcerer
Posts: 5,185
Karma: 25133758
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: SF Bay Area, California, USA
Device: Pocketbook Touch HD3 (Past: Kobo Mini, PEZ, PRS-505, Clié)
|
Quote:
Publishers weren't losing money on the $9.99 bestsellers. Publishers had no evidence that those prices would eventually lead to loss of money... the public has no trouble grasping "early release sale; these prices go up when the books are no longer at the top of the charts." Why is selling at a loss evil when it's ebooks but a reasonable marketing decision when a pbook is involved? (I don't like Amazon. I think Amazon's business practices are predatory and deceptive and illegal in spots. However, I don't think they were breaking any laws with the $9.99 ebooks, and publishers were getting all twisted up over lack of control, not actual economic impact. And since neither the publishers nor Apple have shown any interest in the concerns of book readers, I'm not sympathetic to any of them.) Publishing house options didn't stop at "they can pull their books from Amazon." They had plenty of other ways to undermine Amazon's control--offering discounts, "coupon for free or 1/2 price ebook with purchase of new pbook," setting up their own ebook store selling at a tiny markup over wholesale instead of retail. Or they could get creative. But they didn't want to get creative; they wanted to kill the ebook market, or limit it to an exotic high-tech luxury, and they based their decisions on that goal. Over and over, they insisted on believing that every $10 ebook sale was a lost $25 hardcover sale, NOT a lost $7 paperback sale that would've waited six months or a year. Their lack of understanding of the market does not excuse collusion. |
|
07-11-2013, 05:18 PM | #232 | |
Karma Kameleon
Posts: 2,940
Karma: 26738313
Join Date: Aug 2009
Device: iPad Mini, iPhone X, Kindle Fire Tab HD 8, Walmart Onn
|
Quote:
Apple layed out very reasonable "it's in our best normal business interest" reasonings for their actions. Thus the worst interpretation of their actions need not have been the one the judge decided to believe. MFN - it's not illegal, Apple didn't invent it. Apple did not have to worry about what the publishers would do once Apple was given MFN. For the judge to say that MFN meant Apple was forcing the publishers to make all retailers go Agency and is thus illegal would mean MFN clauses in any other case would also be illegal. By NOT looking at the complete story -- not allowing ANY consideration of the position Amazon had put the publishers in, and thus accepting $9.99 as the "real price of ebooks", then the judge was exactly treating the "shooting of a burlar" as crime when it really isn't or shouldn't be. |
|
07-11-2013, 05:36 PM | #233 |
Guru
Posts: 764
Karma: 4837659
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Angelo Texas
Device: Samsung Galaxy tab
|
leebase, the publishers were approached by Apple, who brokered the deals. Yes, Apple colluded. I don't understand how you can exonerate them, when they were the intermediary between the publishers and kept telling them "everybody else is doing it, join in. You know you want to. Just take the pretty blue pill and everything will be ok".
If someone knowingly aids in an illegal act (they know it is illegal)they are just as guilty as the others. |
07-11-2013, 05:52 PM | #234 |
Man Who Stares at Books
Posts: 1,816
Karma: 10606722
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: 50th State, USA. Also, PA, NY, CA, and elsewhere.
Device: All of the Above
|
Ignorance of the law is no excuse, and Apple should realize that there are higher laws and powers in the universe. Apple's actions smack of hubris, influenced by Steve Jobs and his remarkable lucky streak. The demigod got a smackdown.
|
07-11-2013, 07:17 PM | #235 |
Addict
Posts: 284
Karma: 4478866
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Toronto, ON
Device: Kindle 3, iPad 3, Nexus 10, Nexus 5
|
|
07-11-2013, 08:47 PM | #236 | |
Grand Sorcerer
Posts: 7,058
Karma: 39379388
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: near Philadelphia USA
Device: Kindle Kids Edition, Fire HD 10 (11th generation)
|
Quote:
Steve Jobs? He'd dead. Other executives have moved on. And what is going to happen to the people who are still there and conspired? Are they going to be -- horror! -- written up by their boss? Denied a Christmas bonus? Neither one. Instead they will be gently told by legal how the airlines, after getting a similar hand-slap many years ago, now manage to keep so many prices identical with winking and nodding rather than explicit statements. Apple is a publicly held company. It's almost 3 percent of the S&P 500 stock basket that a large portion of middle income Americans have their pension invested in. Those average Americans won't be hurt much by this, but they will be hurt a tiny bit, which is also the degree of hurt the conspirators will face. My point in mentioning the pension plans is that the people hurt by this ruling, if anyone, are not likely to have had anything to do with the conspiracy. Antitrust is even more absurd in publishing than with the airlines. The publishers have a legal life + 70 monopoly on each of their products. They can sell them, or withhold them, as they wish. And they can go to industry conventions and talk to other firms in the same line of business, so long as they vet everything they say first with their lawyers. Obtaining such legal advice is actually part of the slap-on-the-wrist publisher settlements. Yes, I am beyond cynical on this. It's a game nobody wins except a few lawyers. Last edited by SteveEisenberg; 07-11-2013 at 09:01 PM. |
|
07-11-2013, 09:40 PM | #237 | |
Karma Kameleon
Posts: 2,940
Karma: 26738313
Join Date: Aug 2009
Device: iPad Mini, iPhone X, Kindle Fire Tab HD 8, Walmart Onn
|
Quote:
If someone is going into the book selling business...you are going to be talking to the top 6 publishers. That is not collusion in my book. Apple met with and negotiated separately with each company. They ALL had the same problem in Amazon. It did not take collusion to realize this. Agency pricing is not illegal. MFN clauses are not illegal. With Agency pricing and the MFN -- and with Apple's power as a competitor -- it is a sure thing that the publishers would finally have the power to negotiate with Amazon. That's not collusion either. What is collusion is the CEO's talking to each other and strategizing...which is what THEY did, not Apple. Clearly, the judge and I disagree. The judge's opinion is that the Apple executives were lying. She didn't catch them in a lie. No evidence was presented that showed the executives lying. It's just her opinion that they weren't believable. The judge and I disagree. The publishers have no power to price their books beyond what people are willing to pay. There is a lot of competition in the book market. All the folks on this board who boycotting "the Agency 5" showed the truth behind the notion that no one has been coerced into paying more an ebook. On the other hand -- Amazon selling the most popular ebooks below cost did indeed drive competition out of the market. Ergo, the government chose the wrong target. |
|
07-11-2013, 09:58 PM | #238 | |
Is that a sandwich?
Posts: 8,193
Karma: 100500000
Join Date: Jun 2010
Device: Nook Glowlight Plus
|
Quote:
As an aside, Hachette and HC previously tried to get B&N to go Agency. |
|
07-11-2013, 10:01 PM | #239 | |
You kids get off my lawn!
Posts: 4,220
Karma: 73492664
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Device: Oasis 2 and Libra H2O and half a dozen older models I can't let go of
|
Quote:
One of the disappointments to me (although I understand it's currently legal) was that all the publishers are welcome to return to agency pricing after the 2 year probation period is up. They just can't conspire to do it all at once. |
|
07-11-2013, 10:01 PM | #240 |
The Dank Side of the Moon
Posts: 35,872
Karma: 118716293
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Denver, CO
Device: Kindle2; Kindle Fire
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
US Justice Dept accuses Apple of eBook Price Fixing | MickeyC | News | 113 | 06-01-2013 08:43 PM |
Apple loses Galaxy Tab court case in Australia | sabredog | News | 4 | 12-09-2011 03:13 PM |
Ebook price fixing investigation in Europe. | danskmacabre | Kobo Reader | 5 | 12-08-2011 12:58 PM |
Conn AG targets Amazon and Apple for price-fixing | gastan | News | 4 | 08-05-2010 09:47 AM |