Publishers Weekly: Will the Agency Model Survive?

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

It's not like pointing out the stupidity of Hachette's tactics equals cheering for Amazon.

Purely a straw man. As I have said many, many times, I use Amazon quite frequently and am very satisfied with their service. I like Amazon just fine, thank you very much.

What I'm pointing out is the pure hypocrisy of beating on Apple for offering the publishers an option to Amazon's take it or leave it approach, while cheering Amazon for using their near monopoly position to strong arm suppliers.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Perhaps instead of suggesting that the gov't simply stop doing what they're currently actually mandated to do, you might focus your efforts on getting those mandates removed/repealed instead.

They actually aren't mandated to do it. What they are trying to do is expand the definition of anti-trust to give themselves more control over the various companies. The ebook business isn't the only place that the government has been expanding it's regulatory over reach. As Bork pointed out in his book, it basically requires government intervention to maintain a monopoly that harms consumers, otherwise in the long term competitors step in to better fill the needs of the consumers.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

Your post is written as if there is some connection between the first paragraph and the second, but I am missing it.

And where in this thread is this fanboy-ism of which you speak?

Helen

Look for the post talking about DOJ monitoring contracts.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

It's not like pointing out the stupidity of Hachette's tactics equals cheering for Amazon.

Well it is since it is totally unclear if it is stupid tactics or not.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

They actually aren't mandated to do it. What they are trying to do is expand the definition of anti-trust to give themselves more control over the various companies.

It's a pointless distinction (when looking/wishing for a change). The gov't IS mandated to regulate/investigate anti-trust issues. How they go about that (or how far-reaching their "jurisdiction" goes) might be up for debate, but their mandate is not. Regardless; the correct course of action is not to wish the gov't would simply stop doing what they interpret as "their job," but rather to change/clarify the legislation that gives them their mandate (however loosely you think it might be being interpreted) in the first place.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Look for the post talking about DOJ monitoring contracts.

Oh, and it is cheering for Amazon to point out it is the feds and not public opinion that has the final say? The PW article makes it clear Hachette thinks they'll be free and clear when the two year prohibition on straight agency terms expire in the fall but fail to point out the prohibition can (and likely will) be extended and that any attempt by the BPHs to use public disclosure as a way to collude is not likely to pass muster.
The conspirators are all under "parole" and they will continue to be supervised indefinitely. Those two- and five-year terms were minimums; just ask Microsoft how terms get extended and extended...

That is a plain fact, not cheering.
And a very likely explanation why Amazon isn't caving in. Unlike many out there, they seem to have read the full terms of the court ruling.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by tompe

Well it is since it is totally unclear if it is stupid tactics or not.

It is stupid to publicly declare they want to restablish the same anticompetitive terms they got taken to court over. Or that the other BPHs intend to impose the exact same terms.
That is just begging to be taken to court again.

Worse, what if after all the pronouncements and posturing they end up signing another wholesale contract and their authors lose income for nothing?

They painted themselves into a corner and left no room for compromise on either side.
That is stupid negotiation tactics: you always leave the other guy room to at least save face. To say nothing of yourself...

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Look for the post talking about DOJ monitoring contracts.

I am not seeing the fanboy part?

I see some statements about Amazon being in a strong position, which are probably true, and at least reasonable, and some opinions/conclusions which or may not be correct. Nothing at all about cheering for Amazon or beating on Apple either for that matter. Obviously I am missing something, it is a long post

Helen

[tubemonkey]

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

I am not seeing the fanboy part?

I see some statements about Amazon being in a strong position, which are probably true, and at least reasonable, and some opinions/conclusions which or may not be correct. Nothing at all about cheering for Amazon or beating on Apple either for that matter. Obviously I am missing something, it is a long post

Helen

The fan boy part was just sarcasm given the poster's tendency to dismiss anyone who disagrees with his anti-Apple obsessions as an Apple fan boy (or fan boi as some like to spell it).

[frahse]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Well done!

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

The fan boy part was just sarcasm given the poster's tendency to dismiss anyone who disagrees with his anti-Apple obsessions as an Apple fan boy (or fan boi as some like to spell it).

Ah stupid me. I was expecting it to have something to do with an attitude expressed in this thread.

Again I must be missing something here as I have read many long and the occasional short post by fjtorres and haven't seen this pattern. He is perhaps wordy (which I can be too) and has strong opinions but seems overall polite and less combative than some. Not given to angry pejorative personal attacks in other words. Perhaps you can post links to 6 or 8 recent examples?

Helen

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

(Which, again, suggests Hachette is the one delaying deliveries in retaliation for Amazon cutting back on bulk orders.)

I disagree for two reasons.

One is that Amazon, and not Hachette, has the history of making it hard to buy the product when there is a supplier-retailer dispute. Remember this?
http://dearauthor.com/features/indus...he-buy-button/

The other reason is that Amazon indisputably took an action that would slow down sales of the Hachette products by failing to maintain an inventory. We know that. The claim that Hachette decided to further slow down sales, by slow shipment, is speculation.

If Hachette responded by putting a 3 week or so delay on Amazon orders, this would mean Hachette is trying to help Amazon achieve its go-slow aim. That's one of those extraordinary claims that shouldn't be accepted with extraordinary evidence.

Originally Posted by fjtorres

It's not like pointing out the stupidity of Hachette's tactics equals cheering for Amazon.

If their tactics were stupid, I don't think they would be surviving the digital transition (and the anti-trust settlement) so well. See:

http://markets.ft.com/research/Marke...ials?s=MMB:PAR

[Fbone]

We have to keep in mind that Hachette's distribution center is located 10 minutes away from Amazon's. It's probable that Hachette doesn't ship anything to Amazon but that Amazon's trucks pick up directly from Hachette.

[jemc]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

The other reason is that Amazon indisputably took an action that would slow down sales of the Hachette products by failing to maintain an inventory. We know that. The claim that Hachette decided to further slow down sales, by slow shipment, is speculation.

If Hachette responded by putting a 3 week or so delay on Amazon orders, this would mean Hachette is trying to help Amazon achieve its go-slow aim. That's one of those extraordinary claims that shouldn't be accepted with extraordinary evidence.

You seem to be assuming that Hachette's 3+ week delay in shipping their product is not their normal mode of operation for shipments. Do you have real information on their shipping practices or is this just more speculation on your part?