2 of 3 Judges appear to favor Apple in ebook appeal

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by Shane R

Is the 450 million that Apple would have to pay subject to tripling?

Financially it would have been cheaper in the short term to settle and go on with life. For Apple it is not so much about the money, imo, but to make a point. Settling or losing in court might cause follow up lawsuits once a precedent is set, though.

[Jon_Doh]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

You don't understand. Apple lowered book prices overall.

Can't argue with that.

Don't know what you are smoking, but I did a study and compared prices and they increased over 150% on average. You don't collude with the six biggest publishers in the industry to set lower prices.

[Jon_Doh]

Originally Posted by bgalbrecht

It's because Amazon will force the publishers to sell their books for too low a price, the publishers won't be able to make any money so they won't be able to pay 6-7 figure advances to the big name authors, and after a couple of years of this, nobody will have any new books to read, or if we do, we'll only have lousy books from indie publishers or self-published authors.

Well, that's just totally incorrect. First, publishers rarely pay any advances anymore. Second, as admitted by one major publisher their cost to publish an ebook is almost nil. Everybody is making plenty of money at Amazon's prices or authors would stop writing and book publishers would stop publishing. Regardless, the market should be free to set prices not publishes colluding in a back room with Apple. With Apple's fixed pricing they were selling ebooks for more than paperbacks and I'm talking about books that were out long enough to be in paperback format. They were simply greedy and what they did was illegal. If Apple's prices were so good then why did the book settlement give a rebate to everybody who bought books after Apple jacked up the prices?

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Okay, to belabor the point even more...


NO!

The market situation is a very, very important part of... a different case altogether. The case where Amazon is brought to court for antitrust violations in regards to unfairly dominating the ebook market.

That is where you may discuss whether or not something may or should be done about Amazon.

Regarding Apple -- they cannot absolve themselves of an illegal act by saying someone else did an illegal act first.
That is taking the law into their own hands, something the law frowns upon -- and rightly so.

What about Google? Google matches Amazon's prices. So Amazon is not alone in the prices they charge for eBooks as Google prices the same (usually). So if you take Amazon to court, you also have to take Google as well.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by Jon_Doh

Don't know what you are smoking, but I did a study and compared prices and they increased over 150% on average. You don't collude with the six biggest publishers in the industry to set lower prices.

It was a joke.

That is indeed what Apple claims, and someone here likes regurgitating that claim as though it were from a reliable source.

I did, after all, and after saying that.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

What about Google? Google matches Amazon's prices. So Amazon is not alone in the prices they charge for eBooks as Google prices the same (usually). So if you take Amazon to court, you also have to take Google as well.

Very well, you may bring that up at the Akazon antitrust case as well.

Just for the record, I do expect the hypothetical Amazon antitrust case to be laughed out of court. But I think it fair that anyone with a complaint be allowed to air that complaint, if they truly believe it. (That is why they did not, in fact, bring that case.)

They can, of course, be held in contempt for bringing frivolous claims, if the judges think they are arrogant lying blankety-blanks.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by rcentros

Well, from Apple's standpoint it's too bad you're not one of the judges. It looks you're invested 100% in Apple's BS argument that didn't go anywhere in the original case. First off, Amazon does not have a monopoly in the book market ... so, so much for that part of the argument. Second -- AGAIN -- it doesn't matter what Amazon was doing (or not doing) the collusion between Apple and the Publishers is an anti-trust violation. Period. And -- AGAIN -- it's not Apple's and the Publisher's job to police Amazon -- if they really believed Amazon was committing anti-trust violations, it was their job to go the Justice Department with a complaint, not break the law to "correct" the market share.

The truth is Apple -- by colluding with the Publishers -- wanted to corner the eBook market for itself. That's plainly seen in the emails and in Jobs' statements before the release of the iPad. This after-the-fact revisionism (after Apple and the Publishers were caught with their hands in the cookie jar) is just pure BS justification for them breaking the law. Only if the judges are dishonest and inclined to favor Apple no matter where the facts lead does this appeal have a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding.

No, just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make them a stooge for Apple. Also, simply asserting something doesn't make it so. Amazon had 90% of the ebook market. For legal purposes, that's a monopoly however much that upsets your narrative. I love how you seem to think that anyone who disagrees with your narrative is dishonest. To me, that shows a complete lack of understanding of anti-trust laws. Anti-trust is very complex. Many of the top legal minds disagree strongly when it comes to what is anti-trust and what isn't.

Anti-trust is like homicide, the situation makes all the difference. There is justifiable homicide (i.e. self defense), accidental homicide and 1st degree murder. All three have the same basic action, you kill someone. It's all about the situation.

Anti-trust is all about competition and harming the consumer. You can have a monopoly without being guilty of anti-trust. However, if you have a monopoly, then different standards apply to you. If you don't have a monopoly, then the standards are much looser.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Shades

Err... No.
You don't stop something you think is illegal by doing something else which is illegal. You report (file a complaint) the activity to the authorities.

As the saying goes, two wrongs don't make a right.

Two wrongs don't make a right, but then again, the situation dictates if Apple committed a wrong. The major point is that applying the per se ruling, i.e. what Apple did was illegal no matter what the situation was, is an incorrect reading of the current anti-trust law. The Supreme Court very firmly said that someone has to be in a very specific situation to be found guilty of a per se violation. Apple was not in that situation.

What the judge on the appeals panel seemed to be saying is that he didn't think that the publishers were in that situation either. After thinking about it a bit, I rather see his point. The publishers were not engaged in price fixing, nor were they trying to edge out other publishers. If Amazon was engaged in predatory pricing as the judge called it, then the publishers were trying to increase competition, not constrict it, thus it would not be per se anti-trust. A rather interesting theory. I'm not sure that it would hold up, but it shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

The publishers were not engaged in price fixing, nor were they trying to edge out other publishers.

Correct. They were engaged in illegal collusion to raise prices on ebooks industry wide.

[eschwartz]

That is a very novel (okay, not really new at all) suggestion that they weren't engaged in price fixing.

That would certainly explain how ebook prices rose across the board in lockstep.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

You seem to have ignored every word I said besides for "Apple ... illegal".

I suggest you reread my statement, you might learn something.
Or at least answer the points I made.
To wit: Whether Amazon had an illegal monopoly is inconsequential -- Apple is still not permitted to take the law into their own hands.

No, I didn't. In several posts, I pointed out that Apple did not take the law into their own hands, i.e. engage in a per se violation. The issue isn't that Amazon had an illegal monopoly (which I am not claiming by the way. One can have a monopoly and not be illegal). The true issue is did Apple's (and the 5 publishers) help competition or harm it. It seems fairly straight forward to me that introducing a new ebook store with strong backing increases competition and the health of the market in a situation where one ebook store (Amazon) has 90 percent of the market.

I know that few here wish to read Bork's Anittrust Paradox, but here is a link that gives a fair summary of Bork's argument. The author of the article is an anti-trust lawyer.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/ar...robert-h-bork/

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

That is a very novel (okay, not really new at all) suggestion that they weren't engaged in price fixing.

That would certainly explain how ebook prices rose across the board in lockstep.

Actually they were not. They simply insisted that the individual publishers set the price rather than the reseller. This is very different than price fixing.

I would also point out that Apple presented evidence in court that the ebook prices actually went down across the board. It was only a select few (i.e. the best seller type books that Amazon was pricing at $9.99) that actually went up. This is part of their appeal.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Actually they were not. They simply insisted that the individual publishers set the price rather than the reseller. This is very different than price fixing.

Well, yes, the publishers fixed the prices with Apple as the coordinator. I thought that's what I said, maybe I wasn't clear enough.

I would also point out that Apple presented evidence in court that the ebook prices actually went down across the board. It was only a select few (i.e. the best seller type books that Amazon was pricing at $9.99) that actually went up. This is part of their appeal.

That evidence is the laughingstock of MobileRead, a place where people buy books across the board in tremendous quantity, and wide variety.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Actually they were not. They simply insisted that the individual publishers set the price rather than the reseller. This is very different than price fixing.

Do you think that Apple could try to defend themselves by saying that their intent was to increase competition by fixing the prices? (Bad word, not "fixing" as in illegal, but rather set across the board the same - please suggest a better word than fixing). Emphasis on intent, since as we well know in the end it hurt Amazon's competition a lot more than Amazon itself. The little ebook stores suffered (and some went under) as they couldn't compete with Amazon on price any longer (and rewards systems and loyalty programs and such).

It still may not excuse collusion and the opposite outcome of decreased competition (other than enter the iBook store) - legally speaking. Any thoughts?

(I am glad that you no longer appear to judge or accuse Amazon of wrongdoing. I am myself more indifferent towards Apple - whatever happens happens. I will say though that I continue to rule with my wallet - and chose not to buy electronics from Apple)

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by Jon_Doh

First, publishers rarely pay any advances anymore.

I wonder what the evidence is for this. Then I have to admit lack of solid evidence for what I think -- which is that I hardly ever read a book whose author didn't get an advance.

As someone who reads about 2/3 non-fiction, I suspect that roughly half the books I finish would never have been written had a publisher failed to buy the book proposal. No advances, and book-length journalism would decline the same way investigative newspaper journalism has declined.

Everybody is making plenty of money at Amazon's prices or authors would stop writing and book publishers would stop publishing.

Publishers look at the long term rather than quarter by quarter profits. Isn't that one of the good things about Amazon?