Apple eBook price fixing case going to court

[Fbone]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

The point is: the idea that there was ever a time that ALL (or even most) newly released ebooks were being sold at 9.99 is myth being perpetuated by people who need it to be true for their vendetta (or are too lazy to do the research necessary). When I got my first Kindle in 2009, my new-release purchases were costing me $11 - $12 on average. A couple were $9.99 (and a couple were $15). I remember being miffed about not seeing any 9.99 ebooks I wanted to read.

However, we don't know what Amazon or other retailers paid for any ebook at the time. Those $11 and $12 ebooks may have cost Amazon $15-17 for all we know. Retailers may not have only been losing money on the $9.99ers.

Speaking of which, Kobo has us trained to wait for a promo code before buying. How much could they be earning or losing with all these 50-75% off codes?

[bgalbrecht]

Originally Posted by Fbone

Speaking of which, Kobo has us trained to wait for a promo code before buying. How much could they be earning or losing with all these 50-75% off codes?

You can't use the promo codes on any of the books from agency publishers, so presumably they are getting their 30% on them. If Kobo is mostly paying wholesale prices (i.e., 50% of list) on the ones that can use promo codes, they're only losing money at 50% off and above.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Fbone

However, we don't know what Amazon or other retailers paid for any ebook at the time. Those $11 and $12 ebooks may have cost Amazon $15-17 for all we know. Retailers may not have only been losing money on the $9.99ers.

Immaterial to my point. What was my point? Oh yeah .... that there never WAS any $9.99 price point for all (or even most) newly released ebooks. WHY is it relevant? Because many BPH apologists and Apple defenders claim that there WAS a $9.99 price point for all newly released ebooks. Their (Apple + BPH) actions were supposedly a direct response to it--it being the thing that never really existed (namely, a $9.99 price point for all newly released ebooks).

[K. Molen]

Originally Posted by bgalbrecht

You can't use the promo codes on any of the books from agency publishers...

Since the publishers have all settled, how come we can't use these promo codes on their books? And for that matter, how come there's still books with This price was set by the publisher notices on Amazon?

I know this issue has been raised before, but as best I can remember the answer was "Give it time." Anyone has any idea as to how much longer we're gonna have to wait?

[John F]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

...

To personalize it, I involuntarily own thousands of dollars of Apple stock through a pension plan I have contributed to since 1982. Why should I, who couldn't have possibly had anything to do with the conspiracy, have to pay even a dime to people who voluntarily bought a book at a price they knew up front? What about co-founder Steve Wozniak, Apple's Mr. Nice Guy? I'll bet he has hundreds of times more Apple stock than me, and also has nothing to do with it.

...

Again, "if you can't do the time, don't do the crime." If you don't know what this means, Google it.

FWIW, I'm also an Apple stock holder.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

The lack of ability to imprison or kill corporations over criminal matters is one of the reasons corporations should not be considered legal "persons."

Agreed. That was my main point. Apple losing the antitrust case is not analogous to employees being punished for wrongdoing.

By that logic, any public corporation could commit all manner of illegal acts and argue that they shouldn't be punished because the shareholders are innocent.

Every year, Americans are sentenced to prison for violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act, as can be seen here. And corporate insiders can be prosecuted for lots of other potential crimes.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

We make purchases in good faith that the suppliers are selling according to the terms of the law; when that's not the case, refunds are a reasonable compensation for the overcharging.

Copyrighted books are legal monopolies. Publishers manage their distribution system and charge whatever they think is best for their various constituencies, including company owners and -- I hope this is high on their list -- authors. The antitrust case against the publishers was because they discussed something too explicitly, not because of what they did.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

If your pension fund managers invest your money in organizations that can't be bothered to operate within the law, then you may have grounds for a suit against them.

The leading manager and seller of S&P 500 Index Fund shares is the Vanguard Group. It is investor-owned. I would be suing myself.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Agreed. That was my main point. Apple losing the antitrust case is not analogous to employees being punished for wrongdoing.

Any corporate lawyer please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this represents a awful confusion of ideas.
Corporations ARE made up of people. The idea of corporations as a legal entity is to properly distribute financial responsibility and to protect individuals in only certain kinds of business-related activities.

But if anything CRIMINAL were done, there is ALWAYS a person or persons responsible, never a corporate entity, and those persons can, and are, jailed, punished, whatever.

And even in the case of some matters that do effect the corporation as a legal entity, often individuals are singled out and punished as well for specific actions.

[Sydney's Mom]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Exactly.

Corporations are people too.

Exactly. Citizens United

[Sydney's Mom]

Apple lost because Cue's testimony was too good to be true, and because Apple's defense was "Amazon made me do it." There is no "stand your ground" defense to conspiring under the Sherman Act. I couldn't believe the arrogance shown by the attorney's for Apple. All the main conspirators settled, and Apple went to trial with too good to be true testimony and painting Amazon as the real criminal. But Amazon wasn't on trial, and judges hate to be lied to.

Apple can stand the monetary punishments, but the real pain is going to be the DOJ monitoring. I work for a Bank, so the OCC has the right to be on site and stick their nose into everything we are doing. Apple will absolutely HATE that.

PS. I let my daughter, who is the biggest apple fan, use my Lenovo Yoga. She loved the touch screen. I am winning her over, bit by bit. When the new apple computer comes out at a price she can never afford, maybe that will be the end. Of course, she will never give up her iphone.

[Fbone]

Originally Posted by bgalbrecht

You can't use the promo codes on any of the books from agency publishers, so presumably they are getting their 30% on them. If Kobo is mostly paying wholesale prices (i.e., 50% of list) on the ones that can use promo codes, they're only losing money at 50% off and above.

Depends where you live. Also, Kobo sometimes discounts them before applying the code.

My latest purchase was list $7.99 but reduced to $6.59, then after promo code I paid $3.29. It had Adobe DRM so Kobo has to pay $0.22 plus credit card fees.

[leebase]

Originally Posted by avantman42

But, if there is no public harm in selling at a high price, why is there a public harm in driving other retailers out of business?

No one saw harm in hard backs going for $25 and more, with paper backs selling for less a year later. I never (almost never) bought the expensive version of the books and never considered myself harmed for havingt to wait. I merely bought books I was interested in that we're priced what I was willing to pay.

I never felt there was a right to have the cost of my books subsidized by Amazon.

On the other hand...I do feel that having only one book store to choose from is far more troubling. How powerful did amazon have to be that every single one of the largest 6 publishers all HATED Amazons pricing of the publisher's product but not a single one of the could do anything about it?

That kind of power in one company is far more troubling to me. As such, Appke selling music is much more worrisome than Apple selling ebook a ever was. It's kind of funny as Apple was the one keeping music prices lower than the Labels wanted

[AnemicOak]

Originally Posted by leebase

No one saw harm in hard backs going for $25

Harm? No. But most people I know didn't pay that either. There are plenty of places to get a hardcover book for a lot less than cover price and there always have been. Why did the publishers not complain about that? They've been fine with street prices on hardcovers that are sometimes more than half of cover price but then bitch when the same model was applied to the digital version.

How powerful did amazon have to be that every single one of the largest 6 publishers all HATED Amazons pricing of the publisher's product but not a single one of the could do anything about it?

They could have stopped selling through Amazon at anytime. They could have even sold Kindle versions if they'd drop the DRM. They all had ebook stores in the past so that infrastructure was in place. It would have shaken things up for a while, but people would have adapted.

[leebase]

Exactly...most people don't pay the retail price for hard backs. But the hard backs were sold in the millions upon millions for a good deal more than even the raised priced ebooks. There are those willing to pay the price and those, like me, who read something less expensive. It has always been thus. The competition isn't Harry Potter sold by Amazon vs, Harry Potter sold by Borders. It's Harry Potter verses The Hunger Games, or Twilight or The Hobbit...or verses watching Tv or going to the movies or playing video games.

There is huge competition in the space without needing the publisher to have to compete against themselves. The publishers have no power to over price a book.

[avantman42]

Originally Posted by leebase

No one saw harm in hard backs going for $25 and more, with paper backs selling for less a year later. I never (almost never) bought the expensive version of the books and never considered myself harmed for havingt to wait. I merely bought books I was interested in that we're priced what I was willing to pay.

I never felt there was a right to have the cost of my books subsidized by Amazon.

Before I bought an e-reader, almost all of my book purchases were second hand. I guess it could be argued that my books were subsidised by the original buyer, but I don't feel that I have a right to have my books subsidised. Now that I prefer ebooks, and they aren't available second hand, I pay more.

Originally Posted by leebase

On the other hand...I do feel that having only one book store to choose from is far more troubling. How powerful did amazon have to be that every single one of the largest 6 publishers all HATED Amazons pricing of the publisher's product but not a single one of the could do anything about it?

That kind of power in one company is far more troubling to me. As such, Appke selling music is much more worrisome than Apple selling ebook a ever was. It's kind of funny as Apple was the one keeping music prices lower than the Labels wanted

Given that ebooks are a luxury, I still don't see why there is harm in only one bookstore being available. They could put prices up, or limit availability, but ebooks are still a luxury, so I don't see why that would be more or less of an issue.

[fjtorres]

These folks have a point:

...someone should sit those imbeciles down and explain to them the difference between Collusion and Cooperation.

Collusion: A secret agreement, especially for fraudulent or treacherous purposes.

A secret agreement?
Was what we did a secret agreement?
Hell, we did everything but take out a full-page ad in the Times.
The way we were emailing, texting and dining out with each other, you'd think we were planning a wedding.

Oh yeah, and fraudulent, fraudulent?
We aren't the ones who insist on foisting fake books (ebooks) written by phony authors (Indies) on a gullible public, and no one will be happier than we'll be when the ebook fad goes the way of leg warmers.

Treacherous purposes?
Someone please explain something to me.
When did it become a crime to raise prices on your products?
So what if we all did it at the same time?
Have you been to the supermarket lately? If you have then you'll notice that food cost more this year than last, and guess what?
Every single supermarket chain has raised their prices.
Every one of them!
Why the nerve of those nefarious bastards.
According to the logic that the DoJ used to harass us, they must have all been in collusion.
Also, gas stations, they raise their prices all the time, every last one of them, everywhere, but does the Justice Department make their lives hell?
No, they do not.
Witch hunt!

They also have a new columnist joining Randy House, Mack Millin, Simon A. Schuster, Collins Harper, Hatch Ette, and Penny Quin.

http://www.validationpublishing.com/...s-justice.html

Spoiler:

I dunno, but when the true believers sound like the mockers...