Apple eBook price fixing case going to court

[WillysJeepMan]

Originally Posted by leebase

You know as well as I do, that had the decision gone in Apple's favor -- not a single person here would have changed their opinion.

Nothing is going to change my mind due to the ruling, and I'd just be repeating all the points I and others have made all along.

1. $9.99 is not the "market price" of NYT Best Selling ebooks, it's the predatory pricing Amazon was using to buy up market share and run competitors out of business.

2. Agency pricing is legal.

3. Publishers setting the prices instead of Amazon does not equate to "price fixing". Publishers still have to compete against books from other publishers, from free books, from the library, from the horde of cheap independent books etc. You can't compare this to selling gas or milk or bread. It's just books, and no one need buy a book.

4. Agency pricing brought more competition to the market, not less.

5. The result of this loss by Apple and the publishers will not result in $9.99 ebooks....rather it will result in ebooks being time windowed. You can't force the publishers to allow the selling of ebooks at $9.99 during the high demand window where they sell hard backs for $20+

But -- all of this had been said before. I don't expect anyone to change their opinions.

That's quite a few words to simply say, "Apple can do no wrong"

[Graham]

Interesting take on this in the Verge article:

[Former FTC policy director, David] Balto said that had the judge let Apple off the hook, it would have opened the door for price fixers to beat antitrust laws by working through a third party.

Graham

[forsooth]

using American Idiom "Hang'em high!"

[ProfCrash]

I have many an Apple product (three iPods and and iPad) and I am giggling.

Apple thought that it could get away with breaking the law and they were wrong. Now when the hell do I get my refund? I know it won't be for the full price difference, wouldn't that be sweet, but it will still add up to a good amount.

[kennyc]

And of course now it's THE END OF THE BOOK!!!!

http://www.wired.com/business/2013/0...n-book-prices/

[John F]

From Kenny's link:

... “It would be totally logical for the prices of books to go up as the number of vendors goes down,” says Shatzkin. “I feel that is sort of inexorable.” ...

Logically, shouldn't the price of books go down as the number of vendors go down. Fewer vendors means consolidated shipping, less accounting overhead, ...

[Graham]

Originally Posted by kennyc

And of course now it's THE END OF THE BOOK!!!!

http://www.wired.com/business/2013/0...n-book-prices/

Oh Noes! Apple lost the case! That means I'll have to buy all my books from Amazon now, instead of Google, Baen, Nook, Kobo, Waterstones, Smashwords, and, oh, all the other places where I currently buy books.

Graham

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by kennyc

It's not actually odd at all. There is a reason those people were wrong in their opinion. There is a reason the ruling came back quickly - the evidence was overwhelming.

and yes we will see, won't we.

Apparently, one of the reasons that it came back so quickly is that she wrote 2/3's of the decision before the trial even started.

[Graham]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Apparently, one of the reasons that it came back so quickly is that she wrote 2/3's of the decision before the trial even started.

This is yet another reference to the misconception that revealing a preliminary opinion was anything unusual in a trial of this sort. You seem to have ignored my reply to your earlier post where I quoted the part of the judge's ruling where she covered this.

In case my reply was not understood earlier, I'll rephrase it.

In this type of non-jury trial both sides present their case in detail before the trial begins, for review by the judge. It is customary for the judge to prepare a draft opinion at this stage.

Both Apple and the DOJ requested that the judge reveal her preliminary opinion.

The judge has to rule based on the full course of the trial, but that opinion can be informed, and changed, as more evidence is presented and argued. Revealing an opinion after reviewing the depositions but before the trial was just that, the current state of her thoughts after digesting the detailed case slides from both parties. It does not imply bias.

Graham

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Apparently, one of the reasons that it came back so quickly is that she wrote 2/3's of the decision before the trial even started.

And you're going to supply us with proof of that?

Maybe she wrote two versions -- like the papers do...





Besides, as I've already said, the case and result was clear from the beginning, sure something could have changed it, but in this case we all knew the outcome (even Apple) other than the fanboys.

[MikeB1972]

Originally Posted by kennyc

And of course now it's THE END OF THE BOOK!!!!

http://www.wired.com/business/2013/0...n-book-prices/

Fantastic

In a nutshell - Shatzkin saying that Amazon pretty much sets the price and can raise it to what they want, while at the same time saying people walk into bookshops with the amazon app to compare prices.
Somehow he seems to feel that Amazon are both lowering an raising the price of books at the same time, sheer genius

[leebase]

Originally Posted by WillysJeepMan

That's quite a few words to simply say, "Apple can do no wrong"

Or rather - it's the consistent opinion of someone who saw Amazon's actions as predatory pricing and anti-competitive since the beginning long before Apple entered the market. I'm an Amazon customer and I like doing business with Amazon, and continue to buy the majority of my ebooks from Amazon. However, Amazon didn't get 90% of the ebook market via honest competition but rather by buying market share with below cost pricing.

The very fact the the publishers HATED Amazon's pricing but were POWERLESS to do anything about it is proof positive that Amazon had monopoly power.

It is apparent that the publishers did collude though I agree with Apple that Apple did not. The judge decided that Apple is guilty because Apple's actions allowed the publishers colluding to succeed.

To me, at best, this is a case of being guilty for shooting a burglar who's broken into your house. The judge ignored the burglary and focused only on the shooting.

[AnemicOak]

Originally Posted by leebase

However, Amazon didn't get 90% of the ebook market via honest competition but rather by buying market share with below cost pricing.

Yeah, cause the facts that the Kindle 'just works' even for non-tech folks, Amazon has some of the best customer service (& many of their competitors seem to go out of their way to have bad CS) and features like Whispersync had nothing to do with it. It had to be a handful of loss leader eBooks.

Also since Amazon pretty much never shares data how are we soooo sure they had 90% of the market?

[frahse]

With 120 Billion to 150 Billion in the bank, Apple has always thought they could buy any reality they wanted.

Heck, just 1 Billion will buy about 1000 high priced lawyers. ($1Million/year each)

[jbcohen]

Apple was found guilty on July 10th. See the Wall Street Journal, I don't know if you will be able to read the article without paying for a subscription, as i have done.