Quote:
Originally Posted by jbcohen
I think that apple and several book publishers are focusing on the definition of price collusion when it talks about a seceative aspect of the co-operation of several different companies to daise prices. The justice department, however, is focusing on the first part of the definition when it talks about the co-operation of companies to raise prices. The defintion that I am referring to commes from Wikipedia and it is:
Collusion is an agreement between two or more persons, sometimes illegal and therefore secretive, to limit open competition by deceiving, misleading, or defrauding others of their legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law typically by defrauding or gaining an unfair advantage.
I don't think there has been any secreative aspect to their co-operation in order to raise prices. In fact they have been quite open about how they are co-operating. Justice is focusing on the co-operation aspect of the definition and I think its quite clear that they are co-operating to rasie prices.
|
What I don't really get is the level of Apple's culpability. Essentially, Steve J & Co. convinced them that agency pricing was the way to go; that it was in their long term best interest even if it meant less profit in the short term. Apple is not a publisher, though.
Whether 'they' collude after the fact to do something that violates antitrust laws has nothing (legally) to do with Apple. That's just Jobs trying to kneecap Bezos.