[stonetools]

Originally Posted by ProfCrash

Amazon was selling some e-books at a loss. The other e-bookstores were reluctant to do so. Amazon wanted to continue selling some e-books at a loss and was told it would not be allowed to do so. They had to switch from setting their own prices to selling for what the Publishers would allow.

I don't remember anyone saying that Amazon had to sell for less then its competitors when the Agency mess was happening. It was not asking for most favored nation status.

I don't pretend to know the IPG story but, knowing Amazon, it wanted to sell the book for a lower price and the Publisher balked. I have no idea if Amazon said that it had to be the lowest price vendor on the market. I doubt that they would do that but I cannot say for sure. IPG did not like the price point Amazon wanted. I remember them saying that the margin of profit for IPG would be too small and hence not feasible. Amazon chose not to renew the contract.

From the article:

Eliminating the most favored nation provision might be the easiest way for Apple and the publishers to dodge antitrust concerns, whether or not they can convince the DoJ to drop its insistence on a “cooling-off period.” But this is where it gets interesting for two reasons:

1.Apple uses most favored nation clauses in a lot of its contracts — for instance, with magazine and newspaper publishers. Is the DoJ worried about antitrust concerns there, too?
2.Amazon also uses MFN clauses in its contracts with publishers, and did long before Apple. In fact, in February 2010, The New York Times’ Nick Bilton reported that Amazon had been pushing book, newspaper and magazine publishers for most favored nation status in exchange for “a bigger cut of revenue than they currently get for content they sell on the Kindle.” That’s almost exactly what Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan did with hospitals. And later that year, state Attorneys General in Connecticut and Texas brought both Amazon and Apple to meet with them about their concerns.