Quote:
Originally Posted by LovesMacs
Apple says DoJ "sides with monopoly, rather than competition" because five or six publishers agreeing to raise prices at the same time is such an essential part of competition, right?
|
Well, isn't that the dispute?
Apple is arguing that :
A. There was no conspiracy
B. If there was a conspiracy, Apple wasn't in it.
The answer makes several points.
1. The DOJ timeline doesn't work. According to the DOJ, Apple and the publishers began this conspiracy from early 2009, yet they can't point to any communication between Apple and the publishers before December 2009.
2.There are innocent explanations as to why Apple was in communication with the publishers after December 2009.
3.There is a good business explanation as to why the Apple'sagreements with the publishers are so similiar.
4.The reason for all the publishers agreeing before April 2010 was because Apple wanted such agreement in time for theiPad launch.
5. Steve Job's statements in his biography are inadmissible hearsay, or can be interpreted as non-conspiratorial
Some of those arguments are better than others, of course, but Apple doesn't have the burden of proof.
Apple argues that agency pricing led to a more diverse and competitive market. Eventually, duelling economists will answer that but its seems clear that there would have been fewer competitors in the market, absent agency pricing.
THe DOJ strategy is to focus on price of bestsellers alone: Apple argues that there is more to a healthy ebook market than that. I think that eventually the Supreme Court will decide who is right under the law.