MobileRead Forums - View Single Post - 2 Publishers Deny Claim of E-Book Price Fixing

stonetools · 05-31-2012, 10:51 AM

I've read the responses. ( Go HERE for links).

Macmillans's is the shorter and pithier, while Penguins' is longer and more detailed. Ofcourse they flatly deny the allegations. More interstingly, they make several new arguments.

1. According to the DOJ, Apple was the instigator of a long standing conspiracy dating back to early 2009. Not so, say the publishers. Apple was not on the publisher's radar till December 2009. It was only then that they considered the agency pricing model.
2. Prior to 2009, there was discussion of joint action by publishers but they concerned two joint ventures called Bookish for the US and Anobii for the UK. Each of those ventures involved different groups of publishers, including the Settling publishers and Random House.
3. Apple drove the bus on the negotiations as to the pricing model. Apple proposed a move to the agency pricing model on a "take it or leave it " basis. Penguin initially proposed doing business with Apple on the wholesale pricing model but Apple summarily rejected that.
4. The move to agency pricing was followed by a fall in ebook prices. That argument is problematical.
A better argument, IMO, is that the introduction of agency pricing was followed by a huge fall in HARDWARE prices- a fall that would not have happened but for Apple's introduction of the iPad. I think you can't seperate the ebook reading experience from ebook reading hardware. Like it or not, Apple's introduction of the iPad really did lead to a major fall in hardware prices, and that helped consumers. A consumer advocate would like to pretend those two things are unconnected, but a judge is going to considr that the falling hardware prices balances the rise in some ebook prices.
The defence responses' main point is that they present credible innocent explanations to most of the DOJ's arguments for a conspiracy theory. They are silent on the Steve Job's remarks, however. I guess they'll follow Apple's lead on that, which are that those remarks are inadmissible hearsay.

05-31-2012, 10:51 AM	#6
stonetools Wizard Posts: 2,016 Karma: 2838487 Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Washington, DC Device: Ipad, IPhone	I've read the responses. ( Go HERE for links). Macmillans's is the shorter and pithier, while Penguins' is longer and more detailed. Ofcourse they flatly deny the allegations. More interstingly, they make several new arguments. 1. According to the DOJ, Apple was the instigator of a long standing conspiracy dating back to early 2009. Not so, say the publishers. Apple was not on the publisher's radar till December 2009. It was only then that they considered the agency pricing model. 2. Prior to 2009, there was discussion of joint action by publishers but they concerned two joint ventures called Bookish for the US and Anobii for the UK. Each of those ventures involved different groups of publishers, including the Settling publishers and Random House. 3. Apple drove the bus on the negotiations as to the pricing model. Apple proposed a move to the agency pricing model on a "take it or leave it " basis. Penguin initially proposed doing business with Apple on the wholesale pricing model but Apple summarily rejected that. 4. The move to agency pricing was followed by a fall in ebook prices. That argument is problematical. A better argument, IMO, is that the introduction of agency pricing was followed by a huge fall in HARDWARE prices- a fall that would not have happened but for Apple's introduction of the iPad. I think you can't seperate the ebook reading experience from ebook reading hardware. Like it or not, Apple's introduction of the iPad really did lead to a major fall in hardware prices, and that helped consumers. A consumer advocate would like to pretend those two things are unconnected, but a judge is going to considr that the falling hardware prices balances the rise in some ebook prices. The defence responses' main point is that they present credible innocent explanations to most of the DOJ's arguments for a conspiracy theory. They are silent on the Steve Job's remarks, however. I guess they'll follow Apple's lead on that, which are that those remarks are inadmissible hearsay. Last edited by stonetools; 05-31-2012 at 12:16 PM.