Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg
Neither B&N nor Borders ever had the England language book market share one can suspect Amazon will have when eBooks triumph. And, remember, except among Amazon customers, they haven't triumphed yet. As of April 2012:
E-books last year accounted for 20.2 percent of all books sold in the U.S., up from 7.3 percent in 2010, according to Bowker Market Research. But that mass adoption of the digital word is still far off in one of Europe’s most-literate nations, Germany, where e-books account for only 1 percent of all book sales, according to a report published last month by the market research firm GdK.
The rest of Europe tends to be closer to Germany than the US here.
Now, maybe Amazon will stumble. But if publishers were to take the attitude sometimes seen in this thread, of equating Amazon with Borders, and assuming Amazon will similarly fail to gain market control, they really would be living in the past.
Most companies with big market share eventually get anti-trust attention. And yet, roughly half the time, anti-trust changes fail to stick. That's because there is advantage to operating on the edge of anti-trust violations. Open and shut cases are unlikely.
It's highly likely that, as the publishers say, when the executives of the various companies spoke to each other, they were acting under advice of counsel. They were probably trying to step right up to the line without going over. This year, whether Apple and the publishers went over the line is the issue. If they get a big enough market share, Amazon's turn will come. |
If you are operating on the edge of anti-trust violations you better make sure that you have an anti-trust lawyer present during those meetings. Apparently the publishers did not.
Quote:
They said they had dozens of e-mails, the name of a Manhattan restaurant where CEOs from the publishing companies met, and in the state's complaint (filed the same day as the DOJ's) were charts illustrating the many phone calls made between the defendants. The government even claimed to know some of what was said. During these meetings, there wasn't an antitrust attorney present, DOJ lawyers made sure to note.
If you were like me, then you may have thought after reading about this that Apple and the publishers would eventually offer some good reason for these contacts. Who doesn't know that it looks bad -- real bad -- anytime competitors meet together to discuss pricing or share information?
Here's what I'm talking about: My music-industry sources say leaders at the four top record companies are involved in several joint ventures and they don't discuss so much as what's for lunch without an antitrust lawyer present. But in the papers Apple and the publishers filed with the court, a good explanation about why it was OK for them to meet and talk about pricing was conspicuously missing.
|
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-574...-e-book-suits/