Quote:
Originally Posted by stonetools
I think that any literate person who actually clicked through and read the article would say that you are wrong, but you have a right to your opinion.
|
Reading it, it agrees with me:
Quote:
|
In an interview with The Wall Street Journal’s Thomas Catan, Justice Department antitrust official Sharis Pozen outlines the framework guiding the agency’s investigation. The real issue, Pozen says, isn’t the agency model, but secret agreements between competitors.
|
Quote:
[...] This is why Apple’s involvement in these agreements is so crucial. Apple could have served as the “hub” in a “hub-and-spoke” conspiracy, performing shuttle diplomacy between publishers. For example, if Apple said to publishers, “I have an agreement that MacMillian will go first in insisting on agency publishing with Amazon if you will agree to do it after us,” that would point to a hub-and-spoke conspiracy.
The alternative is that each of the publishers, separately and bilaterally, came to the same agreement with Apple because it was in their individual interest to do so. This is called “conscious parallelism,” and it’s entirely legal.
|
If each publisher independently chose to switch to agency, even if they were aware that the others were also doing so, that is fine.
If at any point there was an agreement "We will only do this if you/they do", that is collusion.