|
Some of the quotes I enjoyed:
The ABA and its members do not distinguish between print and e-book online sales, and they offer no explanation for why e-books allow free riding by online sellers but print books, which are unaffected by the proposed Final Judgment, do not.
-----
In this case, the third parties that the Court is directed to consider under the Tunney Act are the consumers of e-books, not the brick-and-mortar booksellers, which admit that they benefited from the conspiracy.
-----
No objector to the proposed Final Judgment has supplied evidence that, in the dynamic and evolving e-book industry, Amazon threatens to drive out competition and obtain the monopoly pricing power which is the ultimate concern of predatory pricing law.
-----
B&N is not, then, simply a company concerned about its contractual rights. Instead, more basically, it is worried that it will make less money after the conspiracy than it collected while collusion was ongoing.
-----
Many comments state or imply that Publisher Defendants must stand in the place of consumers to preserve quality. Such a paternalistic view is inconsistent with the intent of the antitrust laws, which reflect a legislative decision to allow competition to decide what the market does and does not value.
-----
...all of the intellectual property rights of authors remain subject to market competition. To the extent Mr. DeFiore’s complaint reflects dissatisfaction with the state of that competition, it is not relevant to the proposed Final Judgment.
-----
Mr. Kohn offers the Court his views of the proper standard it should employ in ruling on a motion to dismiss, even though none of the settling or non-settling defendants (each of which is represented by highly experienced and sophisticated counsel) chose to move to dismiss the Complaint.
-----
NACS claims the Complaint did not identify harm arising in the e-textbook market, so the Final Judgment should be modified to exclude e-textbooks from the prohibition of limits on retail discounting in the decree. Id. at 11-12. However, it was not necessary to expressly exclude e-textbooks from the proposed Final Judgment because none of the Settling Defendants sell e-textbooks....
-----
Apple’s claim that it “will have to quickly negotiate new agreements with these publishers under a dark cloud of uncertainty in just seven days,” Apple at 5, ignores that more than three months have already passed since the proposed Final Judgment was filed, during which time Apple has been free to pursue its negotiations with Settling Defendants.
-----
I'm currently trying to decide how to convert it to an ebook. Legal docs are hard; they're crammed with footnotes, and there's no *good* way to make that work in epub or mobi. I may just convert to HTML with endnotes and post it on a blog somewhere. The entire opinion is under 20k words, novella-length.
|