Quote:
Originally Posted by bgalbrecht
My understanding of the situation is that
A) The publishers thought they could raise ebook prices (by preventing epub discounting) so there would be less pricing pressure on their big profit maker, the hardcover book, if they could switch to ebook agent pricing agreements.
B) None of the publishers thought they alone could get Amazon to accept an agent pricing agreement, but if they all insisted on switching, Amazon would go along with it.
C) Apple didn't want to get into the ebook business if they thought Amazon could undercut them, but they really wanted to get into the ebook business so they were in favor of the agent pricing agreements.
D) Apple was involved in discussions with the publishers which allowed the publishers to know which other publishers were going to force Amazon to switch.
E) Even though they all professed innocence, the publishers all settled rather than go to court.
F) When Apple lost in court, the judge wrote a detailed decision in such a way that it is unlikely that Apple will get the decision reversed.
...
|
Quite a few misconceptions in there, but just to address the last two issue
e) it is quite common for companies to settle a case with the government without admitting guilt. The issue is a risk/reward question. If a publisher had actually gone to trial and lost, then they would have risked bankruptcy. It's much better to agree to a settlement without admitting guilt whither or not you are guilty. This particular tactic by prosecutors has become quite popular. The prosecutor gets a big headline, which helps their political career without actually having to prove anything. It's quite rare to run into a company that is willing risk going to trial in this situation. Frankly this is my major concern in this case, a prosecutor run wild. The biggest reason I'm rooting for Apple in this case is they have pockets deep enough and appear to care enough about their reputation to take this case as far as necessary. Many other companies don't have that luxury.
f) some people keep asserting this, however Judge Cote has frequently been overturned on appeal, even through she normally writes her decisions like this, the most recent being this past fall. Writing detailed judgments can be a two edged sword if the judgment is not legally sound. Apple has a number of legal rationals for appeal. Most of what I've read say that even if the 2nd doesn't overturn Cote, Apple is likely to take this all the way to the Supreme Court. Judge Cote's decision is a fairly radical departure to previous case law.