Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham
Whether or not that would have proved to be true, it's completely irrelevant. As you seem to admit here, the Big 5 prices did go up as a consequence of the actions taken in concert with Apple. The chart that shows this so clearly is, I think, the most convincing evidence in the case, and displays the facts that will provide the biggest obstacle to a successful appeal.
Apple must argue successfully that there was no collusion behind this concerted rise, but the timing of the meetings and emails Eddy Cue had with the publishers make that very hard to believe.
At best, Apple can argue that the timing was coincidental as it related to the launch of the iPad, but that doesn't stop it being collusion to act in concert. In fact it's an admission that Apple was organising the publishers to move to Agency Pricing and the MFN clause in concert.
Graham |
Actually I don't think you understand how appeals work. Appeals are very rarely about facts, but rather are about points of law. In general, you can only appeal new evidence since appeals courts give what is known as due deference to the trial judge, which basically means that you can't argue the facts of the case unless either new evidence comes to light. What Apple will be arguing is that Judge Cote misapplied the law in her decision. The exact argument won't be known until until Apple actually files the text of their appeal. I'm not sure when exactly that will be, most of the stories just say early 2014.
I would also say that I'm not sure what that chart is actually saying. What exactly is the formula for weighted average being used? That could be very important. It would also be interesting to see the chart of the prices as is, without any weighting. If it turns out only a small number of books increase in price then that doesn't mean nearly as much as if a large number of books increased in price. Given that the chart was produced for the prosecutor, my cynical nature suspects that they weighted the number to make the chart look a lot more dramatic than it would have if they had simply charted average price.
My understanding is the only actual difference would be books that Amazon was previously selling at a loss, i.e. some of the big name books. When I go back and look at my orders for the time period and what I paid for each book (I have 90 ebooks that I bought at Amazon in 2010), I see very little difference before April 2010 and after April 2010. So for the books that I buy, there appears to be little if any impact. Looking at the ebooks now, I see a similar mix of prices. The big difference appears to be that since Amazon is no longer trying to establish the ebook market, they are not selling books below cost anymore, so I see more books at $15 where I don't see very many of the more expensive books in 2010. Other than that, the price doesn't seem that much more than it was in 2009 and 2010, mostly $5 to $6 books.