[PatNY]

Originally Posted by Robotech_Master

Here's one antitrust law expert (I googled him, he appears to have reasonable credentials.) He seems to be arguing against the facts as stated in the case, calling the evidence weak and circumstantial.

Well, that was rambling. He certainly is a qualified lawyer, but he spends a lot of time simply re-interpreting facts to fit his opinion. In this trial, Cote is the finder of facts. The appeals court is likely to tread very lightly there.

Also, Manne says a lot of questionable things such as:

“While the court claims that the publishers’ concern with Amazon’s $9.99 pricing was its effect on physical book sales, it is extremely hard to believe that somehow $12.99 for the electronic version of a $30 (or, often, even more expensive) physical book would be significantly less damaging to physical book sales.”

Not only is that just his opinion (vs. Cote's) ... but I think it is weak. How often did people ever pay $30+ for hardcover books back then? I rarely did. Hardbacks were discounted back then. It was most likely roughly $15 or so. So, it's not a matter of 12.99 vs. $30 but rather $12.99 vs. $15 or thereabouts. Which makes it much more plausible that a rise in ebook prices would protect the sale of hardcovers. It's a plausible reason for the publishers to have agreed to agency pricing.

--Pat