Quote:
Originally Posted by pwalker8
Ironically, an article in WSJ last week mentioned the Amazon actively went to the US government and got them to file the lawsuit against Apple and the published (link - http://online.wsj.com/articles/amazo...ent-1410217281). If you google "Amazon Loves Government" you might be able to get past the paywall. I'm not sure, I have a subscription, but I've been told that method works.
The relevant quote is
" ...
Amazon could have continued with its wholesale model—but the publishers were protesting the company's tactics by withholding popular hardback or e-book titles for several months. Thus for the first time Amazon had in Apple an e-book competitor with a potentially superior selection of books.
So in February 2010 Amazon posed as the victim, and associate general counsel David Zapolsky submitted a confidential white paper to the Federal Trade Commission and Justice's antitrust division on "the collective nature of the publishers' action to take control of digital book pricing."
DoJ then picked up Amazon's legal argument and used it to sue Apple. DoJ claims that the iPad and the publishers' acceptance of Apple's new arrangement "forced" Amazon to flip to the agency model and thus higher (albeit temporary) consumer prices.
..."
Hopefully that isn't too much of a quote.
I'm afraid that I can't share your faith in the US government as a fair and unbiased arbitrator. The term "crony capitalism" came about for a reason. For all practical purposes, it's impossible to maintain a monopoly without government support and intervention.
Once again, the parallels between the Apple anti-trust suit and the Microsoft anti-trust suit are quite striking. |
Making a complaint to government isn't, without more, crony capitalism. What evidence do you have that there was malfeasance on the part of Amazon or the Department of Justice? In Canada, groups make filings all the time to the Competition Bureau to make them aware of anticompetitive behaviour; of course they do it selfishly, but it's for the Bureau and the courts to determine if there's merit. That's a well-functioning system, not the subplot of a Tom Clancy book.
Reimagining the publishers' price fixing conspiracy as the result of a nefarious scheme by Amazon, aided by the federal government, seems a little silly unless you have more compelling evidence to offer than the fact that your "team" got its wrist slapped and you don't like Amazon.
Just so I'm clear: An opinion piece in the WSJ isn't great evidence of anything. Particularly given the fact that the WSJ is owned by News Corp., which also happens to own Harper Collins.
Bonus
I love this part of the WSJ article:
"The larger point is that the executive and judicial branches intervened to aid Amazon, a quasi-monopolist incumbent at a crucial competitive juncture amid the shift to digital from print, preventing a market resolution."
I'm not sure that I can feel bad that the publishers' illegal collusion was found out about at an inconvenient time for them. Whether or not Amazon is a monopoly or quasi-monopoly is irrelevant to the fact that the publishers were engaged in illegal activity.