Quote:
Originally Posted by darryl
Your comment dismissing so lightly a conspiracy to rip-off consumers which has been before the courts and for which the perpetrators have or will be paying compensation is breathtaking. I take it you do not in fact condone such breaches of the law? Or do you feel the law is unjust in this respect?
|
I do not believe the law itself is unjust. I do believe that as applied by Cote it was unjustly applied. I believe that had Cote's rulings on what evidence was admissible been different, the outcome might well have been different. Having practiced law myself, I have not forgotten how judges support their biases by making inclusionary or exclusionary evidentiary rulings.
I am not convinced from the evidence admitted and not admitted that there was a conspiracy and I am certainly not convinced that Amazon's role was irrelevant.
Yet none of that changes the ultimate fact that the publishers settled (without admitting wrongdoing) and Apple lost at the trial level. It remains to be seen whether Cote's decision is ultimately upheld. Apple's pockets are deep enough for it to pursue the appeal; the publisher's pockets were not.
As for your wish to not move from the wholesale model, in a free market, moving from one model to another is standard operating procedure. Because you like Amazon's prices doesn't mean that Amazon's prices are the correct prices. Amazon's price setting is no different than the BPH's price setting -- each is looking out for itself. Other than that you think pricing is better for you under the wholesale model, you provide no justification for that model.
Interestingly, as pointed out earlier, the Wall street Journal notes that Amazon wanted to go to agency pricing long before the issue arose and only backed off from that model when Apple intruded. Thus even your idol seems to think agency pricing is better -- for it.