Quote:
Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer
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.
|
Making a complaint isn't crony capitalism, getting more attention because you gave to the party in power is crony capitalism. I'm not claiming malfeasance, I'm claiming favoritism, which happens all the time and is the major reason that companies donate to political parties and have lobbying offices in Washington DC.
Are you saying that the meat of the article, that David Zapolsky submitted a confidential white paper to the Federal Trade Commission and Justice's antitrust division is untrue?