Quote:
Originally Posted by pwalker8
Well, I'm expressing my opinion rather than arguing a case in court, so the only evidence is purely circumstantial. A bit more solid that the evidence you find so persuasive, but circumstantial none the less. We know that Bezo and his family have donated quite a bit to politicians. We now know that the DOJ seem to have derived their case from a white paper given them by Amazon.
White paper is a technical term. It does have special meaning. The point there is that Amazon didn't file a complaint against the publishers and Apple, which is the normal way of getting the DOJ to investigate. Instead they give what was apparently a secret briefing. It seems fairly likely that they choose this method to avoid getting bad press ("Dominate company charges new entry into ebook market with anti-trust violation". Yea, that would fly well).
When a company gives money to politicians, and then get favorable treatment from the government, then that is the definition of crony capitalism. If Bezos and company hadn't been given money to the right politicians, then I would yield your point, but they were. That's what makes it crony capitalism.
|
And what is the evidence that I find so persuasive, that is inferior to your "circumstantial" evidence? I can tell you that my opinion is based on the judge's opinion (which I've actually read), and some of the briefs (again, which I've actually read). Yours seems to be based on what you'd like to be true, mixed with some borderline conspiracy theorizing, and with a total lack of understanding of the judicial process in anti-trust cases.
As for the oh-so-secret briefing, it's apparently available for public viewing. Also, it's not a "white paper" in the technical sense, since a private party can't issue one. That's just the term the WSJ used to add some gravitas, and that you picked up because it slotted nicely into the story you've constructed.
Political donations alone don't make for crony capitalism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pwalker8
But that's not what happened. They met together and decided that they were going to hold out for the agency model. They didn't decide that all hard back books would be X dollars and all paperback books would be Y dollars and all ebooks would be Z dollars. Is that anti trust? Maybe yes, maybe no, as far as I can tell there is a fair amount of debate about it.
Was Apple using the offer of agency pricing to get into the ebook business in the face of what at the time was a dominate player (90% of the market at the time) anti-trust? I find that very hard to swallow.
|
What you just described is a classic breach of competition law. And what you do or don't find hard to swallow is irrelevant given the judge's opinion:
Quote:
The Complaint alleges a straightforward, horizontal price-fixing conspiracy, which is per se unlawful under the Sherman Act.
The Complaint also details the defendants’ public statements, conversations, and meetings as evidence of the existence of the conspiracy. The decree is directed narrowly towards undoing the price-fixing conspiracy, ensuring that price-fixing does not immediately reemerge, and ensuring compliance. Based on the factual allegations in the Complaint and CIS, it is reasonable to conclude that these remedies will result in a return to the pre-conspiracy status quo. In this straightforward price-fixing case, no further showing is required.
|
And later:
Quote:
|
Third, even if Amazon was engaged in predatory pricing, this is no excuse for unlawful price-fixing. Congress “has not permitted the age-old cry of ruinous competition and competitive evils to be a defense to price-fixing conspiracies.” Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., 310 U.S. at 221. The familiar mantra regarding “two wrongs” would seem to offer guidance in these circumstances.
|
A couple things to note: (i) the "Complaint" is the complaint by the government, which does not match Amazon's complaint; and (ii) the court did not find any evidence that Amazon had engaged in predatory pricing.
It's unfortunate, pwalker, that the law (not to mention basic facts) don't support your preferred narrative. No doubt this will require you to allege an even more fantastical scheme by Amazon to subvert politicians, the DOJ and a judge.