Quote:
Originally Posted by eschwartz
I am trying to understand your logic here. According to you:
price fixing == multiple competitors, agreement, set prices.
agency pricing == individual acts to set prices.
publishers accused of == multiple competitors, agreement, agency pricing
==>
publishers accused of != price fixing.
For the purposes of this discussion, it is important to note that "setting a minimum price" is an instantiation of "setting prices".
Aside: I see you feel it important to point out that they settled without admitting guilt. Just curious, what difference you feel that actually makes to anyone on the planet?
|
I'm having trouble understanding why you are struggling with the idea that individual publishers setting their own prices is not the same as price fixing. The individual publishers compete for a share of the other all book market. Penguin Books published Chernow's 2011 Biography of George Washington for $10.74 in the Kindle store. Simon & Schuster publishes McCullough's 2001 Biography of John Adams for $12.99 in the Kindle store. Two different publishers publish different books at different price points. Price fixing would require that the price points be the same. It's pretty straight forward.
Settling without admitting guilt is actually quite important. Generally speaking, when one settles without admitting guilt, it's a strong indication that the prosecutor is more interested in collecting fines and counting coup than bringing the guilty to justice (or even caring if the accused is innocent or guilty). This is a major problem with the current legal system. Prosecutors can strong arm companies into paying fines without regard to guilt or innocence simply by stringing enough charges together that the company would be ruined if they went to trial and lost. Most trial lawyers would tell you that any time you go to trial, it's a gamble regardless of the facts. One never knows what a judge or jury is going to do.