View Single Post
Old 09-07-2015, 03:43 PM   #47
pwalker8
Grand Sorcerer
pwalker8 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pwalker8 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pwalker8 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pwalker8 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pwalker8 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pwalker8 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pwalker8 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pwalker8 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pwalker8 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pwalker8 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pwalker8 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 7,196
Karma: 70314280
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Atlanta, GA
Device: iPad Pro, iPad mini, Kobo Aura, Amazon paperwhite, Sony PRS-T2
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschwartz View Post


You keep saying this. We keep telling you that according to the court case (!!!) they did one using a tactic that utilized doing the other (== both) ...
Repeatably saying something doesn't make it true.

From the FTC website

Price fixing is an agreement (written, verbal, or inferred from conduct) among competitors that raises, lowers, or stabilizes prices or competitive terms.

Agency Model or Agency Pricing is when the whole seller (or publisher in this case) sets the price and the retailer gets a fee for each item sold.

The courts have found that the Agency Model is perfectly legal.

For it to be price fixing, the publishers would have had to agree to set the prices at a given price. That, of course, did not happen.
pwalker8 is offline   Reply With Quote