Quote:
Originally Posted by dgatwood
From a legal perspective, monopolies are defined within a single industry or industry segment in which the products are fungible, not across broad, unrelated markets. In this case, we're talking about the eBook market, of which Amazon has about a 75% share.
.
|
But ebooks and print books *are* fungible.
The BPHs are actively supporting that thesis with their high ebook prices intended to drive readers to print editions.
By your narrow definition Sony has a monopoly on Playstation gaming and Microsoft has a monopoly on Xbox games and Apple has a monopoly on iPhone games when the reality is they are all competitors, along with Google, Nintendo, Amazon, and (soon) even the revived Coleco. Gaming is gaming whether on consoles, PCs, phones, or wooden planks. Time spent gaming on one is time not spent on the others. They are all competitors for consumers' time and money.
Likewise with publishing.
Ebooks are just another edition of the exact same book. No different that a mmpbk ir hardcover or audio book. Same content, same product, and totally fungible.
Whether people read fiction or non-fiction, news or data, on paper, tablet, or TV screen is irrelevant; reading is reading. And a publisher in one segment has the ability to publish anything they choose. (DUNE was published by a car parts catalog publisher. Publishing is publishing. Period.)
And that is how the DOJ ruled on the randy penguin merger. And if they, who actually pick and choose what they bring to market and edit its content and control what ideas reach market and how... If they pass legal muster so does Amazon which is merely a distributor of those titles and has no control over the content.
So, no, no monopoly.
And since they exert no control over what gets published or what is inside they have no control over speech. All they can do is say what they will willingly distribute. And since (again!) they have no obligation to carry anything they don't contractually agree to carry, which makes it a matter of contract law. (And since the contract had expired during the Hachette catfight, they were under no obligation to lift a single finger on their behalf.)
No case for monopoly of free speech issues.
More, if you listen carefully to what the AU gang and other propagandists are saying, Amazon's real crime is they * don't* restict what gets published. That their sales suffer ar Amazon because Amazon *doesn't* give *them* preferred placement.
In the mid nineties during the day of the big box bookstores the ABA sued the BPHs, Borders, and B&N for antitrust violations and won a settlement. If their current claims were anything but propaganda they would have sued long ago.
But as one of the more vocal leaders admitted in an online discussion their lawyers have already told them they have no case.
Not under anti-trust, not under Patman-Robinson, and not under free speech.
No case. Period.