Quote:
Originally Posted by fjtorres
|
The usual bizarre justifications.
Quote:
|
They were hurting long before Apple came along with iBooks, and they conspired to disrupt Amazon's pricing model. We know that because the publishers admitted it. Everyone knows that, because the publishers admitted it. So it's undisputed that Apple did not lead the conspiracy, yet that is precisely what it was accused of, and precisely what it has now been ruled as having done.
|
I can say with certainty it is
not undisputed.
SCOTUS for one disputes it. That was the point of the ruling that they explicitly mention and whine about.
The fact that publishers themselves were whining before Apple does not actually have any bearing whatsoever on who lead the conspiracy. But it sure sounds good!
Quote:
|
Apple is also accused of acting to lock out other companies, and that's also unsupportable. Apple's actions made iBooks more expensive than Amazon, so it cannot lock out other companies by aggressive pricing. Amazon, on the other hand was selling books at below cost, therefore below a price that smaller companies could match.
|
Have the words "agency model" completely escaped them? I really don't think they have the right to own a website which posts news articles if they haven't heard of "agency".
They also don't seem to have grasped the very solid point that it is indeed undisputed (by opinions that can be respected as more qualified than that of a small child) that Amazon did NOT lose money on ebooks and the "selling books at below cost" was only to the same extent as any other loss-leader which is made up by the advertising.
But no, here we are again with the "Amazon sold books at a loss just to drive other ebooksellers out of business" shtick. How depressingly boring -- do people actually still go for that???