@pwalker8. I may have seen the WSJ article at the time, though I can't recall doing so. Unfortunately it is now behind a paywall. However, I did find this one by Kirsten Reach, then an editor at Melville House.
https://www.mhpbooks.com/wsj-editori...es-government/ There was a further link to the original article in this piece which was to a site down for maintenance. But even from this I see why the WSJ article would not be memorable to me even if I had read it. We both have our prejudices on this topic, and in the case of this article I think yours have lead you to unwarranted conclusions. If a company like Amazon, or Apple for that matter, want the DOJ to take action, they have their lawyers prepare a detailed brief on why they should. The article, at least the extract I was able to read, shows nothing more that that Amazon's lawyers did a good job at convincing them. There is absolutely nothing to indicate special treatment for Amazon.
The WSJ article does claim that:
Quote:
|
The irony is that over the same 2009-10 period Amazon was also exploring a conversion to agency contracts.
|
This does not of course justify your assertion that the Publishers got their agency pricing model from Amazon? Is it in part of the article I could not access? Though I must confess that based on the little I was able to read it seems to be little more than a biased hit piece. The first phrase extracted in the article that I could read was
Quote:
|
In February 2010 Amazon posed as the victim.
|
Hardly a shining example of unbiased journalism.
And yes, of course I'm aware that Amazon now has agency contracts with the Big 5. The Court order prohibited this for a time. Once re-negotiation could take place without the constraints of the Court Order all publishers sought and were allowed agency contracts. And yes, this was wonderful for Amazon, and I'm sure Amazon realised it at the time, even if few of the rest of us did. Amazon has been a big winner from agency. The Slate article you linked to was quite good, unlike the WSJ one. I loved this quote, which I had not seen before.
Quote:
|
Amazon argues that cheaper e-books are actually better for everyone; it claims a 33 percent decrease in e-book prices translates to 1.74 times as many sales, prompting a 16 percent increase in overall revenue.
|
The fact that Amazon has benefited from agency shines little light on the negotiations.
I remain interested in the questions I raised about the argument that Apple's entry into the market would be good for competition. That is, what form do you think this competition would have taken? What benefits would it have had for the public?