Quote:
Originally Posted by rcentros
Which is not relevant to the big publisher's and Apple's decision to collude. I think it would be hard to show harm to Apple (who wasn't even selling books at the time) or to the big publishers, who were getting paid the full wholesale price for their eBooks. Their "problem" was that they (Apple and the big publishers) wanted to control retail prices, instead of letting Amazon do it.
But, if they thought there was a strong case against Amazon they should have brought a lawsuit to court instead of breaking the law with their end-run collusion decision. I've got a feeling they knew their case was too weak and, besides, they figured they were too big to be beaten in court. Not the first time Apple's tactics misfired or that they overestimated their lawyer's abilities.
|
What the publishers wanted to do was protect their pBook sales.Apple's $9.99 NYT pricing was cutting into the pBook sales. So when Apple offered the publishers the chance to get back at Amazon,they jumped at the chance. It wasn't the publishers wanting to control prices, it's publsihers wanting to save their flagging pBook sales.