Quote:
Originally Posted by fjtorres
In any debate over alegations of predatory prices I'll take the word of a Federal Judge experienced in antitrust issues over a random publishing industry apologist at Salon.
|
Which of course is entirely your prerogative to choose to believe.
It's interesting to note that that antitrust lawsuit had nothing whatsoever to do with Amazon, they wern't even involved in it.
The judge's conclusions pretty much state that there was insufficient evidence to
prove that Amazon was using predatory pricing according to how the
law chooses to define it.
That they were actually doing it, getting away with doing it and putting companies out if business by doing it is empirical and fairly obvious for most people to see.
We know there's plenty of people insider trading on Wall Street, actually catching them doing it and proving it to the satisfaction of the SEC is immensely difficult to do.
We know that petrol, electrical and gas companies set their prices at identical levels, actually proving that they've all sat down and actually price colluded to the monopolies commission is equally difficult. It doesn't stop those companies from setting virtually identical pricing structures—and getting away with it. They've been doing it for years and making obscene profits in the process! The companies supplying these commodities are virtual cartels and it's all within their own interests to keep prices the same. Price wars don't help any of them.
Knowing something happens and proving something happens are two entirely different things.