Quote:
Originally Posted by stonetools
Indeed. However, the publishers and authors have their interests and they made their view clear in the many comments critical of the settlement. They would say that the settlement might benefit the consumer short term, but hurt the consumer long term. We'll see.
|
And the DOJ made it very clear that the comments from the people in the industry were, for the most part, irrelevant to the case. Did you read any of the responses? Some that are listed right here in this thread?
Quote:
|
Many comments state or imply that Publisher Defendants must stand in the place of consumers to preserve quality. Such a paternalistic view is inconsistent with the intent of the antitrust laws, which reflect a legislative decision to allow competition to decide what the market does and does not value.
|
Quote:
|
...all of the intellectual property rights of authors remain subject to market competition. To the extent Mr. DeFiore’s complaint reflects dissatisfaction with the state of that competition, it is not relevant to the proposed Final Judgment.
|
Quote:
Many critics of the settlements view the consequences of the conspiracy—higher prices—as serving their own self-interests, and they prefer that unfettered competition be replaced by industry collusion that places the welfare of certain firms over that of the public. That position is wholly at odds with the purposes of the federal antitrust laws—which were enacted to protect competition, not competitors. See, e.g., Brown
Shoe Co. v. United States, 370 U.S. 294, 320 (1962).
|
Do you really still think that the settlements aren't going to be approved?
Shari