Quote:
Originally Posted by leebase
Hold on....your quotes back my point. The difference is Apple and the publishers should have sued Amazon instead of colluding. It doesn’t state that Amazon wasn’t price dumping.
|
But Amazon wasn't price dumping, and neither Apple, the Publishers or the DOJ sued. One might draw an inference from that. The fact that the Court was not called upon to consider this particular point neither helps nor harms your point. The fact that Apple and the Publishers could have sued if they really believed Amazon's actions were anti-competitive but chose instead not to in favour of entering into an unlawful conspiracy does harm your point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by leebase
I think the judges position that it doesn’t matter if competitors are hurt if prices are lowered for consumers...is naive. Selling goods below cost because you have more access to capitol than all the competition....is harmful. Customers aren’t getting a lower price due to some more efficient process. Amazon just ate the difference. They wouldn’t have done so forever. They might not have raised prices....they just would have told publishers to take less per book. And with most of the book sellers run out of business...publishers would have been powerless to fight. Which is WHY the publishers had to fight when they did. None of which was given consideration by judge Koh. All of which might well come under revue now
|
I think you miss the point here. I'll again let the Court make it rather than myself:
Quote:
12 It is axiomatic that the antitrust laws were passed for ‘the protection
13 of competition, not competitors.’” Brooke Grp. Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco
14 Corp., 509 U.S. 209, 224 (1993) (quoting Brown Shoe Co. v. United States, 370 U.S.
15 294, 320 (1962)).
|
Bolding and underlining is mine.
The conspirators had the lawful option of suing. I infer they did not do so because they knew they had no case. And yes, Amazon may well have later told publishers to take less per book, preserving lower prices for the benefit of consumers. It's called business. Price points, particularly those set by an oligopoly in the absence of competition, do not attract the protection of anti-trust law. It's all about the consumer!