2 Publishers Deny Claim of E-Book Price Fixing

[Fbone]

How much time must elapse between acceptance for it not to be collusion? We know from Random House it's less than a year.

[crossi]

Hardware prices usually drops for electronics. Ereader prices had already dropped before the ipad. They started out about $400 for a 6 inch. And just look at the drop in price for flat screen monitors and TVs. Don't think Apple can claim the credit for the drop in ereader prices.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Fbone

How much time must elapse between acceptance for it not to be collusion? We know from Random House it's less than a year.

It's a fair question, but I'm not even sure it boils down to the exact "timing." Yes, Random House did themselves a big favor by waiting as long as they did, but I think this case is going to boil down to whether or not the DoJ can prove that there were machinations/communications/meetings between all the defendants to put the lipstick on this particular pig. If they can do that; then it wouldn't matter if they had staggered their roll-outs by days or even weeks. Collusion is collusion. They're just not allowed to work in concert to come up with a business plan that raises prices. They're not supposed to work in concert to affect their industry... period. Regardless if the plan they came up with might have potentially saved ten-thousand drowning kittens.

Prove that the publishers worked together—whether directly or through Apple as a facilitator—and none of them has a pot to pi$$ in. Or don't prove it, and they all walk away wiping the sweat off their forehead.

The precise timing of events and whether or not it was done to save the starving children are red herrings in my opinion.

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by crossi

Hardware prices usually drops for electronics. Ereader prices had already dropped before the ipad. They started out about $400 for a 6 inch. And just look at the drop in price for flat screen monitors and TVs. Don't think Apple can claim the credit for the drop in ereader prices.

You really think that the huge slashes in ebook reader prices following on the introduction of the iPad would have occurred absent the coming of the iPad?
Suffice it to say that the weight of the evidence is against you.

IPad Spurs EBook Reader Price War
Published on: 24th Jun 2010

The move by Barnes & Noble as well as Amazon to slash the prices of their eBook readers reflects a fundamental change in their business strategy intended to counter the rising competitive pressure from Apple's iPad.

LINK

[HomeInMyShoes]

Originally Posted by stonetools

No question. They argue that ebook prices IN GENERAL have fallen, but of course they have fallen DESPITE agency pricing. Of course, they have the backup "we're doing it for the long term good of the industry" and other arguments.

I frankly don't care what comes out of the investigation. There is a price point at which sales will drop off. $14.97 to $16.12 for an e-book title that isn't even a this year or last year release is way past that point for me. Have fun with the $20 instead of $250 I used to probably spend on agency books each year.

[ProfCrash]

Sorry but one headline does not make it true. The Kindle had already dropped from $400 to the $200 range. Everyone was discussing how long it would be before the Kindle hit the $99. Then came the SO Kindles and the price fell to the magic price point. There is still one 6 inch Kindle in the $150 range.

Maybe you can argue that Sony finally dropped its price in response to the IPad but the Nook, Kobo, and Kindle were well on the way down.

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Fixed that for you.

As much as I and others may dislike it, this lawsuit has never been about the "agency pricing model" itself... no matter how much the publishers—and now, apparently, you—seem to want to use that as a distraction. It's about Apple and a group of (supposedly) independent publishers conspiring to put in place a plan (any plan) to fix prices at a higher level. That's it. Please stop trying to insinuate that the agency model is on trial... it's not. It's about all of them coming up with a plan to affect prices together.

Look,you are right- the the DOJ is arguing not against agency model itself.
What the DOJ is arguing is that Apple and the BPH 5 entered into conspiracy to raise prices-AND THAT THEY USED THE AGENCY MODEL- and the MFN clause-to enforce it. Clear now?

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by ProfCrash

Sorry but one headline does not make it true. The Kindle had already dropped from $400 to the $200 range. Everyone was discussing how long it would be before the Kindle hit the $99. Then came the SO Kindles and the price fell to the magic price point. There is still one 6 inch Kindle in the $150 range.

Maybe you can argue that Sony finally dropped its price in response to the IPad but the Nook, Kobo, and Kindle were well on the way down.

The news headline is indicative of the consensus conclusion of the business analysts. You can argue that the business analysts are wrong, but I expect that the courts will agree with the analyst consensus.

[ProfCrash]

Given that the court is addressing collusion and not how the market worked to drive prices of e-readers down I doubt that the price of e-readers will enter the picture. If the court is interested in that, they can take a basic economics class.

That has nothing to do with the case that argues that the Publishers and Apple colluded to set the price of e-books.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Look,you are right- the the DOJ is arguing not against agency model itself.
What the DOJ is arguing is that Apple and the BPH 5 entered into conspiracy to raise prices-AND THAT THEY USED THE AGENCY MODEL- and the MFN clause-to enforce it. Clear now?

Yep. Crystal clear that you can't talk about this without muddying the water. "THEY USED THE AGENCY MODEL" just doesn't bring anything to the legal/illegal table. It's empty calories. Collusion is the beginning and end of the DoJ's case. Everything hinges on proving it. The rest is noise. I hate pointless noise.

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by Fbone

How much time must elapse between acceptance for it not to be collusion? We know from Random House it's less than a year.

If you look at the proposed the DOJ settlement, they impose a two year suspension of pricing control by the settling publishers, followed by a staggered re-introduction of full on agency pricing, should the SPs want it. It seems the DOJ would have been OK with a rolling introduction of agency pricing-its the seeming lockstep manner it was introduced was what they disliked.
If the SPS go back to agency in a stepwise, one-by-one fashion after two years, the DOJ will most likely not interfere, IMO.
Of course in two year's time, the SPs may not want to. We'll see.(I think it likely they'll re-impose full on agency).

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Yep. Crystal clear that you can't talk about this without muddying the water. "THEY USED THE AGENCY MODEL" just doesn't bring anything to the legal/illegal table. It's empty calories. Collusion is the beginning and end of the DoJ's case. Everything hinges on proving it. The rest is noise. I hate pointless noise.

THen we'll just agree to disagree. Let's see how the court sees it. Clearly, the defence thinks the courts will at least consider these arguments,or they wouldn't be making them. One man's pointless noise is another man's closely argued defence.

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by ProfCrash

Given that the court is addressing collusion and not how the market worked to drive prices of e-readers down I doubt that the price of e-readers will enter the picture. If the court is interested in that, they can take a basic economics class.

That has nothing to do with the case that argues that the Publishers and Apple colluded to set the price of e-books.

Well, the courts will certainly consider analysis by economists if that is submitted. Clearly, you buy the DOJ view that we should focus on whether there was any agreement to raise prices and nothing else. That's not the defense approach. The courts have certainly held in past that they can consider more than whether there was just an agreement to raise prices- which is why the defense is taking that approach.
I'll point out that the defense do insist, clearly and forcefully, that there was no collusion. That's theirmain defense.

[DiapDealer]

THen we'll just agree to disagree. Let's see how the court sees it. Clearly, the defence thinks the courts will at least consider these arguments,or they wouldn't be making them. One man's pointless noise is another man's closely argued defence.

What arguments?? What defense?? AGENCY PRICING MODEL is a defense? Hell, we're not even in the same book, let alone the same page. Are you telling me that you really believe the defense is going to come to the bar all prepared to defend the AGENCY PRICING MODEL while the DoJ is arguing collusion? I may not like them, but I don't think they're particularly stupid.

What I'm saying is simple. Neither the defense nor the DoJ, nor the judge gives two craps about the words AGENCY PRICING MODEL. They won't save or damn anyone in this case. The case won't be won or lost because of AGENCY PRICING MODEL. AGENCY PRICING MODEL will only become relevant again once this case is over. AGENCY PRICING MODEL has no bearing on this case. "Collusion" is the charge. "We didn't collude (and even if it turns out we did, we did it because we love puppies)" is the defense. Clear now?

[plib]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Its up to the DOJ to prove that those conversations had anything to do with an illegal collusion scheme. So far, the DOJ hasn't shown any evidence as to what those conversations were. If at the end of the discovery process, the DOJ can't come up with anything, then .. case dismissed.

You mean that it's not enough just to accuse them three times and then punish them? They actually have to have proof?

What a novel concept.