U.S. Justice Dept. to Sue Publishers, Apple, for Price Collusion? - Page 4

stonetools · 03-09-2012, 04:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

I understand the theory--I haven't seen it working in ebook stores. With all prices the same, the stores with the biggest selection, most reviews, & most coding features--Amazon and B&N--have things to offer that smaller stores don't.

Since small ebookstores were never going to be able to discount as much as Amazon, they counted on other features to draw customers. Fictionwise had Micropay with a lot of bonuses for buying at their store: buy one, get one half-price later. Or get one free later. Other sites could have member-only discounts or coupons, or other kinds of activity/purchase rewards. But with agency pricing, there's no reason not to buy from the largest aggregator.

The Fictionwise strategy was a form of loyalty discount: as ftorres said, that might come back as part of the settlement . But really, it's another kind of discount: which means thatvFictionwise was going to lose out against Amazon anyway.
Frankly , I don't think that there is any way in the long run that small ebook stores can compete with Amazon or BN. The people the DoJ might have the most sympathy for is the small independent B&M booksellers who complain, rightly, that they were showplaces for Amazon: people would browse thir stores, accept advice from their staff, and then go home and buy from Amazon. THEY want agency pricing extended to physical books. Frankly, everyone in the book industry supports agency pricing EXCEPT Amazon. I've yet to see anyone doubt that Amazon would not achieve complete dominance in the ebook market without agency pricing, which would be an unacceptable outcome for the DOJ.

fjtorres · 03-09-2012, 06:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stonetools

Frankly, everyone in the book industry supports agency pricing EXCEPT Amazon.

Everybody who fears or hates Amazon, maybe.
Amazon customers (and they are Legion)? Not so much.

fjtorres · 03-09-2012, 06:58 AM

Here's Apple's (feeble) defense:

http://paidcontent.org/article/419-a...ok-conspiracy/

And a detailed look at the next likely step:
http://paidcontent.org/article/419-t...what-it-means/

The first price fixer to 'fess-up gets a wrist slap, the others get stomped.
And if nobody bites, the Feds can release as much of the evidence as they want to in the filing. Plenty of dirty laundry could be aired if they don't settle.

Rob Lister · 03-09-2012, 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Here's Apple's (feeble) defense:

http://paidcontent.org/article/419-a...ok-conspiracy/

And a detailed look at the next likely step:
http://paidcontent.org/article/419-t...what-it-means/

The first price fixer to 'fess-up gets a wrist slap, the others get stomped.
And if nobody bites, the Feds can release as much of the evidence as they want to in the filing. Plenty of dirty laundry could be aired if they don't settle.

The linked article left me unconvinced as to Apple's wrongdoing; their explanation didn't seem so feeble to me. Maybe knowing more of the backstory and seeing the actual evidence would convince me though. I have no love for Apple, but I just don't see hay being made by the DOJ.

jbcohen · 03-09-2012, 08:03 AM

I think that apple and several book publishers are focusing on the definition of price collusion when it talks about a seceative aspect of the co-operation of several different companies to daise prices. The justice department, however, is focusing on the first part of the definition when it talks about the co-operation of companies to raise prices. The defintion that I am referring to commes from Wikipedia and it is:

Collusion is an agreement between two or more persons, sometimes illegal and therefore secretive, to limit open competition by deceiving, misleading, or defrauding others of their legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law typically by defrauding or gaining an unfair advantage.

I don't think there has been any secreative aspect to their co-operation in order to raise prices. In fact they have been quite open about how they are co-operating. Justice is focusing on the co-operation aspect of the definition and I think its quite clear that they are co-operating to rasie prices.

vaughnmr · 03-09-2012, 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stonetools

I've yet to see anyone doubt that Amazon would not achieve complete dominance in the ebook market without agency pricing, which would be an unacceptable outcome for the DOJ.

The industry pundits do overlook one simple thing: customer service, and Amazon has nailed it. Offer a great shopping experience and prices, and customers will flock to the retailer. Want to stop Amazon dominance? Offer reasonable prices (I've seen bestsellers at $19 lately under the agency pricing) and a shopping experience customers enjoy.

Rob Lister · 03-09-2012, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbcohen

I think that apple and several book publishers are focusing on the definition of price collusion when it talks about a seceative aspect of the co-operation of several different companies to daise prices. The justice department, however, is focusing on the first part of the definition when it talks about the co-operation of companies to raise prices. The defintion that I am referring to commes from Wikipedia and it is:

Collusion is an agreement between two or more persons, sometimes illegal and therefore secretive, to limit open competition by deceiving, misleading, or defrauding others of their legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law typically by defrauding or gaining an unfair advantage.

I don't think there has been any secreative aspect to their co-operation in order to raise prices. In fact they have been quite open about how they are co-operating. Justice is focusing on the co-operation aspect of the definition and I think its quite clear that they are co-operating to rasie prices.

What I don't really get is the level of Apple's culpability. Essentially, Steve J & Co. convinced them that agency pricing was the way to go; that it was in their long term best interest even if it meant less profit in the short term. Apple is not a publisher, though.

Whether 'they' collude after the fact to do something that violates antitrust laws has nothing (legally) to do with Apple. That's just Jobs trying to kneecap Bezos.

jbcohen · 03-09-2012, 08:38 AM

You are exactly correct about apple corp. However, have you spoken to an apple fantatic lately, a lot of them typically think apple for everything. They don't simply buy the hardware from apple they get everything from one source. Its this ability to translate sales from the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) side of their business to sales on the re-seller side of the business that makes them a problem in the book publishing side. If apple fantatics like my familiy pal did not think apple for everything then they would not be a prime consideration in this law suit.

monkeyluis · 03-09-2012, 08:56 AM

I hope something happens with this. I'm an apple fanatic, but I buy my books from amazon. Yes I do like using the iservices also because it provides a seamless & easy experience between all of my devices. Anyway, I do hope that something comes of this and prices lower. At the same time, when I consider all of the indie books, kindle daily deal, & other sales, a $12.99 book here & there really isn't that bad. It probably all averages out to $7 bucks a book, maybe even less. That's how I look at it & then it doesn't seem so bad.

jbcohen · 03-09-2012, 09:14 AM

I guess there are degrees of being an apple fantatics. My family friend that I would call an apple fantatic would never own a Kindle Touch or a Kindle Fire becuase its not apple. He would never buy books or anything from amazon becuase they are not apple, and anything that's not apple is flawed from the start becuase its not apple. In his mind anyone who uses anything but apple hardware needs to be draged away in a streight jacket. I guess there are degrees of being an apple fantatic.

HarryT · 03-09-2012, 09:48 AM

fanatic

f-a-n-a-t-i-c

No extra "t" in the middle, please.

Phogg · 03-09-2012, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarryT

fanatic

f-a-n-a-t-i-c

No extra "t" in the middle, please.

Grammar day was Sunday, Harry.

anamardoll · 03-09-2012, 09:58 AM

I like the idea of a Fantatic, though. It's like a little bug that instead of drinking blood, it subsists on fruit-flavored sodas.

John F · 03-09-2012, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stonetools

... I've yet to see anyone doubt that Amazon would not achieve complete dominance in the ebook market without agency pricing,

Who are you limiting "anyone" to? I'm not a publisher, but I doubt that Amazon would achieve complete dominance. I spread my purchases out across multiple vendors. Before Agency Pricing, my go to store was Fictionwise. Since agency pricing, I see very little difference in where I buy.

Quote:

... which would be an unacceptable outcome for the DOJ.

Acceptable or not, if they purposefully broke the law, they should get some heavy fines. I don't want companies encouraged to decide on their own what is acceptable business practices for establishing monopolies, price fixing, racketeering, ... Why not run it by the DOJ (or SEC or whoever) first.

Rob Lister · 03-09-2012, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John F

Why not run it by the DOJ (or SEC or whoever) first.

03-09-2012, 06:58 AM	#48
fjtorres Grand Sorcerer Posts: 11,732 Karma: 128354696 Join Date: May 2009 Location: 26 kly from Sgr A* Device: T100TA,PW2,PRS-T1,KT,FireHD 8.9,K2, PB360,BeBook One,Axim51v,TC1000	Here's Apple's (feeble) defense: http://paidcontent.org/article/419-a...ok-conspiracy/ And a detailed look at the next likely step: http://paidcontent.org/article/419-t...what-it-means/ The first price fixer to 'fess-up gets a wrist slap, the others get stomped. And if nobody bites, the Feds can release as much of the evidence as they want to in the filing. Plenty of dirty laundry could be aired if they don't settle. Last edited by fjtorres; 03-09-2012 at 07:03 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
U.S. Justice Dept. moves to block AT&T, T-Mobile merger	afa	News	3	09-01-2011 10:34 AM
EU watchdogs descend on French publishers suspected of collusion to fix ebook prices	Polyglot27	News	11	03-03-2011 02:15 PM
Google and the Court and the Justice Dept.	kennyc	News	6	09-19-2009 07:43 PM
German Publishers Planning to Sue Thousands of File-sharers	Druidsbane	News	4	03-19-2009 01:40 PM

03-09-2012, 08:03 AM	#50
jbcohen Wizard Posts: 3,033 Karma: 11196738 Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Where am I? Device: Kindle Paperwhite Signature edition and a Samsung S24 Ultra	I think that apple and several book publishers are focusing on the definition of price collusion when it talks about a seceative aspect of the co-operation of several different companies to daise prices. The justice department, however, is focusing on the first part of the definition when it talks about the co-operation of companies to raise prices. The defintion that I am referring to commes from Wikipedia and it is: Collusion is an agreement between two or more persons, sometimes illegal and therefore secretive, to limit open competition by deceiving, misleading, or defrauding others of their legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law typically by defrauding or gaining an unfair advantage. I don't think there has been any secreative aspect to their co-operation in order to raise prices. In fact they have been quite open about how they are co-operating. Justice is focusing on the co-operation aspect of the definition and I think its quite clear that they are co-operating to rasie prices.

03-09-2012, 08:38 AM	#53
jbcohen Wizard Posts: 3,033 Karma: 11196738 Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Where am I? Device: Kindle Paperwhite Signature edition and a Samsung S24 Ultra	You are exactly correct about apple corp. However, have you spoken to an apple fantatic lately, a lot of them typically think apple for everything. They don't simply buy the hardware from apple they get everything from one source. Its this ability to translate sales from the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) side of their business to sales on the re-seller side of the business that makes them a problem in the book publishing side. If apple fantatics like my familiy pal did not think apple for everything then they would not be a prime consideration in this law suit.

03-09-2012, 08:56 AM	#54
monkeyluis Banned Posts: 725 Karma: 656644 Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Central Florida Device: iPad "3", Kindle Touch, Kindle Fire, iPhone 4S	I hope something happens with this. I'm an apple fanatic, but I buy my books from amazon. Yes I do like using the iservices also because it provides a seamless & easy experience between all of my devices. Anyway, I do hope that something comes of this and prices lower. At the same time, when I consider all of the indie books, kindle daily deal, & other sales, a $12.99 book here & there really isn't that bad. It probably all averages out to $7 bucks a book, maybe even less. That's how I look at it & then it doesn't seem so bad.

03-09-2012, 09:14 AM	#55
jbcohen Wizard Posts: 3,033 Karma: 11196738 Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Where am I? Device: Kindle Paperwhite Signature edition and a Samsung S24 Ultra	I guess there are degrees of being an apple fantatics. My family friend that I would call an apple fantatic would never own a Kindle Touch or a Kindle Fire becuase its not apple. He would never buy books or anything from amazon becuase they are not apple, and anything that's not apple is flawed from the start becuase its not apple. In his mind anyone who uses anything but apple hardware needs to be draged away in a streight jacket. I guess there are degrees of being an apple fantatic.

03-09-2012, 09:48 AM	#56
HarryT eBook Enthusiast Posts: 85,560 Karma: 93980341 Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: UK Device: Kindle Oasis 2, iPad Pro 10.5", iPhone 6	fanatic f-a-n-a-t-i-c No extra "t" in the middle, please.

03-09-2012, 09:58 AM	#58
anamardoll Chasing Butterflies Posts: 3,132 Karma: 5074169 Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: American Southwest Device: Uses batteries.	I like the idea of a Fantatic, though. It's like a little bug that instead of drinking blood, it subsists on fruit-flavored sodas.