DOJ suing Apple over ebooks.

[Graham]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

It's not even clear yet if agency pricing has been cancelled. It's possible that Apple's "most favored nation" status is cancelled and discounting allowed, while publishers can still set prices and the retailer's cut.

The lawsuit certainly calls for the current agency pricing agreements to be cancelled, along with any agreement that restricts the retailers' ability to set their own prices and apply discounts, but whether that is the outcome of the suit that gets upheld we have yet to see.

The lawsuit makes for a great read. All those phone calls and secret meetings in swanky restaurants.

Graham

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

A timeline that includes "I was all alone in my basement riding my exercise bike with a tear in my eye when I made the decision" is hardly evidence that he was all alone in his basement riding an exercise bike with a tear in his eye when he made the decision.

He will testify it was like that .You have to produce evidence that it wasn't like that. If the DOJ can't, then game over. So far I've heard no evidence whatsover that Sargent sat down with anybody and entered into a scheme to challenge Amazon over the agency model in order to raise prices

[DiapDealer]

So far I've heard no evidence whatsover that Sargent sat down with anybody and entered into a scheme to challenge Amazon over the agency model in order to raise prices

So far, nobody but the DOJ and those being questioned have heard any evidence whatsoever... so that may not be as revelatory as you intended it.

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

It's not even clear yet if agency pricing has been cancelled. It's possible that Apple's "most favored nation" status is cancelled and discounting allowed, while publishers can still set prices and the retailer's cut.

I don't think agency pricing works as a business model if the publisher can't set firm prices.I'm not sure aboutthat, though.
You are right, it doesn't call per se for the end of agency pricing.

[fjtorres]

For all we know, they all sat in their exercise rooms for a telecom, heard the same terms from Apple, and turned the phones off.
Then they signed on to the scam (or in the case of RH, begged off) individually.
It is still coordinating.
It is still conspiracy.
(You don't need a roll of parchment signed in blood or even a face to face meeting.)

Let's wait until the trial begins, okay?

And let's wait until the "price set by the publisher" tags vanish. (Which I still see on Amazon.)

As of right now nothing has changed.

[Graham]

Originally Posted by stonetools

He will testify it was like that .You have to produce evidence that it wasn't like that. If the DOJ can't, then game over. So far I've heard no evidence whatsover that Sargent sat down with anybody and entered into a scheme to challenge Amazon over the agency model in order to raise prices

Did you read the lawsuit? Admittedly the case is yet to answer, but paragraph 44 certainly implies that there is evidence:

In addition to the CEO dinner meetings, Publisher Defendants' CEOs and other exexcutives met in-person, one-on-one to communicate about e-books multiple times over the course of 2009 and into 2010 ... Macmillan CEO John Sargent joined at least one of these parent company meetings.

The various points of evidence are mentioned in the document - not specifically about Sargent - but generally, with perhaps the key point being the concerted action taken by the Big 5 and the identical agreements signed by them with Apple all coming into effect on the day of the iPad launch, with the clauses to set the price caps for eBooks matching hardcover releases (which in practice the suit suggests have been the prices generally set) to $12.99 and above - i.e. raising prices from 'Amazon's $9.99'.

Graham

[whitearrow]

Originally Posted by stonetools

He will testify it was like that .You have to produce evidence that it wasn't like that. If the DOJ can't, then game over.

Well, no, not exactly. Sargeant's account of what happened is admissible evidence, but a finder of fact is free to conclude it is very self-serving, and find it totally not credible.

So far I've heard no evidence whatsover that Sargent sat down with anybody and entered into a scheme to challenge Amazon over the agency model in order to raise prices

The fact that all of the publishers somehow came to this conclusion at almost exactly the same time is very strong circumstantial evidence that collusion was involved. Circumstantial evidence is perfectly good evidence in court, if the finder of fact chooses to believe it. It can outweigh direct evidence. Happens all the time, in fact.

[vaughnmr]

What was interesting was the comment by Holder that one of the publishers in question implied retaliation against another if they didn't join the agency pricing. Yep, no collusion whatsoever, they all made up their own minds, independently.

[Graham]

Originally Posted by vaughnmr

What was interesting was the comment by Holder that one of the publishers in question implied retaliation against another if they didn't join the agency pricing. Yep, no collusion whatsoever, they all made up their own minds, independently.

Yes, the lawsuit notes the way the other big publisher was effectively bullied into joining the scheme, and the fact that the Big 5 appear to have acted in concert to do this further bolsters the evidence.

I also like the fact that it didn't miss the way ebook retailers were forced to abandon book clubs and subscription discounts. I think the demise of the Fictionwise Book Club pricing was where the agency agreement most upset me.

Graham

[stonetools]

I'll withhold further comment till I read the lawsuit. At work right now.

[fjtorres]

Why is the DOJ ticked?
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57...col;subStories

While Jobs' comments alone seem like trouble enough, add this to the mix: Apple had most-favored-nation status with some of the major publishers, according to reports. This means that Apple was guaranteed to receive the lowest prices publishers offered to competitors. In other words, Apple would never pay more for books than rivals.

Deals like this aren't new but seldom are they heaped onto arrangements like the one Apple proposed in 2010. In combination, it raises questions about whether someone is trying to stifle competition. Here's a good spot to remind you about the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890.

The main thrust of the act is pretty simple: "To protect the consumers by preventing arrangements designed, or which tend, to advance the cost of goods to the consumer."

[ScalyFreak]

I'm not sure, but I don't think anyone has yet addressed the part of this whole lawsuit-thing that concerns me the most: Will my eBooks become cheaper now?

Because frankly, that's what I care about. Can I get more reading for the same amount of money if this agency pricing thing is abolished? If yes, I am all for suing the shirts off their backs! Is there a petition somewhere that I can sign?

[JoeD]

The irony is, agency pricing made my decision to get a kindle simple. I don't need to worry about buying from other stores, they all have the same price and amazon had the device/ecosystem I wanted.

Had other stores been able to provide discounts or other loyalty programs and had the books they sold been DRM free, I may have still bought a kindle but I bet my shopping would have been via a lot more stores than just Amazon and Baen. For those who are not willing to free their books though, once they're in bed with Amazon, I'm not sure they'll be in such a hurry to leave with prices the same everywhere. Even if prices do drop elsewhere, they may still resist buying into another device and not being able to move their Amazon books over.

Amazon may have moved into the monopoly spot unaided, but the publishers are helping to keep them there despite their claims to wanting the opposite.

Edit: I did sign up and buy from the kobo store recently, but that was a non-agency book and they had a discount that was hard to refuse. Had it been an agency book I'd have not bothered signing up.

[Graham]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Why is the DOJ ticked?
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57...col;subStories

Yes, with regard to the Sherman Act's preventing arrangements which tend to advance the cost of goods to the consumer, the lawsuit mentions several times a quote from Steve Jobs to the publishers:

"We'll go to [an] agency model, where you set the price and we get our 30%, and yes, the customer pays a little more, but that's what you want anyway."

Graham

[Dulin's Books]

Originally Posted by Daithi

According to CNN, "The DOJ is set to announce its lawsuit at noon." I'd like to see the details, and I'd like to see who settled. All the DOJ needs is one guy to settle and be willing to testify against the others to make their case on collusion.

Supposing Apple and the publishers lose, I wonder what the penalties will be.

pdf of the lawsuit http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters..._complaint.pdf

Hachette, Simon&Shuster and Harper Collins Settle http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...on-ebooks.html