Paid Content: 17 more states join Conspiracy lawsuit

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Rob Lister

Are they being charged with accessory to conspiracy to collude to fix prices?

I'm not trying to be difficult, I really just don't understand.

In a conspiracy *everybody* involved is equally guilty regardless of their specific actions. You are either in or out; if you knew of it and did nothing--to say nothing of helping it along--you are as guilty as any other participant.

And in this case, Apple was the *essential* go-between and *likely* prime mover. Think of it as a conspiracy to commit murder: you have the jealous wife that hires a hitman and you have the middleman that puts the two in touch. All three agreed to commit murder. All are guilty.

Everybody who willingly helped consumers get ripped-off is equally guilty.

(It is unclear how willing Random House and B&N were, hence they haven't yet been charged. Both knew of the conspiracy and went along with it...after strongarming. They aren't wholly clear, though. Especially in the Class Action suit.)

"Shoot them all and let god sort them out."
http://www.military-quotes.com/misc%20quotes.htm

BTW, for all the whining that the DOJ is being unfair, the truth is DOJ is being *gentle* to the conspirators. This kind of activity also qualifies for *criminal* prosecution under RICO. They are lucky they aren't being personally charged with racketeering.
(Probably one reason the smarter CEOs are settling...)

[ProfCrash]

Apple wanted the prices fixed so that they did not have to actively compete against Amazon. I doubt random house is in any trouble. It took a year before they joined in and there is evidence of strong arming to get them there. It does not sound like BN did much other than not promote RH books.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

In a conspiracy *everybody* involved is equally guilty regardless of their specific actions. You are either in or out; if you knew of it and did nothing--to say nothing of helping it along--you are as guilty as any other participant.

In cartel actions, as far as punishment goes, that is rarely correct.
The level of punishment will be determined by the level of involvement, and the level of cooperation with the investigation.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

In cartel actions, as far as punishment goes, that is rarely correct.
The level of punishment will be determined by the level of involvement, and the level of cooperation with the investigation.

While true, we're not at the punishment phase here. All participants are currently being charged the same.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

While true, we're not at the punishment phase here. All participants are currently being charged the same.

Exactly.
Assessing guilt is separate from assessing punishment.
Traditionally, when Cartels are exposed, the first to settle tend to get deals to flip on their "partners". Which makes sense because once the fix is off, they will be expected to go back to competing, and they will be under tight scrutiny, so they might as well twist the knife while they're at it.

Think of your typical NYC police procedural where the Detectives grill the driver of the getaway car used in an armed robbery where somebody got killed. The driver is just as guilty of murder as the guy that pulled the trigger. If he flips, he gets a better deal; if not he gets hammered. In TV, they always deal. In real life they don't always deal but when they don't, they do get life or even execution. *all* the participants are *elegible* fr the harshest punishment. It is up to the court (or the jury) to decide what the actual punishment will be.

In this particular case, there are multiple levels of punishment coming: the DOJ deal, which is mild; the State AGs, which demands cash "restitution"; and the Class Action Lawsuits that seek restitution *and* penalties. That is why the three settling companies are trying to get their AG deals to supercede the Class Action cases.

The longer (and deeper) the litigation gets, the worse off the remaining defendants will be. Because at some point the Primary Instigator(s) are going to be identified. And whoever gets left holding the bag is not going to get off with just a wrist-slap and a $50 million fine.

[stonetools]

The longer (and deeper) the litigation gets, the worse off the remaining defendants will be. Because at some point the Primary Instigator(s) are going to be identified. And whoever gets left holding the bag is not going to get off with just a wrist-slap and a $50 million fine.

That's of course if the DOJ wins. If they lose, then the defendants who caved early will look like gutless wonders.
There is still a palpable possibility that the defendants can win. They haven't hit a lick, yet, so you don't know what's the strentgh of their case.
How many years did Ralph DeLorean serve for distruibution of cocaine?

[heySkippy]

Originally Posted by stonetools

How many years did Ralph DeLorean serve for distruibution of cocaine?

The same number as PK Simpson for murdering his wife?

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Rob Lister

That is the part I keep 'not getting'. Apple was not fixing prices; they were not their prices to fix.

Are they being charged with accessory to conspiracy to collude to fix prices?

I'm not trying to be difficult, I really just don't understand.

It's not about the prices. It's about the conspiracy, the agreement, the collusion to set the prices and the parties involved. Apple was the prime mover in arranging this because it was related to the iBook store rollout.

[BeccaPrice]

Don't forget too that Apple made more money off this deal, and the publishers (and hence authors) less under Agency than under a wholesale model.

[sabredog]

Some more info.

http://www.teleread.com/paul-biba/do...by-jane-litte/

[Sydney's Mom]

Originally Posted by Rob Lister

That is the part I keep 'not getting'. Apple was not fixing prices; they were not their prices to fix.

Are they being charged with accessory to conspiracy to collude to fix prices?

I'm not trying to be difficult, I really just don't understand.

The discussion of a hub and spoke conspiracy explains Apple's role. While they did not unilateraly have the ability to fix prices, they conspired with the suppliers to fix the prices at which the product could be sold to consumers. As a result, prices went up for no rational reason (increased production costs).

It isn't up to Apple to police monopolies, so that argument will fail. Unfortunately for Apple, Job's words show he knew all the publishers that had signed with Apple would soon imposed the identical deal on Amazon, completely changing the way books had traditionally been sold.

The Agency pricing has definately changed my book acquisition habits. I would like to see statistics on how the ebook library market has acted during this period. When current bestsellers were $9.99, I bought most of my books. Beginning when prices went up, I have been waiting for those books to show up at the library, preferably in ebook form, but also in pbook form. Last night, I went online to buy some books by an author I had just read in pbook form from the library. But the prices, which were all set by the publisher, were $7.99 to $9.99 for seven or eight year old books, which I could get in pbook form for $3.99. So, I decided to read another author I liked.

So, I didn't resort to piracy, but the result was the same. They didn't make a sale. And unless that author has another book that shows up on a bestseller list again, the liklihood I will look for books by that author again, is slim.