Authors Group Urges Opposition to E-Book Settlement

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

We know agency pricing is not per se illegal.
The question is whether there was collusion or not, or in the words you quotes:

If they colluded, they are guilty. If they did not, they are not.

That is everything that needs to be said. We will find out soon enough. Amazon doesn't really matter for these proceedings. Should they ever become a monopoly and abuse that power then the DOJ will deal with them separately.

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

We know agency pricing is not per se illegal.
The question is whether there was collusion or not, or in the words you quotes:

If they colluded, they are guilty. If they did not, they are not.

I think that any literate person who actually clicked through and read the article would say that you are wrong, but you have a right to your opinion.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by stonetools

I think that any literate person who actually clicked through and read the article would say that you are wrong, but you have a right to your opinion.

Reading it, it agrees with me:

In an interview with The Wall Street Journal’s Thomas Catan, Justice Department antitrust official Sharis Pozen outlines the framework guiding the agency’s investigation. The real issue, Pozen says, isn’t the agency model, but secret agreements between competitors.

[...] This is why Apple’s involvement in these agreements is so crucial. Apple could have served as the “hub” in a “hub-and-spoke” conspiracy, performing shuttle diplomacy between publishers. For example, if Apple said to publishers, “I have an agreement that MacMillian will go first in insisting on agency publishing with Amazon if you will agree to do it after us,” that would point to a hub-and-spoke conspiracy.

The alternative is that each of the publishers, separately and bilaterally, came to the same agreement with Apple because it was in their individual interest to do so. This is called “conscious parallelism,” and it’s entirely legal.

If each publisher independently chose to switch to agency, even if they were aware that the others were also doing so, that is fine.
If at any point there was an agreement "We will only do this if you/they do", that is collusion.

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Whatever dude. You don't have to be an expert on US antitrust law to note that the courts since 2007 changed on whether they look beyond just whether there was collusion- you just have to be open minded and see what the experts are saying.

Here is what one expert says:



LINK

That seems to me to go beyond an issue of "just collusion"-way beyond. And it doesn't even the address the issue of whether there is a legal justification if collusion is proved-the Leggit argument.

The point is that this is not just a simple "Was there proof of collusion" case. I'm saying that not because I'm an expert-I'm not. I'm saying that because the experts are saying that -and I'm reading what they're saying.

I have to say, I consider myself to be a literate person (who actually clicked through and read the article) and I have absolutely no idea what you think is in that link that supports your argument. And now I'm starting to think that maybe you don't even know what your argument is anymore.

The publishers and Apple either colluded or they didn't and that's a legal question. Are you just trying to say (but articulating badly) that there's a defense to collusion that the publishers have (which would go to the legal question of is there collusion)? As far as I know, there's no defense in a case of collusion that says its not collusion if the one you're trying to nail is Amazon, but hey, you're the legal expert.

Also, having taken a look at the full text of the case in the Wikipedia article you previously posted, I note that it also doesn't seem to support the point I think you're trying to make.

[stonetools]

My point is that there are legal issues arising from this case and sound defense arguments available that go beyond whether collusion occurred. How people missed that after reading that article I cannot fathom, actually. An anti-trust expert quoted made it very clear that collusion was one of the
three major points of law at issue in this case. What could be clearer than that?

Indeed I have quoted from Supreme Court Justice Kennedy in an antitrust case stating that if supplier fixes a higher than market price , its legally permissible in certain cases .The SCOTUS has not held in that it could happen in case involving multiple suppliers, but they certainly could, if you review the arguments that the Supreme Court accepted.

To quote a certain entity,
" This conversation can serve no purpose any longer. Goodbye."

[DiapDealer]

The SCOTUS has not held in that it could happen in case involving multiple suppliers, but they certainly could, if you review the arguments that the Supreme Court accepted.

Is the Supreme Court involved at this point? Man, how did I miss that?

[twowheels]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Barnes and Noble also weighs in againstthe settlement:



LINK

If you click through , you'll find BN has charts, even.

Weighted by units sold? Are they kidding?

Is it possible that the AVERAGE price has dropped because people buy more independent books now than they did before because the big name books went up in price?

That chart is completely meaningless.

[HomeInMyShoes]

^Yep. Statistics at its finest. Ask me if e-book prices have dropped and I'll say no. I've seen the titles I normally buy go from abour $8 a piece to $16 over the last year. I don't know who to blame, and it doesn't matter, I just know to vote with my wallet. Which is saying that none of those publishers are making money from me right now when they used to, both in paper and e-books.

[Phogg]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

You're confusing questions of fact and questions of law in the above. Whether or not their was an agreement between the publishers to fix prices is a question of fact. Whether or not their was a violation of competition laws is a question of law (obviously). On the question of fact, it's irrelevant what Amazon did or didn't do because there either was or was not an agreement (and you don't necessarily need a written agreement in cases of collusion). On the question of law, it's also likely irrelevant what Amazon did or didn't do; in any event, the court would be unlikely to give that much consideration as Amazon is not a party to the DoJ action so cannot cross-examine witnesses or call evidence.

And with respect to your scholarly knowledge of U.S. laws, note that Canadian law and American law are generally very similar as both countries use the Common Law system (well, Quebec uses French Civil Law, but that's an annoyance for another day), they differ mainly in the specifics. I would suggest that this thread probably isn't the place to start a conversation about the rules of precedent, what is or isn't obiter and and the merits of the Wikipedia article you cited.


Oh, and since we're declaring ourselves to be expert in things - I'm now a doctor.

Lol. You used merit and wikipedia in the same sentence.

[Synamon]

Originally Posted by rhadin

If you look at the charts included in B&N's reply to the DOJ settlement proposal, you will see that pricing for hardcovers has dropped since agency pricing. The pricing comparison is limited to the Agency 5 books.

I noticed that the number of hardcover titles release in the first three quarters shown in the chart were 650 and the number of titles released in the last 3 quarters shown in the chart were 1450. That's a massive year over year change. Do you think it's at all possible that the huge increase in output might have meant that publishers and/or B&N had to price some of those hardcover titles lower to get anyone to buy them? Supply and demand is Econ 101 after all. Suggesting that the Agency model was the sole reason for a small decrease in the price of hardcover books without examining what else happened in the marketplace at the same time is silly.

Perhaps what that chart really represents is a last ditch push by publishers to monetize titles in their pipeline as hardcovers before the ebook wave swamps them. Who knows? But I'm not buying B&N's spin without a heck of a lot more data than that chart.

[JoeD]

edit: noticed someone else has already brought these points up, removed to save recovering the same ground

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by stonetools

My point is that there are legal issues arising from this case and sound defense arguments available that go beyond whether collusion occurred. How people missed that after reading that article I cannot fathom, actually. An anti-trust expert quoted made it very clear that collusion was one of the
three major points of law at issue in this case. What could be clearer than that?

Indeed I have quoted from Supreme Court Justice Kennedy in an antitrust case stating that if supplier fixes a higher than market price , its legally permissible in certain cases .The SCOTUS has not held in that it could happen in case involving multiple suppliers, but they certainly could, if you review the arguments that the Supreme Court accepted.

To quote a certain entity,
" This conversation can serve no purpose any longer. Goodbye."

To spend one more post beating my head against a wall: You're misreading your own link. Knebel, who is quoted in the Wired article, stated that there are three major points of law at stake, one of which Whether Apple and publishers engaged collusion. However, the three points of law that Knebel notes are related but separate; in other words, collusion is still illegal if its proved, even if the other legal matters are resolved in the publishers' and Apple's favour.

For those playing along at home, here are a few choice quotes:

Knebel says there are three major points of law at stake in both the class-action suit and the Justice Department investigation against Apple and the five publishers:

Whether and how the agency model applies to virtual goods;
Whether Apple and publishers engaged in a “hub-and-spoke” conspiracy or simply “conscious parallelism”;
The status of the “most-favored nation” clause, common to many legal contracts today, which Apple used to ensure that books could not be sold elsewhere at a lower price than in the iBooks store.

And a little later in the article:

Even if agency pricing for virtual goods is perfectly legal and acceptable, publishers colluding to more or less simultaneously switch to agency pricing is not. Publishers almost certainly did not meet together in a room to deliberate about how to use Apple to screw over Amazon, or even how to all switch to agency pricing. They probably didn’t exchange e-mails or phone calls or communicate with one another in any way. If they did, the case for collusion would be much simpler.

And the case you keep harping about, having actually read it, I can tell you it doesn't stand for what you're hoping it does. Having declared myself a doctor, I'm way too busy with my medical practice to keep up with this.

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Is the Supreme Court involved at this point? Man, how did I miss that?

Don't feel bad about that; it's only natural that the an eminent legal scholar such as Stonetools would be more on top of these things than the rest of us. Since declaring myself a doctor, I'm now way too busy with my medical practice to keep up with this stuff.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

You're right. Amazon states that its ebook division has been profitable from the start. If true, it suggests that they weren't doing something unsustainable. Interestingly, it's worth noting that the DOJ was asked to investigate Amazon in 2009 and nothing came of it.

Overall yes. But in some cases, they were taking a loss on some eBooks. So when you look at they eBook division as a whole, yes, it's profitable.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Looking at Amazon as a publisher

I can see Amazon being a publisher not in Amazon's favor. I can see that if the BPHs want to stop selling to Amazon, all they have to do is claim that since Amazon is a publisher, that they are the competition and they don't sell to the competition. I think they could get away with that pretty easily.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by rhadin

Yes, that is correct. But the reason given for the drop is that agency pricing allowed sellers like B&N to compete. No bookseller whose primary revenue was reliant on selling ebooks was able to compete with Amazon and few tried. Agency pricing ensured that Amazon could no longer sell at below cost. It is worth reading B&N's opposition to the DOJ settlement agreement.

Before the agency model came to be with the price fix six, Fictionwise had a very good business model and I used to buy a lot of eBooks from them. They even allowed me to buy free eBooks in essence since the price of what I bought was then used to buy other eBooks.