DOJ Responds to Public Comments

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by kennyc

And now Apple reaches a new level of whining about how Amazon is behind the whole thing.....

[TimW]

In the WSJ today:

In a move that could reshape the publishing industry, a federal judge has approved a settlement with three of the nation's largest book publishers over alleged collusion in the pricing of e-books.

The approval comes as Apple Inc. and two other publishers are preparing to defend themselves next June over antitrust allegations by the U.S. Department of Justice that they agreed to keep e-book prices artificially high in an effort to force Amazon.com Inc. to stop its steep discounting.

Lagardère SCA's Hachette Book Group, CBS Corp.'s Simon & Schuster Inc. and News Corp.'s HarperCollins Publishers LLC all agreed in April as part of the settlement to terminate their agreements with Apple and refrain from limiting any retailer's ability to set e-book prices for two years.

There's three of the six out of the Agency...

[Graham]

Report from CNET if you're not a WSJ subscriber:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-575...th-publishers/

Graham

[kennyc]

....oops, never mind I see Tim beat me to posting two posts up. ....

[Ninjalawyer]

Here's a fun quote from the judge:

The Complaint and CIS provide a sufficient factual foundation as to the existence of a conspiracy to raise, fix, and stabilize the retail price for newly-released and bestselling trade e-books, to end retail price competition among trade e-books retailers, and to limit retail price competition among the Publisher Defendants...The Complaint alleges a straightforward, horizontal price-fixing conspiracy, which is per se unlawful under the Sherman Act...

I wonder if the other publishers (and Apple) are starting to regret not settling.

[fjtorres]

Here's the NYT's report:
http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.co...nd-publishers/

For the anti-Amazon whiners:

"The Government reasonably describes these time-limited provisions as providing a “cooling- off period” for the e-books industry that will allow it to return to a competitive state free from the impact of defendants’ collusive behavior,” the court said in a filing on Thursday. “The time limits on these provisions suggest that they will not unduly dictate the ultimate contours of competition within the e-books industry as it develops over time.”

Contrary to the illusion the apologists sought to build...

The approval of the settlement had been widely expected.

...and...

Denise L. Cote, the federal judge in Manhattan who is overseeing the case, rejected arguments against the settlement, saying they were “insufficient” to deny its approval.

All in all, a very good day for consumers.

[Fbone]

This news probably deserves its own thread.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Fbone

This news probably deserves its own thread.

Seaking agrees:
https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=190230

[Kumabjorn]

Originally Posted by TimW

In the WSJ today:


There's three of the six out of the Agency...

Soo, has anyone received any settlement money through Amazon yet?

[pwalker8]

Not moi. I had heard 6 month's from the judge's approval, i.e. August.

[bgalbrecht]

Sadly, I live in the only state that didn't join up with the lawsuit. Thanks Lori! (Not that I bought much from the agency publishers after 4/1/10).

[AnemicOak]

Originally Posted by bgalbrecht

Sadly, I live in the only state that didn't join up with the lawsuit. Thanks Lori! (Not that I bought much from the agency publishers after 4/1/10).

I think the credits might possibly be delayed by the other publishers settling and needing to be added in?

[Sregener]

Originally Posted by Top100EbooksRank

If agency model replaces wholesale for everything....

MSRP will become MRP. Same price of everything where nothing can ever go on sale.

Stores don't have to compete with discount.

Manufacturers win. Retailers win. Customers lose.

Well, yes and no. Tide detergent wouldn't be a different price no matter where you bought it. But that doesn't mean somebody couldn't produce their own detergent and sell it for less.

I, for one, despise the "sale" system. Price it right, price it fair, and be done with it.

I believe in a free market, which does not mean that the government gets to tell companies how they must sell or price their products. Customers are not obligated to purchase anything, which means that no matter what pricing scheme a business chooses, if customers ultimately conclude that the value does not justify the expense, the pricing model will fail. Far too often, government assumes the product and then dictates the terms. "Who is John Galt?"

[JoeD]

Originally Posted by Sregener

I believe in a free market, which does not mean that the government gets to tell companies how they must sell or price their products.

Is it still a free market when those who are colluding to raise prices are also putting pressure on any competitors who decide to price differently? For example by not allowing a certain publisher to get their book app on the iOS app store.

I have no problem with individual companies setting high prices, if it's more than I'm willing to pay, I do without or go elsewhere. However, that works under the idea that a market will eventually adjust and if prices really are too high it opens room for a competitor to enter. Collusion prevents that.

[ProfCrash]

Nope. Waiting on it. We got the emails ages ago. I think they are waiting to send out one credit. Personally, I would prefer to get the credit from the Publishers and then the credit from Apple.