DOJ publishes terms for settlement in Apple antitrust case

[Sydney's Mom]

The DOJ proposal "hands Amazon yet another win," said Mark Coker, founder of Smashwords, an e-book publisher and distributor that works with Apple, Barnes & Noble, Sony and others. "Why isn't the DOJ forcing Amazon to play fairly? This is the question the publishing industry wants answered."


As the judge said, you don't like Amazon's tactics, file a complaint with the DOJ. This type of argument will garner no sympathy from the judge or the DOJ.

[Sydney's Mom]

The U.S. Department of Justice doesn't want much, just control over Apple's entire iTunes business. This, because Apple had the audacity to do something that same DOJ had failed to do, which was bring competition to the ebook market.

I wonder if it is the people complaining, or the reporter. The entire case was based on antitrust behavior, which is the opposite of competition.

[Sydney's Mom]

The government's proposal linking other retailers' e-bookstores to their iOS apps would be a particular win for the likes of Amazon, which publishing CEOs had criticized in testimony during the Apple trial.

Such a measure would make it easier for consumers who read e-books on their iPads and iPhones to easily compare Apple's prices with those of its competitors and buy elsewhere.

I got this from article announcing the Apple suggestions to the DOJ. Someone must have told them if they say something often enough, with enough force, people will believe it. The entire case was about lack of competitive behavior. I don't think something that would enhance competition on price is going to persuade the judge. I just don't understand these attorneys advising Apple. I have a feeling Apple is running the show, and not really listening to their attorneys.

[tubemonkey]

Should The U.S. Government Be Allowed To Run The Ebook Industry?

While the government hasn’t made a bid to acquire Amazon or Nook or launch its own ebook portal, it has made a move that could mean it essentially controls ebooks and other digital content are bought and sold in the U.S. and around the world for at least five years to come. Let me explain.

This is getting asinine. This clown hasn't a clue. Unbelievable!!!

Publishers, which settled with the DOJ in the past year thinking they were submitting to one deal, would now be subjected to Apple’s punishment. They would not be able to sign new agency contracts with Apple for five years from the start of the remedy. In the case of HarperCollins, this would be about six years from the original.

He act's as if Apple is the only bookseller in existence. They were late to the game and cheated their way in. Now they're being punished; and if it impacts the way publishers do business, too bad. That's the price you pay for doing an end run around the law.

Heaven forbid Apple should have to compete on prices. The damage that would do to their precious high margins is unfathomable.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Should The U.S. Government Be Allowed To Run The Ebook Industry?



This is getting asinine. This clown hasn't a clue. Unbelievable!!!



He act's as if Apple is the only bookseller in existence. They were late to the game and cheated their way in. Now they're being punished; and if it impacts the way publishers do business, too bad. That's the price you pay for doing an end run around the law.

Heaven forbid Apple should have to compete on prices. The damage that would do to their precious high margins is unfathomable.

[BadBilly]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Did you read the actual federal proposal?
Oversight would be by a third party appointed by and answering to the court.
Not government bureaucrats.

You know, antitrust penalties are always bad news. No wristslaps or sensitivity training sessions. That it got go trial guarantees Apple a ton of grief. The terms they are being offered are near the low end of what they could get.

Apple posturing for the faithful, pretending the crime was minor, isn't going to amuse the judge when the penalty trial starts next week.

Don't bring facts into the matter! They have no relevance to Apple fanboys. You can be damned sure that if this were Microsoft doing the same thing, they'd be singing a different tune.

[elcreative]

Originally Posted by BadBilly

Don't bring facts into the matter! They have no relevance to Apple fanboys. You can be damned sure that if this were Microsoft doing the same thing, they'd be singing a different tune.

And Android junkies resorting to the usual insults really contributes to the discussion... maybe the Windows brigade will be better...

[kennyc]

Ho-hum.....

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by elcreative

And Android junkies resorting to the usual insults really contributes to the discussion... maybe the Windows brigade will be better...

I'm a diehard member of the banana brigade - never diss a banana in my presence

[TadW]

I understand Apple. And the publishers. The worst they could now is admit to their little game. They have to minimize their loses, hence they play hard ball with the judge. The verdict is likely going to be somewhere in the middle. Standard tactics if you ask me.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by TadW

I understand Apple. And the publishers. The worst they could now is admit to their little game. They have to minimize their loses, hence they play hard ball with the judge. The verdict is likely going to be somewhere in the middle. Standard tactics if you ask me.

Standard stupid tactics.

Antitrust judges wield broad discretion in their choice of remedies. Antagonizing them before a final ruling is to invite escalation for contempt of court.
The smart tactic would've been not to challenge the terms *before* the final ruling.
They are not negotiating anymore so, no, the middle ground is not terribly likely.
The published terms were what Apple might have gotten before the trial. Now that they have been found guilty the penalties likely will *start* there.

[kennyc]

NY judge denies Apple Inc. request in e-books case
By LARRY NEUMEISTER / Associated Press / August 9, 2013

NEW YORK (AP) — A judge on Friday refused a request by Apple to temporarily suspend her ruling that it violated antitrust laws by conspiring with publishers to raise electronic book prices in 2010, and she said it appeared collusion was continuing even after her findings.

U.S. District Judge Denise Cote, ruling from the bench in Manhattan, declined to withdraw the effect of last month’s ruling while Cupertino, Calif.-based Apple Inc. appeals.

The judge said she wasn’t ready to rule on the government’s suggested remedies to eliminate antitrust behavior. She seemed dismayed as she noted that the publishers and Apple seemed to express together their opposition to some government recommendations, ‘‘reflecting a seriously continuing danger of collusion.’’
....

http://www.boston.com/business/techn...cQK/story.html

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by kennyc

http://www.boston.com/business/techn...cQK/story.html

She seemed dismayed as she noted that the publishers and Apple seemed to express together their opposition to some government recommendations, ‘‘reflecting a seriously continuing danger of collusion.’’

They seem determined to convince her that, as long as Apple is in the ebook business, they will do everything possible to restore the price fix. I hope they succeed.

[Barcey]

Hmmm this doesn't sound good.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-575...ook-practices/

Judge Denise Cote suggested that, when both sides return to her for a decision on preventative measures, she would accept a regime balancing Apple's ability to innovate in its App Store with a desire to restore e-book price competition. She saw no need for an external monitor to keep an eye on Apple's activities so long as Apple sets up a "vigorous" in-house pro-competition program and can convince the court a monitor isn't necessary.

Why does she believe they'll have a "vigorous in-house pro-competition program" when they still don't believe they've done anything wrong.

I think the following is better then the 5 years but I think the interval should be longer then 6 to 8 months. They've already telegraphed they're going to collude again.

Cote suggested a system in which after two years, the publishers would be assigned separate intervals to renegotiate agreements every six to eight months, with no publishers overlapping, in order to ensure that no published could collude with another during the deal making.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Barcey

Hmmm this doesn't sound good.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-575...ook-practices/



Why does she believe they'll have a "vigorous in-house pro-competition program" when they still don't believe they've done anything wrong.

I think the following is better then the 5 years but I think the interval should be longer then 6 to 8 months. They've already telegraphed they're going to collude again.

The overlapping contract performance windows are already in place as part of the publishers' settlement terms. They are not a new, relaxed proposal, but rather what is in place for the publishers.