Antitrust suit against Amazon and publishers dismissed...

[fjtorres]

I know, shocking...
The Digital Reader Blog has a nice summary of the judge's ruling.

http://www.the-digital-reader.com/20...ue-unhindered/

It’s been nearly 10 months since the booksellers filed an anti-trust lawsuit alleging that Amazon and the major publishers had colluded to shut indies out of the market. This suit argued that in agreeing to license content to Amazon which used Amazon’s proprietary DRM, the publishers had effectively shut out indies from a major part of the market. It also argues that Amazon had an illegal monopoly in the ebook market.

Just to put this lawsuit in perspective, let me remind you that it was filed in the midst of an unrelated DOJ anti-trust lawsuit which proved that 5 of the 6 major US publishers had conspired with Apple against Amazon with the goal of raising the market prices of their ebooks. If someone could explain how 5 publishers simultaneously conspired both with Amazon and against Amazon, I would be willing to pay big money. Also, the DOJ disclosed in the summer 2012 that Amazon was investigated as part of the investigation into Apple and the 5 publishers. Furthermore, the DOJ declined to file a lawsuit against Amazon, reporting that they did not find any evidence of wrongdoing.

With that context in mind, it should probably come as no surprise that Judge Rakoff didn’t buy any of the booksellers arguments.

Sadly, Nate went light on the snark this time.

A lot more at the site including this:

Under the Sherman Anti-trust Act, the plaintiffs had to prove that Amazon had a monopoly and that the retailer had acquired or maintained that monopoly “as distinguished from the growth or development as a consequence of a superior product”.

The judge ruled that they failed to prove either point, and in fact the arguments made by the booksellers defeated themselves.

I suppose there are now *two* "corrupt judges in Amazon's pocket".

[Graham]

The whole idea that Amazon has an ebook monopoly is ridiculous. I occasionally buy ebooks from Amazon, but I often buy ebooks from other vendors. I can't be the only one.

I like Amazon, but they're just another ebook shop, albeit one with great service.

Graham

[auspex]

I don't like Amazon, they may have great service, but I hate the forced tie-ins to their hardware platform. However, I don't hate them as much as Apple, who do the same thing but worse… and I do still occasionally buy from Amazon (I don't own a Kindle), but never from Apple.

[jgaiser]

Originally Posted by auspex

I don't like Amazon, they may have great service, but I hate the forced tie-ins to their hardware platform. However, I don't hate them as much as Apple, who do the same thing but worse… and I do still occasionally buy from Amazon (I don't own a Kindle), but never from Apple.

Let's see. B&N... DRM linked to their hardware. Kobo.. DRM linked to their hardware. Google.. DRM. Apple... DRM linked to their hardware.

Yes I can see why you'd avoid Amazon because of their forced tie-ins.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by auspex

I don't like Amazon, they may have great service, but I hate the forced tie-ins to their hardware platform. However, I don't hate them as much as Apple, who do the same thing but worse… and I do still occasionally buy from Amazon (I don't own a Kindle), but never from Apple.

And in what way is that different from any other distributor of DrM'ed ebooks?

By definition DRM means restricted to official devices and software. And Amazon offers lots of apps for many platforms.

Amazon is no different from any other group, save that they are less restrictive than most.

[Laridae]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

I suppose there are now *two* "corrupt judges in Amazon's pocket".

That's a serious accusation. can you back it up?

[AnemicOak]

Originally Posted by Laridae

That's a serious accusation. can you back it up?

It's sarcasm

[Apache]

Originally Posted by auspex

I don't like Amazon, they may have great service, but I hate the forced tie-ins to their hardware platform. However, I don't hate them as much as Apple, who do the same thing but worse… and I do still occasionally buy from Amazon (I don't own a Kindle), but never from Apple.

Apprentice Alf lets me remove any forced tie ins.
Apache

[tubemonkey]

I buy the vast majority of my free ebooks from Amazon. Occasionally, I'll buy free ones from B&N or Google or Apple; but that's rare.

As to ebooks that cost real money, I don't buy them. That's what libraries are for.

[tubemonkey]

Amazon - the Great Satan

[EowynCarter]

Originally Posted by jgaiser

Let's see. B&N... DRM linked to their hardware. Kobo.. DRM linked to their hardware. Google.. DRM. Apple... DRM linked to their hardware.

Yes I can see why you'd avoid Amazon because of their forced tie-ins.

True for apple and B&N, false for the rest as everyone else use adept. And adept protected books can be read on every device that can read ePub.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by EowynCarter

True for apple and B&N, false for the rest as everyone else use adept. And adept protected books can be read on every device that can read ePub.

No, they can be read on every device or app whose manufacturer has licensed Adobe Reader Mobile. That's far from being the same as "every device that can read ePub". ADE is just as much (or as little) a "lock-in" as Amazon's DRM.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by HarryT

No, they can be read on every device or app whose manufacturer has licensed Adobe Reader Mobile. That's far from being the same as "every device that can read ePub". ADE is just as much (or as little) a "lock-in" as Amazon's DRM.

Exactly. And why is an Adobe lock-in better than an Amazon lock-in?

[Prestidigitweeze]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Exactly. And why is an Adobe lock-in better than an Amazon lock-in?

The common argument seems to be that Amazon's proprietary format is itself a second hardware lock-in whether it is free to use or not.

One counterargument might be that Amazon wanted to develop a format that would stand apart from the various flavors of epub offered by companies like Kobo because the latter tend to deviate from agreed-upon standards, which can create problematic variables.

Another counterargument might be that a proprietary format is free to evolve in tandem with a company's specific hardware to achieve a more perfect synergy -- a result which Amazon is clearly after. This seems to be the same argument that Apple has made for their proprietary OS, connectors, formats, media and I/O.

Google is having it both ways at the moment, but the Nexus line seems an indication of where they're headed if things go really well.

Most people on MR would argue that a mere format conversion is as easy as downloading Calibre and therefore doesn't factor in.

But what if the conversion process suddenly became far more difficult (like that of converting an imaged pdf to epub) -- would Amazon's proprietary formats seem to comprise a second level of lock-in then?

[thymaster]

I just want to comment the person who wrote that article is a horrible writer. Sounds like a grade 6 writing it. The thoughts are all over the place and a lot of things didn't make sense. Hmmm.