Apple gripes about antitrust monitoring

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

That's what I call circular logic. It's equally valid to say that complaining about monitoring shows that the monitoring is excessive. The issue isn't that stopping his work is in the public interest, the issue is whither or not his work exceeds his mandate or Judge Cote's legal authority. While I'm sure she believes that there is no limit on her legal authority (as do many judges), there is indeed a limit. As I've said before, it will be interesting to see what the response of the appellate court is to this situation.

If you remember posting this:

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Well, for one thing, I would like to see the case evolve beyond one judge's opinion sans jury.

There is a lot more to this story than some are willing to admit. Here is a story from CNN

http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.co.../?iid=HP_River

Apparently appointing a monitor at all in a case like this is a very unusual act, as is appointing a monitor who has the close personal ties that this person seems to have with Judge Cote. It sure seems a lot like Bromwich is trying to rack up as many hours as he can before the appeal hearings come to pass.

And to quote the article:

Should a monitor have ever been appointed here at all -- an unusual step in a case like this one, in which the defendant has no long history of either egregious wrongdoing or recalcitrant behavior.

As you see, recalcitrant behavior is a reason for appointing a monitor, so the more Apple displays this behavior, the more obvious it becomes that this measure was absolutely necessary.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by bgalbrecht

If the publishers want to diminish Amazon's dominance in ebook retailing, they should drop DRM and/or refuse to sell ebooks using a proprietary format.

If that is their only goal, you are likely correct.

But if their goal is a continuing ability to do well not just by book-buying readers, but by all their stakeholders (executives, stockholders, librarians, editors, authors), I think DRM-free is short-term thinking.

Even with today's weak DRM, the majority of book buyers and library borrowers do not strip it. What happens if five or ten years from now, the book buyer wants to re-read? Without DRM, they won't buy or borrow the book again. I know this feels unfair to some people, but its no more fair or unfair than having to buy a new copy of Windows when you get a new PC.

DRM elimination also indicates short-term thinking on the part of publishers who do it because, when more effective means of DRM are invented, book-buying readers would already have gotten used to being DRM-free. There would be a lot more resistance to starting up DRM from scratch than there will be to switching to a more effective system.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

If that is their only goal, you are likely correct.

But if their goal is a continuing ability to do well not just by book-buying readers, but by all their stakeholders (executives, stockholders, librarians, editors, authors), I think DRM-free is short-term thinking.

Even with today's weak DRM, the majority of book buyers and library borrowers do not strip it. What happens if five or ten years from now, the book buyer wants to re-read? Without DRM, they won't buy or borrow the book again. I know this feels unfair to some people, but its no more fair or unfair than having to buy a new copy of Windows when you get a new PC.

DRM elimination also indicates short-term thinking on the part of publishers who do it because, when more effective means of DRM are invented, book-buying readers would already have gotten used to being DRM-free. There would be a lot more resistance to starting up DRM from scratch than there will be to switching to a more effective system.

Why are you comparing an ebook to software? It's really really not. There are no specific algorithms inside of an ebook...if there were, then two copyrights would be applied--that of the author of the book, and that of the author of the software. Since there is only one copyright applied, it is no different from any other written text. If I buy a paper book today, then I can re-read it as many times as I want to, whether it's tomorrow or 10 years from now. As long as it hasn't been lost or destroyed, I still have the ability to read it. The same should hold true for any text that I purchase.

Text is not software, and software is definitely not simply text.

Shari

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

. What happens if five or ten years from now, the book buyer wants to re-read? Without DRM, they won't buy or borrow the book again.

.

Say what?
What has DRM to do with rereading?

DRM simply ties content access to your personal account.
None of the ebook DRM schemes limit in any way your ability to reread a book a zillion times if you choose to.

And the better schemes like Nook and Kindle let you download the book an infinite number of times to an infinite number of sequential devices. The only restrictions are to the number of simultaneous devices that can be tied to an account.

Under no circumstances do you ever have to buy an ebook again to re-read it.

Despite what some publishers may dream of, none of the commercial bookstores sell books with a one-read license.

[PatNY]

You go, Judge Cote!

Even if Cote's rulings get overturned on appeal -- which I think is highly doubtful -- then the lesson will have been taught: Don't conspire to fix prices! And some will have been sufficiently shamed or scared off from attempting it again any time soon.

Too bad Jobs isn't still around. His reaction would have been interesting.

--Pat

[bgalbrecht]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Apple is guilty of doing something in the US that it would be essentially illegal not to do in France and Germany. This is course doesn't prove that publishers should set minimum prices. But it does kindda suggest that, morally, it's not a slam-dunk Standard Oil kind of case.

The big difference is that in France the parliament voted to force the publishers to set minimum prices for all forms of books, not just ebooks, and they did it to preserve small bricks and mortar bookstores. In the US, the publishers and Apple conspired to do this so they could raise ebook prices and keep hardcover prices from eroding.

[bgalbrecht]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

If that is their only goal, you are likely correct.

But if their goal is a continuing ability to do well not just by book-buying readers, but by all their stakeholders (executives, stockholders, librarians, editors, authors), I think DRM-free is short-term thinking.

Even with today's weak DRM, the majority of book buyers and library borrowers do not strip it. What happens if five or ten years from now, the book buyer wants to re-read? Without DRM, they won't buy or borrow the book again. I know this feels unfair to some people, but its no more fair or unfair than having to buy a new copy of Windows when you get a new PC.

DRM elimination also indicates short-term thinking on the part of publishers who do it because, when more effective means of DRM are invented, book-buying readers would already have gotten used to being DRM-free. There would be a lot more resistance to starting up DRM from scratch than there will be to switching to a more effective system.

That's why my original comment said remove DRM and/or require all ebooks to be sold as a non-proprietary format. If they don't want Amazon to have a natural monopoly on ebook sales, they need to make it trivial for Amazon customers to buy from some other retailer, including be able to switch to another company's ebook reader and still be able to read all of their previously purchased Amazon books. Until that happens, most Kindle users will never buy a non-Amazon ereader, and never buy books from the publishers who require DRM on their books from anywhere but Amazon, because there's no way to sideload DRMd Kindle content from other sources onto the Kindle (except maybe via Overdrive who is not an Amazon competitor).

[bgalbrecht]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

DRM simply ties content access to your personal account.
None of the ebook DRM schemes limit in any way your ability to reread a book a zillion times if you choose to.

And the better schemes like Nook and Kindle let you download the book an infinite number of times to an infinite number of sequential devices. The only restrictions are to the number of simultaneous devices that can be tied to an account.

The problem is that if you buy a DRMd book from Amazon or B&N, and you want to read it on a dedicated ereader, you basically are stuck buying another Amazon or B&N ereader. While there has been at least one non-eInk dedicated ereader that supported B&N's DRM, it was from a company that did not have its own ebook retail site.

[jgaiser]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

What happens if five or ten years from now, the book buyer wants to re-read? Without DRM, they won't buy or borrow the book again. I know this feels unfair to some people, but its no more fair or unfair than having to buy a new copy of Windows when you get a new PC.

What a truly outrageous statement in a thread full of outrageous statements.

At the moment, with or without DRM, I can continue to read books I purchased from Amazon. DRM shouldn't be a tool to *force* me to buy additional copies. It *should* be a tool to prevent unauthorized copying (and which doesn't do a good job of that).

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by PatNY

Too bad Jobs isn't still around. His reaction would have been interesting.

He's directing this whole thing from behind the scenes. He hasn't accepted his death yet.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by bgalbrecht

The problem is that if you buy a DRMd book from Amazon or B&N, and you want to read it on a dedicated ereader, you basically are stuck buying another Amazon or B&N ereader.

So?
By now this is generally understood. Consumers know the rules of thr game. When you commit to a platform it is a long term commitment.
It is no different than committing to a gaming console; when you buy a PlayStation you are committing yourself to buying only PlayStation games.
Or Nintendo or XBox or Steam box or whatever.
And if the console breaks you either get another or forget about it.
There are risks in any decision.

Don't want risk?
Don't play the game. Stick with pbooks or whatever the publishers choose to make available DRM free.
It *is* their (licensed) product; as long as they obey relevant laws they can dictate the transaction terms any way they like and consumers choose whether to buy or not.

DRM is not illegal.
Walled gardens and proprietary formats are not illegal.
Any single publisher choosing to sell books through agency agreements is not illegal.

But five companies choosing to raise prices the same day by the same amount in the same fashion is illegal, whether it be beer or books, and *everybody* involved is equally guilty. You either coordinated or you didn't.

And that is what this thread is supposed to be about; what happens after a court finds a crime has been committed and how far whining and smoke screens might get the violators.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

He's directing this whole thing from behind the scenes. He hasn't accepted his death yet.

Some organisms are in fact so big, they keep on moving long after they are brain dead. Just on mindless reflex and momentum...

[PatNY]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

He's directing this whole thing from behind the scenes. He hasn't accepted his death yet.

Perhaps, somewhere, deep within the bowels of Cupertino headquarters, there is a secret room with a scene like this – only it's Jobs, still the "head" of Apple, barking out orders and scheming how to stick it to Amazon, Samsung and Google!

--Pat

[Sydney's Mom]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Most democracies have some kind of competition laws roughly comparable to US antitrust. If this was one of the most blatant cases ever seen, I think you would see Apple losing in France and Germany the same way it is losing in the US.

Apple is guilty of doing something in the US that it would be essentially illegal not to do in France and Germany. This is course doesn't prove that publishers should set minimum prices. But it does kindda suggest that, morally, it's not a slam-dunk Standard Oil kind of case.



If this goes to the Supreme Court, it could be more interesting. Aren't most of the justices published authors? And the ones who aren't, probably are considering it! If so, they have a financial interest. But they can't all recuse themselves.

This case has almost nothing to do with the prices and everything to do with the evidence of a conspiracy. Usually, conspiracies are proved in a much more round about way. What I think is dramatic in this case is the amount of direct evidence showing a conspiracy between Apple and the publishers.

[DiapDealer]

To be honest... I don't think Apple's current "resistance to punishment" strategies have anything to do with the monitor or Judge Cote. They know the court's decision is unassailable. They know they illegally conspired. They're just pushing an agenda that would exempt future corporate behavior from any government oversight whatsoever. They lost this game... so they're looking to change the rules of future games.