Literary elites v. Amazon: yes, it's class warfare

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

I asked for evidence, not speculation.

Perhaps the DOJ would have responded to a similar complaint made by Joe the Plumber, if that complain described a real, substantive issue. The fact that the DOJ acted on a complaint, and applied the legal analysis of the complainant (after conducting its own analysis) isn't evidence of crony capitalism, just evidence that Amazon's complaint highlighted a substantive breach of the law and their lawyers did a good job in describe the current state of the law.

Evidently there must have been some merit in Amazon's complaint, since a judge agreed that illegal collusion on he part of the publishers had occurred. Or was the judge also doing favours for Amazon?

From this thread, I think we've all learned that "crony capitalism", means someone you don't like getting a favourable result at court, regardless of the facts or merits of the case.

No, from this thread we learn that crony capitalism is whenever someone gets a favor from the government, regardless of how you feel about them personally. Back during the browser wars, I used Netscape over I.E., yet I acknowledge that Netscape got favorable treatment from the US government based on donations and personal contacts. That makes it crony capitalism, regardless of if I think that Netscape was a superior browser.

I point out that Amazon didn't "make a complanant" but rather wrote a white paper which presented a rather novel legal theory that spun the idea on what constituted anti-trust on it's head. The US government then used that white paper as the basis of their complaint against the five publishers and Apple.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

No, from this thread we learn that crony capitalism is whenever someone gets a favor from the government, regardless of how you feel about them personally. Back during the browser wars, I used Netscape over I.E., yet I acknowledge that Netscape got favorable treatment from the US government based on donations and personal contacts. That makes it crony capitalism, regardless of if I think that Netscape was a superior browser.

I point out that Amazon didn't "make a complanant" but rather wrote a white paper which presented a rather novel legal theory that spun the idea on what constituted anti-trust on it's head. The US government then used that white paper as the basis of their complaint against the five publishers and Apple.

So you really, truly, in your heart of hearts don't believe that there is a problem with competitors meeting at a restaurant and deciding that they are all going to set prices in the same way? You really don't think that's breaking Anti-trust laws???

Shari

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

No, from this thread we learn that crony capitalism is whenever someone gets a favor from the government, regardless of how you feel about them personally. Back during the browser wars, I used Netscape over I.E., yet I acknowledge that Netscape got favorable treatment from the US government based on donations and personal contacts. That makes it crony capitalism, regardless of if I think that Netscape was a superior browser.

I point out that Amazon didn't "make a complanant" but rather wrote a white paper which presented a rather novel legal theory that spun the idea on what constituted anti-trust on it's head. The US government then used that white paper as the basis of their complaint against the five publishers and Apple.

Uh...I've read the decisions, and I'm having a bit of a headscratch on what the "novel legal theory" the DOJ used was. It was a pretty clear case of collusion, and the judgment was consistent with the evidence presented and the current state of the law in the U.S. This doesn't appear to be so much a favour from the DOJ to Amazon, but rather the DOJ enforcing anti-trust laws. Maybe you can elaborate on what the "novel legal theory" was, because those are always good to have in the back of your mind for a rainy day.

You keep using the word "white paper" as if you think that's some special significance to that, but there just isn't without more.

I keep asking you for evidence, and you just keep making the same non-argument that goes: "Amazon made a complaint (which included legal citations), the DOJ pursued it, and an impartial court found illegal collusion on the part of publishers, so Amazon must be in bed with the feds!!!!!1111." You mentioned donations and personal contacts, what were these? Or are you just speculating? And what's your evidence that those things caused the DOJ to act, and then a court to find against the publishers?

So can a company never make a complaint to the DOJ without it being "crony capitalism" if the DOJ's lawyers decide there's merit to the complaint?

[Phogg]

Originally Posted by darryl

I agree with you on this one, Steve. Authors cannot generally be regarded as "fat cats". I thought that term was mostly reserved for those making enormous salaries perceived to be doing little to earn their money. Writing books cannot possibly fall into this category.

If the term "fat cats" was ever reserved for those who did little to earn their wealth it was before the 1960s when I came along. During my lifetime it has been a general use perjorative for people with money. It is, however generally used by people who assert (in the face of any evidence to the contrary) that having wealth is de facto proof of having cheated someone.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by Phogg

If the term "fat cats" was ever reserved for those who did little to earn their wealth it was before the 1960s when I came along. During my lifetime it has been a general use pejorative for people with money. It is, however generally used by people who assert (in the face of any evidence to the contrary) that having wealth is de facto proof of having cheated someone.

I was not aware of any implicit negative connotation to "fat cat" other than the fact that it's typically used by the "have-nots" to describe the "haves." That is, it's unlikely that one billionaire businessman would describe another as a fat cat to other billionaires.

Personally, while I never thought of the term implying that the person did little to earn their wealth, I always took it to mean that they NO LONGER need to worry about earning, they can sit back and enjoy the power of their position, just like a literal fat cat can contentedly spend it's day napping rather than having to fight for scraps in the alley.

OK, as you were.

[joblack]

Originally Posted by Phogg

It is, however generally used by people who assert (in the face of any evidence to the contrary) that having wealth is de facto proof of having cheated someone.

No. It's not an assertion that being wealthy means you have cheated someone. It means in this case that taking higher prices than the 'free market' would provide is cheating the customers.

It has nothing to do with the general notion of wealth.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by shalym

So you really, truly, in your heart of hearts don't believe that there is a problem with competitors meeting at a restaurant and deciding that they are all going to set prices in the same way? You really don't think that's breaking Anti-trust laws???

That is tqo questions that should be separated. On is if they broke the law or not. The other is if you think it is a problem.

In this case the goal was good and it was a pity that the execution to reach the goal happened to break a law.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by ApK

I was not aware of any implicit negative connotation to "fat cat" other than the fact that it's typically used by the "have-nots" to describe the "haves." That is, it's unlikely that one billionaire businessman would describe another as a fat cat to other billionaires.

Personally, while I never thought of the term implying that the person did little to earn their wealth, I always took it to mean that they NO LONGER need to worry about earning, they can sit back and enjoy the power of their position, just like a literal fat cat can contentedly spend it's day napping rather than having to fight for scraps in the alley.

OK, as you were.

Precisely, and in this case, that would be Douglas Preston and James Patterson and their ilk.


But not the vast majority of signatories, who were merely fooled, due to their recently-discovered lack of intellectual capacity (ironic in an actual list of people who make their living off of the written word): https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=246443

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by shalym

So you really, truly, in your heart of hearts don't believe that there is a problem with competitors meeting at a restaurant and deciding that they are all going to set prices in the same way? You really don't think that's breaking Anti-trust laws???

Shari

But that's not what happened. They met together and decided that they were going to hold out for the agency model. They didn't decide that all hard back books would be X dollars and all paperback books would be Y dollars and all ebooks would be Z dollars. Is that anti trust? Maybe yes, maybe no, as far as I can tell there is a fair amount of debate about it.

Was Apple using the offer of agency pricing to get into the ebook business in the face of what at the time was a dominate player (90% of the market at the time) anti-trust? I find that very hard to swallow.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

Uh...I've read the decisions, and I'm having a bit of a headscratch on what the "novel legal theory" the DOJ used was. It was a pretty clear case of collusion, and the judgment was consistent with the evidence presented and the current state of the law in the U.S. This doesn't appear to be so much a favour from the DOJ to Amazon, but rather the DOJ enforcing anti-trust laws. Maybe you can elaborate on what the "novel legal theory" was, because those are always good to have in the back of your mind for a rainy day.

You keep using the word "white paper" as if you think that's some special significance to that, but there just isn't without more.

I keep asking you for evidence, and you just keep making the same non-argument that goes: "Amazon made a complaint (which included legal citations), the DOJ pursued it, and an impartial court found illegal collusion on the part of publishers, so Amazon must be in bed with the feds!!!!!1111." You mentioned donations and personal contacts, what were these? Or are you just speculating? And what's your evidence that those things caused the DOJ to act, and then a court to find against the publishers?

So can a company never make a complaint to the DOJ without it being "crony capitalism" if the DOJ's lawyers decide there's merit to the complaint?

Well, I'm expressing my opinion rather than arguing a case in court, so the only evidence is purely circumstantial. A bit more solid that the evidence you find so persuasive, but circumstantial none the less. We know that Bezo and his family have donated quite a bit to politicians. We now know that the DOJ seem to have derived their case from a white paper given them by Amazon.

White paper is a technical term. It does have special meaning. The point there is that Amazon didn't file a complaint against the publishers and Apple, which is the normal way of getting the DOJ to investigate. Instead they give what was apparently a secret briefing. It seems fairly likely that they choose this method to avoid getting bad press ("Dominate company charges new entry into ebook market with anti-trust violation". Yea, that would fly well).

When a company gives money to politicians, and then get favorable treatment from the government, then that is the definition of crony capitalism. If Bezos and company hadn't been given money to the right politicians, then I would yield your point, but they were. That's what makes it crony capitalism.

[darryl]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Well, I'm expressing my opinion rather than arguing a case in court, so the only evidence is purely circumstantial. A bit more solid that the evidence you find so persuasive, but circumstantial none the less. We know that Bezo and his family have donated quite a bit to politicians. We now know that the DOJ seem to have derived their case from a white paper given them by Amazon.

White paper is a technical term. It does have special meaning. The point there is that Amazon didn't file a complaint against the publishers and Apple, which is the normal way of getting the DOJ to investigate. Instead they give what was apparently a secret briefing. It seems fairly likely that they choose this method to avoid getting bad press ("Dominate company charges new entry into ebook market with anti-trust violation". Yea, that would fly well).

When a company gives money to politicians, and then get favorable treatment from the government, then that is the definition of crony capitalism. If Bezos and company hadn't been given money to the right politicians, then I would yield your point, but they were. That's what makes it crony capitalism.

When dealing with areas of white collar crime and complex areas including competition law, it is actually quite common for a complaint to be made by way of submissions from the complainant's lawyers. I would be very surprised if what Amazon did was particularly unusual.

Since most companies and many individuals make political donations, and some to more than one candidate or party, then crony capitalism must play its role in most favourable decisions. What your definition is missing is the causal link between the donation and the favourable decision concerned. I would suggest to you that when large corporations like Amazon, Apple and the BWM are involved, there is also a huge degree of influence and no doubt significant donations and relationships with all sorts of politicians and probably both of your major political parties and perhaps some minor ones. I seriously doubt Amazon's influence trumped that of Apple alane, let alone Apple and the BWM.

[pwalker8]

I don't think it's a coincidence that the DOJ filed their case in April of 2012, about 6 months after Steve Jobs died. Apple doesn't have near the influence without Steve Jobs. I would be surprised if the 5 publishers in this case has much influence in the government.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I don't think it's a coincidence that the DOJ filed their case in April of 2012, about 6 months after Steve Jobs died. Apple doesn't have near the influence without Steve Jobs. I would be surprised if the 5 publishers in this case has much influence in the government.

Sure the publishers had influence - they chose to settle. They got of scotts free with a slap on the wrist, and never having to admit being guilty. Last time I got a speeding ticket nobody offered me to settle. Sure, of course, I chose to settle out of court to avoid having even higher costs. The only exception if I settle is this: in order to get out of court I have to admit of being guilty first.

And what exactly does it have to do with the death of that Steve Jobs guy? If anything it was his far reaching influence that made the price fixing sheme possible in the first place. Probably for the better that he did not have to see it going to court.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

Sure the publishers had influence - they chose to settle. They got of scotts free with a slap on the wrist, and never having to admit being guilty. Last time I got a speeding ticket nobody offered me to settle. Sure, of course, I chose to settle out of court to avoid having even higher costs. The only exception if I settle is this: in order to get out of court I have to admit of being guilty first.

And what exactly does it have to do with the death of that Steve Jobs guy? If anything it was his far reaching influence that made the price fixing sheme possible in the first place. Probably for the better that he did not have to see it going to court.

Settling without admitting guilt is pretty much the norm these days. The government gets what it wants (money) and the accused gets to move on with things. I read that a very small percentage of such cases actually go to court. There was a very interesting article about it in the WSJ a month or two ago. Basically, the penalties are so high if a company loses that it rarely makes sense for a company to take the risk, so the government makes them an offer they can't refuse. It really has become a racket. The Federal government (and state governments) rakes in billions of dollars a year.

Steve Jobs had the prestige and personal connections. Remember, President Obama use to ask his advice on matters of technology.

[dickloraine]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

It really has become a racket. The Federal government (and state governments) rakes in billions of dollars a year.

Can I buy stock of them? Seems to be an even more profitable branch than amazon. And don't forget: even if it goes to court, the brilliance is, that the judges are paid by the same company! You can never lose! Only downside is, the reinvestment of that money gets to stupid things like health care, libraries etc.