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

[John F]

Originally Posted by Barcey

When one publisher went to them and demanded agency (Macmillan) Amazon delisted them. When it was apparent that all the publishers had conspired to demand agency at the same time Amazon complained to law enforcement because that's against the law. The DoJ investigated and found that Amazon's complaint was valid. A new head of the DoJ took over and also agreed and proceeded with charges. Separate investigations in the EU and Canada found the same thing but were settled outside of court.

The 'market' does not mean colluding with your competitors. That's anti free market and illegal.

And the U.S. Attorney's General's also took some action. That evil Amazon has some very deep pockets.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by John F

And the U.S. Attorney's General's also took some action. That evil Amazon has some very deep pockets.

Especially considering all their income goes into building warehouses and data centers.

[CommonReader]

It is foremost the tech industry who claim that anti-trust action is not necessary, that the market will sort everything out. Obviously this isn't true as long as it works in your favour.
Anyway, it is the purpose of anti-trust action to ensure that the market isn't controled by a single party. It is a dubious result of anti-trust action when one cartel is gets removed, yet the party that effectively controls the market isn't subjected to any control.
The trust shown here as regards government intervention is quite touching. To give just one example, some of the cases of illegal subsidies that are currently under investigation by the EU (e.g. apple) literally go back decades. There is no even handed intervention by authorities in the market. Some obvious cases are never taken up at all while others are pursued with zeal.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by CommonReader

Anyway, it is the purpose of anti-trust action to ensure that the market isn't controled by a single party. It is a dubious result of anti-trust action when one cartel is gets removed, yet the party that effectively controls the market isn't subjected to any control.

Incorrect. The purpose of antitrust is to ensure that the market is controlled by whatever set of party or parties can achieve control through legal competition. It is perfectly legal to have one party outclass the others. Antitrust violations happen when conspiracy to rig the market rather than letting the consumers choose the winner, results in harm to the consumer.

Antitrust violations happen when say, conspiracies raise prices beyond what the market calls for.
Antitrust violations can also happen when one company dominates, gains control of the market, and abuses that legal an acceptable position to edge out newcomers from competing in the same area. That does not mean competition gets an unfair advantage over the incumbent either, in terms of special concessions for the underdog -- but the incumbent is not allowed to use their power to, say, threaten suppliers into not selling to newcomers, or charging higher prices than they'd charge the incumbent all things (sales) being equal.

Amazon, has not done that (yet???). If they do, it will be an antitrust violation. But you cannot legally punish someone for what they may end up doing. The same way you cannot be given a life sentence because someone who dislikes you is afraid you may end up killing him.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by rhadin

After reading an article in yesterday's New York Times about another ruling by Judge Denise Cote ("Prison for Ex-Manhattan Assemblywoman in Sham Marriage Case"), I believe even more strongly that Cote predecided the "conspiracy" case and made sure that the evidence that was admitted fit her predetermination.

Don't get me wrong about yesterday's case. The woman pled guilty and did commit a crime. I just find disturbing Cote's reason for sending the woman to jail rather than following the probation department's recommendation. Increasingly Cote sounds like she has a screw loose and is very vindictive.

It will be interesting to see what the ultimate disposition of the Apple case will be.

Cote's rationalization:
This woman committed a crime, and you think she should get off "because she is remorseful, she just wanted the American Dream"? Get lost -- she committed a crime, she pays the piper.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Especially considering all their income goes into building warehouses and data centers.

Then one day, those buildings will morph into legislative halls. Evil, I tell ya, evil. Amazon is out to control the world and we sit back and enable them with our purchases.

[CommonReader]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Amazon, has not done that (yet???). If they do, it will be an antitrust violation.

- predatory pricing, i.e. selling below cost. Amazon sold ebooks at 9.99, less than what they paid for them. A well known way to force weaker competitors out of the market. Just try to be accused of that as a foreign steel producer in the US and hear the high pitched yells of outrage emanating from Washington.
- delisting products if demands aren't met and clauses that prevent producers to sell at a better price to anyone else. Acceptable for a normal retailer but no for one that controls the market.

But obviously, if you aren't willing to look then you aren't going to find anything.

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Incorrect. The purpose of antitrust is to ensure that the market is controlled by whatever set of party or parties can achieve control through legal competition. It is perfectly legal to have one party outclass the others.

On what basis do you claim that antitrust law has a purpose to ensure that any party or set of parties gain control of the market?

It might not have a goal to prevent control of the market, but I do not believe that it does or should try to ensure that any participant gain control. Markets can function perfectly well and perhaps best with no player in control.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by CommonReader

- predatory pricing, i.e. selling blow cost.
[...]
But obviously, if you aren't willing to look then you aren't going to find anything.

Or maybe it's a matter of looking, and finding 'predatory pricing' is not what you say it is.

http://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/compe...-or-below-cost

A firm's independent decision to reduce prices to a level below its own costs does not necessarily injure competition, and, in fact, may simply reflect particularly vigorous competition.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by j.p.s

On what basis do you claim that antitrust law has a purpose to ensure that any party or set of parties gain control of the market?

I think (there's that hedge again....) he means control in the sense of stability and rules, i.e., as opposed to an "out-of-control market," not in the sense of one group controlling others.

[CommonReader]

Originally Posted by ApK

Or maybe it's a matter of looking, and finding 'predatory pricing' is not what you say it is.

http://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/compe...-or-below-cost

Yes, it is when you sell a product below your own costs of purchase and at the same time - using your power as the dominant player in the market - force the only producer of that product not to sell to anyone else at lower cost. No other seller has the possibility to improve its position by improving processes etc., its just a question who has more capital to go on longer selling products at a loss.

[DiapDealer]

Do we have to confuse basket-pricing with predatory-pricing all over again?

[CommonReader]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Do we have to confuse basket-pricing with predatory-pricing all over again?

You are at liberty to confuse whatever you like.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Do we have to confuse basket-pricing with predatory-pricing all over again?

I'm not familiar with that term.
Did I miss a good thread?

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by CommonReader

- predatory pricing, i.e. selling blow cost. Amazon sold ebooks at 9.99, less than what they paid for them. A well known way to force weaker competitors out of the market. Just try to be accused of that as a foreign steel producer in the US and hear the high pitched yells of outrage emanating from Washington.

Some, yes -- bestsellers used as loss-leaders. Loss-leaders do not drive competitors out of business.

http://the-digital-reader.com/2013/0...fendant-today/

- delisting products if demands aren't met and clauses that prevent producers to sell at a better price to anyone else. Acceptable for a normal retailer but no for one that controls the market.

But obviously, if you aren't willing to look then you aren't going to find anything.

You have pulled that statement out of your hat -- where is it said that the underdog gets preferential treatment?

And where did this drivel come from? "delisting products if demands aren't met" -- are you suggesting that Hachette can force Amazon to sell their books? That is what a contract is for -- a contractual obligation obligates you to do something. Because you signed a piece of paper legally agreeing that you had to. Amazon has no contract, that is the whole point. They are not obligated to do anything.