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

[murg]

Originally Posted by CommonReader

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.

Ummm... Amazon wasn't forcing the producers to not sell to anyone else at a lower cost, the producers decided to set the cost themselves, and sell to everyone at the same high cost. This is known as Agency Pricing, and the six big publishing houses and Apple were found guilty of illegally imposing this on the market.

[murg]

Originally Posted by 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.

Actually, the tech industry is where some of the more famous anti-trust cases have occurred in. The Bell System breakup. IBM's anti-trust finding. Microsoft's internet browser finding.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by ApK

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.

A very reasonable assumption.

As it happens though, I merely meant that the party "controlling" others, insomuch as they are dominant, is doing so in accordance with the rules of competition and out-innovating the other groups.

Which is not to say that antitrust is supposed to ensure that any party gains control, merely that they must ensure that that is how any party which does gain control, does it. I deliberately left in "or group of parties" to imply that a large number of of retailers who split the pie is an acceptable outcome in the government's quest to control the economy through antitrust.
(Obviously there will be someone who is edged out and has no control.)

Perhaps I could have been slightly clearer in my wording, which might mean someone should've reread what I said. How it was instead taken to mean that I advocate the government use antitrust to put a retailer in control... I have been consistently against that here on MR...

Some people just want to see any Amazon supporters as just as "evil" as Amazon.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by CommonReader

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.

Why can't they be just as innovative as Amazon?

[CommonReader]

If you sell those products that generate the highest profits for your competitors below cost, then it doesn't matter that you may sell some obscure products that sell very rarely at uncompetitive prices.
And yes, a company that dominates a market has to be held to different standards than a small competitor.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by CommonReader

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.

CR:

"force the ONLY producer of that product..."

But that's not the case, is it? There are not only more producers of books, there are other places to SELL books. You seem to want it both ways--that the government should punish evil corporate entities, just as long as it's not any corporate entities that conspires to do harm to AMAZON. (And, lest we forget, in turn, the CONSUMER.) Harming Amazon seems to be "okay" in your book. It's okay for antitrust to exist, (for publishers to conspire to sell hardcovers and ebooks at a set pricing), as long as Amazon gets damaged.

Amazon did indeed complain to Justice, et al, about the fact that the publishers WERE conspiring to get higher prices (or does the good of the consumer not matter in this conversation?). Justice and its kin did their jobs--they investigated. They found that what Amazon said was true. So, at that point, what is it you think that they should have done? Told the publishers to do WHAT, exactly?

Do you envision some world in which the owner of the store, whether it's Amazon or Waldo's Pet Shop, is FORCED, by the government, to put stock on its shelves that it can't sell, because it's priced too high? Or, what, that Amazon should have been forced to live with higher pricing, while smaller B&M bookstores could discount to their heart's content?

I'll say it again: this is fundamentally simple. The publishers can sell their own damn books on their own damn sites for ANY prices that they want. What they are NOT allowed to do, under US law (and the law of most civilized countries) is form a conspiracy under which they control the pricing of ALL books, stifling all competition.

That's what the laws are about--encouraging and freeing COMPETITION. You seem to be perpetually angry at Amazon simply because they competed in a wild-west environment, the Net, and succeeded, because they were simply better competitors. They embraced a whole new world of ebooks, facilitated, practically CREATED it; they have freed hundreds of thousands of then-would-be authors to publish their books. They've made it possible for Sally Jones to publish her books and maybe buy groceries. Or even quit her day job.

And have you forgotten Smashwords? All those publishers could have run over to Smashwords, couldn't they? If Dread Amazon were so evil? Back in, say, 2008, 2009? But they didn't. Yet at first, it was Smashwords that had the marketplace. They had the momentum. Smashwords may be a distributor, primarily, NOW, but originally, they were also a big store.

Really, this is just a lot of thrashing about, for no reason. As stated previously, the publishers can do ANY DAMN THING that they please. I fail to see, if they are so badly abused, why on earth they don't simply come together and set up the BPH.com Store. That would, I'm sure, satisfy you. They could stick it to the consumer, at agreed-upon prices, and damage Amazon, all at the same time. Then they'd find out what Amazon had REALLY been providing, all these years, and I suspect that they'd close BPH.comPublishingHouseStore.com pretty damn skippy.

Trust me when I say, running a consumer-oriented, customer-service based online business just isn't as fun as all those Hollywood movies want to make you think. It's a lot of headache, a remarkable amount of overhead, and more customer service than ANYONE here on MR would EVER believe. Amazon does it amazingly well--and that, kids, is why they ARE the big kids on the block. Not because they are some evil conspirator.

Hitch

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by CommonReader

If you sell those products that generate the highest profits for your competitors below cost, then it doesn't matter that you may sell some obscure products that sell very rarely at uncompetitive prices.

But then they wouldn't be making money overall, now would they??? And yet, that is what Amazon is doing...

And yes, a company that dominates a market has to be held to different standards than a small competitor.

You have yet to provide any sort of why. Other than "Because MR member @CommonReader thinks so", which is not an effective argument in most legal systems I have heard of.

If you have some form of rationale that could be accepted in a court of law, as to why Amazon has an extra obligation, I suggest you tell us. While you are at it, become famous as one of the groundbreaking legal opinions of the generation, and and explain it to the Supreme Court. I bet Apple would put you on a retainer worth millions if you could actually prove this.

Originally Posted by Hitch

CR:

"force the ONLY producer of that product..."

But that's not the case, is it? There are not only more producers of books, there are other places to SELL books. You seem to want it both ways--that the government should punish evil corporate entities, just as long as it's not any corporate entities that conspires to do harm to AMAZON. (And, lest we forget, in turn, the CONSUMER.) Harming Amazon seems to be "okay" in your book. It's okay for antitrust to exist, (for publishers to conspire to sell hardcovers and ebooks at a set pricing), as long as Amazon gets damaged.

Amazon did indeed complain to Justice, et al, about the fact that the publishers WERE conspiring to get higher prices (or does the good of the consumer not matter in this conversation?). Justice and its kin did their jobs--they investigated. They found that what Amazon said was true. So, at that point, what is it you think that they should have done? Told the publishers to do WHAT, exactly?

Do you envision some world in which the owner of the store, whether it's Amazon or Waldo's Pet Shop, is FORCED, by the government, to put stock on its shelves that it can't sell, because it's priced too high? Or, what, that Amazon should have been forced to live with higher pricing, while smaller B&M bookstores could discount to their heart's content?

I'll say it again: this is fundamentally simple. The publishers can sell their own damn books on their own damn sites for ANY prices that they want. What they are NOT allowed to do, under US law (and the law of most civilized countries) is form a conspiracy under which they control the pricing of ALL books, stifling all competition.

That's what the laws are about--encouraging and freeing COMPETITION. You seem to be perpetually angry at Amazon simply because they competed in a wild-west environment, the Net, and succeeded, because they were simply better competitors. They embraced a whole new world of ebooks, facilitated, practically CREATED it; they have freed hundreds of thousands of then-would-be authors to publish their books. They've made it possible for Sally Jones to publish her books and maybe buy groceries. Or even quit her day job.

And have you forgotten Smashwords? All those publishers could have run over to Smashwords, couldn't they? If Dread Amazon were so evil? Back in, say, 2008, 2009? But they didn't. Yet at first, it was Smashwords that had the marketplace. They had the momentum. Smashwords may be a distributor, primarily, NOW, but originally, they were also a big store.

Really, this is just a lot of thrashing about, for no reason. As stated previously, the publishers can do ANY DAMN THING that they please. I fail to see, if they are so badly abused, why on earth they don't simply come together and set up the BPH.com Store. That would, I'm sure, satisfy you. They could stick it to the consumer, at agreed-upon prices, and damage Amazon, all at the same time. Then they'd find out what Amazon had REALLY been providing, all these years, and I suspect that they'd close BPH.comPublishingHouseStore.com pretty damn skippy.

Trust me when I say, running a consumer-oriented, customer-service based online business just isn't as fun as all those Hollywood movies want to make you think. It's a lot of headache, a remarkable amount of overhead, and more customer service than ANYONE here on MR would EVER believe. Amazon does it amazingly well--and that, kids, is why they ARE the big kids on the block. Not because they are some evil conspirator.

Hitch

And this too. Excellent rant, it is only a pity that you don't have an opportunity to do them on non-repetitive material.

Let us listen to someone who actually does this kind of thing (runs a business) herself, and knows what she is talking about...

[murg]

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.

I see nothing in the article that mentions any possibility of pre-judging the case.

Ms. Rosa was an elected official, in the state house of New York. The only reason that she was able to be elected was the sham marriage, which led to her becoming a citizen, which led to her becoming eligible to run for the office.

As to the one year prison sentence, this was at the bottom end of the agreed prison time in the plea agreement (as stated in the referenced article in your linked article).

So, to recap, sentencing someone who admitted to committing immigration fraud (and becoming an elected official as a result of that fraud), bankruptcy fraud, and illegally receiving money from a foreign official in connection with her election, to the bottom end of the agreed upon prison term does not show any pre-determination, but shows a great deal of leniency.

[CommonReader]

Originally Posted by Hitch

.... What they are NOT allowed to do, under US law (and the law of most civilized countries) is form a conspiracy under which they control the pricing of ALL books, stifling all competition. ....

....

Really, this is just a lot of thrashing about, for no reason. As stated previously, the publishers can do ANY DAMN THING that they please.

Obviously the publishers didn't want to control the prices of all books (even if you use capital letters), but only of their own.
And the publishers aren't allowed to do whatever they please, that's Amazon who were given carte blanche, even if Amazon controls 90% of the ebook market and the publishers don't.

Again, why didn't Amazon simply tell those "obsolete" publishers to buzz off and concentrated on smaller publishers and their own publications? That's perhaps because their own publications don't amount to much?

[CommonReader]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

You have yet to provide any sort of why. Other than "Because MR member @CommonReader thinks so", which is not an effective argument in most legal systems I have heard of.

The EU forced MS to publish documentations on their system interfaces in order to enable other software providers to provide software that was able to interact with MS software. The EU didn't bother with looking at Apple. Why do you believe they did that? Because they were so taken with Jobs' charme? No, because MS controlled something like 90% of the market and Apple was irrelevant. Any other understanding I can help you with?

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by CommonReader

You are at liberty to confuse whatever you like.

All I'm saying is that the DoJ is satisfied that Amazon's ebook division was showing a profit (however slim) as a whole. But still, they made additional requirements that Amazon needs to show a profit (WRT ebooks) on each publisher's catalog as a whole.

Now, you're at liberty to believe that Amazon occasionally dipping below costs on certain items (a "basket" strategy practiced everywhere/all the time in retail land) constitutes predatory pricing (or that the DoJ is looking the other way with regard to Amazon's business), and I'm at liberty to believe you're ignoring quite a few facts that suggest otherwise.

At what point does it become simpler to at least consider the possibility that Amazon just might be working within the law (regardless if you like the law), rather than believe they're this giant, magic, DoJ-proof, immoral, criminal entity which is using every penny of profit it's NOT making (by selling everything below cost to eliminate the competition) to line the pockets of politicians (for favorable legal proceedings/decisions) while its eminently patient shareholders happily wait their turn?

[Dr. Drib]

Moderator Notice

Off-topic Politics & Religion posts have absolutely no place in this thread and will not be tolerated. Any further posts will be deleted.

And any posts that violate our Posting Guidelines will also be deleted. And, in fact, they have already been deleted.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

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.

The exact quote from the article is -
"The federal Probation Department recommended no prison sentence, but Judge Cote disagreed, saying that written submissions on Ms. Rosa’s behalf included “very troubling suggestions” that the crime resulted in part because Ms. Rosa was following the American dream."

Judge Cote threw the book at Ms Rosa because she (Judge Cote) was offended by the suggestion on behalf of Ms Rosa that Ms Rosa violated the law to follow the American dream? That's a bit on the bizarre side. I actually know someone who pretty much did the same thing (shame marriage) to get into the US. When he got caught, he simply got deported. If you are going to throw the book at someone, throw it at them for something extraordinary that they did, not because you are offended by the idea that they entered the country following the American dream. I would think that most immigrants are here following the American dream.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by murg

Actually, the tech industry is where some of the more famous anti-trust cases have occurred in. The Bell System breakup. IBM's anti-trust finding. Microsoft's internet browser finding.

And, of course, in two out of three of the cases you mention, the case was eventually dismissed (IBM and Microsoft). AT&T was a regulated monopoly, a rather unusual case.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

The exact quote from the article is -
"The federal Probation Department recommended no prison sentence, but Judge Cote disagreed, saying that written submissions on Ms. Rosa’s behalf included “very troubling suggestions” that the crime resulted in part because Ms. Rosa was following the American dream."

Judge Cote threw the book at Ms Rosa because she (Judge Cote) was offended by the suggestion on behalf of Ms Rosa that Ms Rosa violated the law to follow the American dream? That's a bit on the bizarre side. I actually know someone who pretty much did the same thing (shame marriage) to get into the US. When he got caught, he simply got deported. If you are going to throw the book at someone, throw it at them for something extraordinary that they did, not because you are offended by the idea that they entered the country following the American dream. I would think that most immigrants are here following the American dream.

I would think that the book was thrown (with which I disagree, more below) not for "following the American Dream" inasmuch as abusing that concept as part of a court submission, by someone who used that sham marriage to a) become an elected official of her state of residence, and b) defraud a bankruptcy court.

I think that Cote's indignation would have been lit by the idea that following the American Dream is some sort of justification for these types of acts. Not the fraudulent, perjurious marriage, mind you; the other acts. If that is true, we can fondly look upon Al Capone as the same as she; someone who simply wanted to follow the American Dream and leave an empire to his children.

Cote hardly "threw the book" at her; she was eligible for up to 10 YEARS in Prison, and Cote abided by the plea agreement, which stated "12-18 months." In fact, she could easily have made it the 18 months (or, mind you, abrogated the plea agreement altogether--she has that authority). She, Cote, sentenced her simply for the year--not even the 18 months. That falls, in my opinion, FAR outside the idea of "throwing the book" at her.

Frankly, for the crime of this sentence alone: "...I didn’t do none of the things that usually you are very used to seeing in the other guys that get in this situation,” I would have sentenced her to 3 years.

Hitch