2 of 3 Judges appear to favor Apple in ebook appeal

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by rcentros

Yeah, right. That's why people were suddenly paying MORE for eBooks. Does Apple really think they'll get away with these lies?

Wait a minute ... did people actually pay less for eBooks when you factor in the court ordered Apple's and the publisher's rebates to customers for overcharging? Maybe that's what the judge is referring to?

I never thought of that...

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by crossi

There is nothing wrong with having even 100% of a market. If you are the first to do something there simply ARE no competitors, or the first to do something well, or even if your product is markedly better than your competitors and the customers refuse to buy theirs. Chanting "but Amazon had 90% of the market" as if that proves some wrongdoing on Amazon's part is just stupid.

Yep. I agree. The thing is, even if Amazon was doing something wrong, that doesn't excuse your own wrongdoing. You don't break the the law because you think someone else might be breaking the law.

[bgalbrecht]

Originally Posted by Jon_Doh

I don't get the Amazon hate and Apple love either. Amazon lowers book prices, which is a good thing for consumers and they're the bad guys and have to be stopped? Apple comes along and conspires with a number of book publishers to fix book prices, the end result is book prices on average going up over 100% and they are the victims and/or good guys? Boy, the world sure has changed since the "greed is good" crowd took over.

It's because Amazon will force the publishers to sell their books for too low a price, the publishers won't be able to make any money so they won't be able to pay 6-7 figure advances to the big name authors, and after a couple of years of this, nobody will have any new books to read, or if we do, we'll only have lousy books from indie publishers or self-published authors.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by rcentros

Yep. I agree. The thing is, even if Amazon was doing something wrong, that doesn't excuse your own wrongdoing. You don't break the the law because you think know* someone else might be is breaking the law.

Fixed.

* -- Assume ad arguendo Apple is right.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by bgalbrecht

It's because Amazon will force the publishers to sell their books for too low a price, the publishers won't be able to make any money so they won't be able to pay 6-7 figure advances to the big name authors, and after a couple of years of this, nobody will have any new books to read, or if we do, we'll only have lousy books from indie publishers or self-published authors.

Yeah, right. The poor colluding publishers just can't make any money selling best seller eBooks at an average of $10 instead of $13. Keep in mind that the cost of distributing these eBooks is next to nothing. (You don't have to print, bind and ship eBooks.) Besides, by what I read, the publishers actually made less in the Apple collusion-spawned agency pricing scheme than they did with the old straight wholesale pricing. And who says the old school publishers should control the market anyhow? Maybe it's time for some new blood.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Fixed.

* -- Assume ad arguendo Apple is right.

Thanks for the correction. Sorry it was necessary.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Shane R

Seems like there's some nervousness on the part of those who are already convinced that the case is open and shut.

It is. Apple pays in two of the three outcomes that this appeal may produce, and nothing at all in the other.

I have been very consistent in saying that one never knows how a judge is going to rule. If you actually go back and read what I said, you will see that. I do think that the case is a no brainer, but that doesn't mean that some judge won't rule differently based on a number of different reasons.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Okay, to belabor the point even more...


NO!

The market situation is a very, very important part of... a different case altogether. The case where Amazon is brought to court for antitrust violations in regards to unfairly dominating the ebook market.

That is where you may discuss whether or not something may or should be done about Amazon.

Regarding Apple -- they cannot absolve themselves of an illegal act by saying someone else did an illegal act first.
That is taking the law into their own hands, something the law frowns upon -- and rightly so.

To belabor the point even more ...
YES!

Market condition is at the heart of any anti-trust case. It's one of the reasons that I have said that this case turns anti-trust on it's ear. Anti-trust is at it's heart about improving competition, not protecting a monopoly. Fairly obviously, the fact that the appeals judges seem to be focused on this in their comments point to this. The government's case was built on ignoring that they were protecting Amazon's monopoly by going after a new entry into the market. Judge Cote bought into that idea, but that doesn't make it correct.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

To belabor the point even more ...
YES!

Market condition is at the heart of any anti-trust case. It's one of the reasons that I have said that this case turns anti-trust on it's ear. Anti-trust is at it's heart about improving competition, not protecting a monopoly. Fairly obviously, the fact that the appeals judges seem to be focused on this in their comments point to this. The government's case was built on ignoring that they were protecting Amazon's monopoly by going after a new entry into the market. Judge Cote bought into that idea, but that doesn't make it correct.

Well, from Apple's standpoint it's too bad you're not one of the judges. It looks you're invested 100% in Apple's BS argument that didn't go anywhere in the original case. First off, Amazon does not have a monopoly in the book market ... so, so much for that part of the argument. Second -- AGAIN -- it doesn't matter what Amazon was doing (or not doing) the collusion between Apple and the Publishers is an anti-trust violation. Period. And -- AGAIN -- it's not Apple's and the Publisher's job to police Amazon -- if they really believed Amazon was committing anti-trust violations, it was their job to go the Justice Department with a complaint, not break the law to "correct" the market share.

The truth is Apple -- by colluding with the Publishers -- wanted to corner the eBook market for itself. That's plainly seen in the emails and in Jobs' statements before the release of the iPad. This after-the-fact revisionism (after Apple and the Publishers were caught with their hands in the cookie jar) is just pure BS justification for them breaking the law. Only if the judges are dishonest and inclined to favor Apple no matter where the facts lead does this appeal have a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Anti-trust is at it's heart about improving competition, not protecting a monopoly.

No wrong. Actually it is both. Anti-trust is also protecting a legally obtained monopoly or near monopoly status if it is threatened by illegal activities of competitors. Still about improving competition, since illegally attacking the monopolist is unfair to the monopolist.

Edit: unfair to the consumers - not directly unfair for the monopolist.

[Barcey]

I look forward to reading the judge's "Bell the Cat" interpretation of antitrust law.

"If there has been a per se violation of antitrust laws one must consider if the conspirators were acting to prevent a market leader from increasing their market share and potentially, hypothetically sometime in the future performing their own per se violation of antitrust laws. If that was potentially the case then the rule of reason needs to be used to consider if there was a consumer benefit of the original per se violation."


Maybe Apple will win the appeal and then appeal the ruling.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

To belabor the point even more ...
YES!

Market condition is at the heart of any anti-trust case. It's one of the reasons that I have said that this case turns anti-trust on it's ear. Anti-trust is at it's heart about improving competition, not protecting a monopoly. Fairly obviously, the fact that the appeals judges seem to be focused on this in their comments point to this. The government's case was built on ignoring that they were protecting Amazon's monopoly by going after a new entry into the market. Judge Cote bought into that idea, but that doesn't make it correct.

You seem to have ignored every word I said besides for "Apple ... illegal".

I suggest you reread my statement, you might learn something.
Or at least answer the points I made.
To wit: Whether Amazon had an illegal monopoly is inconsequential -- Apple is still not permitted to take the law into their own hands.

[Shades]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

To belabor the point even more ...
YES!

Market condition is at the heart of any anti-trust case. It's one of the reasons that I have said that this case turns anti-trust on it's ear. Anti-trust is at it's heart about improving competition, not protecting a monopoly. Fairly obviously, the fact that the appeals judges seem to be focused on this in their comments point to this. The government's case was built on ignoring that they were protecting Amazon's monopoly by going after a new entry into the market. Judge Cote bought into that idea, but that doesn't make it correct.

Err... No.
You don't stop something you think is illegal by doing something else which is illegal. You report (file a complaint) the activity to the authorities.

As the saying goes, two wrongs don't make a right.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by bgalbrecht

It's because Amazon will force the publishers to sell their books for too low a price, the publishers won't be able to make any money so they won't be able to pay 6-7 figure advances to the big name authors, and after a couple of years of this, nobody will have any new books to read, or if we do, we'll only have lousy books from indie publishers or self-published authors.

Ahhhh... they were preventing the Literary Apocalypse. I get it now. Why didn't they just don their capes, put fists on hips and say so? Dystopian and post-apoc superhero fiction IS all the rage right now.

[Shane R]

Is the 450 million that Apple would have to pay subject to tripling?

My personal thought based on nothing but gut feelings is that the questioning wasn't bluster, and that appellate court winds finds fault with the original ruling somehow. Maybe not throwing it out entirely, but not allowing it to stand as is.

These cases are never solved nice, neatly, and cleanly.