2 of 3 Judges appear to favor Apple in ebook appeal

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

No, I didn't. In several posts, I pointed out that Apple did not take the law into their own hands, i.e. engage in a per se violation. The issue isn't that Amazon had an illegal monopoly (which I am not claiming by the way. One can have a monopoly and not be illegal). The true issue is did Apple's (and the 5 publishers) help competition or harm it. It seems fairly straight forward to me that introducing a new ebook store with strong backing increases competition and the health of the market in a situation where one ebook store (Amazon) has 90 percent of the market.

I know that few here wish to read Bork's Anittrust Paradox, but here is a link that gives a fair summary of Bork's argument. The author of the article is an anti-trust lawyer.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/ar...robert-h-bork/

Very elucidative.

[...] It was this kind of output restriction, Sherman realized, which brought about unnecessarily high prices for consumers, and it is this which the Sherman Act was framed to prohibit. [...]

[...] If the competition is promoting efficiency—that is, working well for the population as a whole—it may indeed destroy rivals who are relatively inefficient. By systematically slighting this elementary point, antitrust judges and prosecutors have often produced the opposite of what antitrust policy was meant to do. By protecting the inefficient competitor, they have done harm to competition. [...]

[...] to deal with competition as a process whose imperatives—whose rights and wrongs—are essentially different from the imperatives suggested simply by the suffering of a small businessman or the prosperity of a large corporation. [...]

(Bold is mine.)

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I would also point out that Apple presented evidence in court that the ebook prices actually went down across the board. It was only a select few (i.e. the best seller type books that Amazon was pricing at $9.99) that actually went up. This is part of their appeal.

I'm sure there were many titles whose prices were largely unaffected by Agency pricing. I'd even be willing to stipulate that it's possible that the number of titles that sold for nearly the same price before and after agency outnumbers the number of titles that saw a sharp increase in price after agency. Maybe it even outnumbers them by far.

The problem is ... it's stupid to think of it in those terms (per title). The prices went up on ebooks that consumers were buying by the truck-load. In droves. Scads. They stayed the same, or maybe—just maybe—went down on the ebooks that consumers WEREN'T buying. Well la de da. Maybe the average price people were spending per ebook went down during agency, too. Wouldn't that be horribly relevant? Statistics are fun.

The point is: the books that the most consumers bought the most of (the titles that the publisher's themselves hung their financial hats on, and built their catalogs and release calendars around), cost them more after agency went into effect the first time. The rest is hand-waving. Who cares if millions of titles that were available and selling in dribs and drabs were unaffected by agency? The prices on ebooks the public wanted to buy went up. Because of agency.

Do they actually have the hubris to include the explosion of sales of lower priced indie ebooks (whose sales took off during agency's run-up) in the whole "consumer prices actually went down across the board" nonsense? I could see them doing that.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Do they actually have to hubris to include the explosion of sales of lower priced indie ebooks (whose sales took off during agency's run-up) in the whole "consumer prices actually went down across the board" nonsense? I could see them doing that.

Now here's a frightening thought...

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?

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

No, I didn't. In several posts, I pointed out that Apple did not take the law into their own hands, i.e. engage in a per se violation. The issue isn't that Amazon had an illegal monopoly (which I am not claiming by the way. One can have a monopoly and not be illegal). The true issue is did Apple's (and the 5 publishers) help competition or harm it. It seems fairly straight forward to me that introducing a new ebook store with strong backing increases competition and the health of the market in a situation where one ebook store (Amazon) has 90 percent of the market.

Apple and the price fix 5 did indeed hurt competition. Because of their Agency ways, they drove out a number of eBook stores. They drove out Fictionwise, BooksOnBoard, and Diesel eBooks just to name three. Fictionwise and BooksOnBoard had business models that were not able to be sustained under agency rules and because of that, they were unable to keep the businesses going. Fictionwise and BooksOnBoard were good stores to do business with. In fact, with Fictionwise, I was able to save a lot of money on eBooks. BooksOnBoard a close second sometimes. Fictionwise was even competitive with Amazon. So yes, The Apple Gang did indeed drive others out of business and no, they did not make things more competitive. In fact, all they did was drive away the little guys who had their own ways of doing business that would no longer work under agency.

[Purple Lady]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Apple and the price fix 5 did indeed hurt competition. Because of their Agency ways, they drove out a number of eBook stores. They drove out Fictionwise, BooksOnBoard, and Diesel eBooks just to name three. Fictionwise and BooksOnBoard had business models that were not able to be sustained under agency rules and because of that, they were unable to keep the businesses going. Fictionwise and BooksOnBoard were good stores to do business with. In fact, with Fictionwise, I was able to save a lot of money on eBooks. BooksOnBoard a close second sometimes. Fictionwise was even competitive with Amazon. So yes, The Apple Gang did indeed drive others out of business and no, they did not make things more competitive. In fact, all they did was drive away the little guys who had their own ways of doing business that would no longer work under agency.

This has been pointed out in numerous threads and ignored or discounted by pwalker8. Think this one will finally be accepted?

[jgaiser]

Originally Posted by Purple Lady

This has been pointed out in numerous threads and ignored or discounted by pwalker8. Think this one will finally be accepted?

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

Do you think that Apple could try to defend themselves by saying that their intent was to increase competition by fixing the prices? (Bad word, not "fixing" as in illegal, but rather set across the board the same - please suggest a better word than fixing). Emphasis on intent, since as we well know in the end it hurt Amazon's competition a lot more than Amazon itself. The little ebook stores suffered (and some went under) as they couldn't compete with Amazon on price any longer (and rewards systems and loyalty programs and such).

It still may not excuse collusion and the opposite outcome of decreased competition (other than enter the iBook store) - legally speaking. Any thoughts?

(I am glad that you no longer appear to judge or accuse Amazon of wrongdoing. I am myself more indifferent towards Apple - whatever happens happens. I will say though that I continue to rule with my wallet - and chose not to buy electronics from Apple)

I never accused Amazon of wrongdoing to begin with.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Apple and the price fix 5 did indeed hurt competition. Because of their Agency ways, they drove out a number of eBook stores. They drove out Fictionwise, BooksOnBoard, and Diesel eBooks just to name three. Fictionwise and BooksOnBoard had business models that were not able to be sustained under agency rules and because of that, they were unable to keep the businesses going. Fictionwise and BooksOnBoard were good stores to do business with. In fact, with Fictionwise, I was able to save a lot of money on eBooks. BooksOnBoard a close second sometimes. Fictionwise was even competitive with Amazon. So yes, The Apple Gang did indeed drive others out of business and no, they did not make things more competitive. In fact, all they did was drive away the little guys who had their own ways of doing business that would no longer work under agency.

You are saying that Apple drove a number of ebook stores out of business? Really? That's a pretty wild assertion. B&N purchased fictionwise in 2009 and the web store was closed by B&N in 2012. Booksonboard went out of business in 2013. Diesel eBooks went out of business in 2014. The Apple ebook store and agency pricing didn't go into effect until 2010. Judge Cote ruled on the case in July of 2013. The timeline just doesn't seem to match your narrative. How could Apple cause fictionwise to go out of business months before Apple started talking to the publishers, much less open an ebook store?

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Purple Lady

This has been pointed out in numerous threads and ignored or discounted by pwalker8. Think this one will finally be accepted?

Certainly people have made all sorts of wild, obviously incorrect statements in numerous threads. If I pointed out the logical inconsistency in post (such as claiming that Apple drove a company out of business months before Apple even started talking about selling ebooks) I wouldn't have time to do anything else. Oh, I'm sorry, I guess I shouldn't have pointed out the fallacy in the approved narrative.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Oh, I'm sorry, I guess I shouldn't have pointed out the fallacy in the approved narrative.

Hey, I'm just proud as heck you didn't freakin' name the fallacy. Baby steps, man. Baby steps.

[murg]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

You are saying that Apple drove a number of ebook stores out of business? Really? That's a pretty wild assertion. B&N purchased fictionwise in 2009 and the web store was closed by B&N in 2012. Booksonboard went out of business in 2013. Diesel eBooks went out of business in 2014. The Apple ebook store and agency pricing didn't go into effect until 2010. Judge Cote ruled on the case in July of 2013. The timeline just doesn't seem to match your narrative. How could Apple cause fictionwise to go out of business months before Apple started talking to the publishers, much less open an ebook store?

Well, let's see. According to your info:

The Apple conspiracy lasted from 2010 to July 2013.

During that time, fictionwise closed. Booskonboard closed.

And, as the effects of the illegal behaviour did not automatically disappear with the judgement, one can reasonably attribute the Diesel closure a year later to the illegal behaviour.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by murg

Well, let's see. According to your info:

The Apple conspiracy lasted from 2010 to July 2013.

During that time, fictionwise closed. Booskonboard closed.

And, as the effects of the illegal behaviour did not automatically disappear with the judgement, one can reasonably attribute the Diesel closure a year later to the illegal behaviour.

Fictionwise was bought out by B&N in 2009.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Hey, I'm just proud as heck you didn't freakin' name the fallacy. Baby steps, man. Baby steps.

I'm not sure there is a specific name for a fallacy where the effect occurs before the cause. The Time Machine fallacy, perhaps?

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I'm not sure there is a specific name for a fallacy where the effect occurs before the cause. The Time Machine fallacy, perhaps?

Back To The Future Flux Capacitor Fallacy.

[Shades]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Fictionwise was bought out by B&N in 2009.

That is irrelevant. If B&N wanted Fictionwise out of the picture, they wouldn't have waited 3 years to close it.