Amazon’s Book Monopoly : A Threat to Freedom of Expression?

[AnemicOak]

Originally Posted by Fbone

Keep in mind that Amazon has MFN clauses. By US contract law no other competitor can undercut Amazon's prices either directly or indirectly. This does influence how others operate their business.

I suppose they still have them or something similar for self-pubbed stuff? Do we know for sure if they still have them with any publishers? Their, and everyone elses, contracts with the Big 5 can't have them anymore (which was a Big 5/Apple thing in the beginning) as part of the Agency DOJ settlements.

[MikeB1972]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Do bookstores other than Amazon exist? Yes, therefore they are not a monopoly.

That's not quite how it works Harry, you just have to be "large enough" to be classed as a monopoly for antitrust issues, it normally kicks into play when you are using your size or dominant position in the market to gain an unfair advantage.

I know Wall's Ice Cream had issues with the monopolies commission about 10 years back and they were not even close to being the only ice cream manufacturer, Microsoft's antitrust case is pretty well known, there are many others.

To help the literal minded I believe the monopolies commission was renamed The Competition Commission a number of years back for UK/EU stuff, I assume eshwartz has given pretty much the same info on the US side upthread TL;DR .

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

If you are going to claim that someone else doesn't understand what a monopoly is, the least you could do is tell them what you claim is the real definition.

Oh wait, we've been through all this before, too...


P.S. Standard obfuscatory tactics here -- first you convince everyone that something-is-really-true-but-it's-legal, since people are less likely to argue. Then once people accept it's true, you convince them that it's illegal.
(Obviously, this assumes you are successful, which you aren't. But as they say, it's the thought that counts. )

Ah yes, the standard internet debating tactics. Mock and heckle rather than discuss facts. The legal definition is straight forward and easy to find out. The legal definition is that a monopoly is the ability to control the price or exclude a competitor for the market.

http://business-law.freeadvice.com/b...poly_power.htm

Yes, we have been through all this before. I point out the legal definition, which you then ignore in favor of simply trying to mock or heckle, and then claim that I don't provide pointers or links. It's all very tiresome, but then again, when you don't bother to learn the facts, rhetorical tricks is all you are left with.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I am perfectly well aware of what a monopoly is, and Amazon are not one, no matter how much you try to distort the facts.

Legal definition is not the same as common usage. As the article that I pointed to says, there is no hard point where one can say this is a monopoly and this isn't. There is no distortion going on. Anti Trust law in the United States is rather imprecise and tends to depend on how one defines the market as well as if the judge is buying the prosecutor's interpretation. I've seen figures ranging from Amazon controlling 80+ percent of the market to 65 percent. That is close enough to a monopoly in the book market that a clever prosecutor could at least make a case.

[darryl]

Originally Posted by Fbone

Keep in mind that Amazon has MFN clauses. By US contract law no other competitor can undercut Amazon's prices either directly or indirectly. This does influence how others operate their business.

But it does not make Amazon a monopoly!

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by Fbone

Keep in mind that Amazon has MFN clauses. By US contract law no other competitor can undercut Amazon's prices either directly or indirectly. This does influence how others operate their business.

Show me this law.
I have seen lower prices at places other than Amazon.
Bull excrement. A retail store can usually sell an item at any price they choose.
So yes they can. The federal government cannot tell a company that they have to price over another company.
Now yes, there are some contracts between the suppliers and the merchants that can say you can't price your product lower at another company. But that is not a US contract law.
Probably why most prices are similar between the biggies.
Let's see I was looking at a GE under cabinet light the other day.
Price at Amazon $25.15. Price at Walmart $25.15.
Probably in both contracts that they must not price lower elsewhere.

[Cinisajoy]

For eschwartz:
Enjoy the cookies, tortillas and bread.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

Now yes, there are some contracts between the suppliers and the merchants that can say you can't price your product lower at another company. But that is not a US contract law.

If you, in the US, enter into a contract with Amazon, one of the clauses of which states that you won't sell your products more cheaply elsewhere than they are sold at Amazon, US contract law is what makes that agreement legally enforceable. That's what the previous poster meant.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

If you, in the US, enter into a contract with Amazon, one of the clauses of which states that you won't sell your products more cheaply elsewhere than they are sold at Amazon, US contract law is what makes that agreement legally enforceable. That's what the previous poster meant.

Thanks HarryT.
The way he phrased it made it sound like the law was saying only Amazon can have the lowest prices.
Now on that note, I am kind of surprised Amazon price matches when an author purposely puts their book free at another site after agreeing to Amazon's terms.

I do know of one author that Google put her box set free one day. Took Amazon 10 minutes to price match. Took the author 3 days to get it off free.

[Apache]

Just because you signed a contract does not always mean it is a legal contract. For example a contract can say that you can not work for your companies competitor within a 10 mile radius. A contract can not prevent you from making a living, so it can not say you can not work for competitors at all. Also, if the wording on a contract is ambiguous then the party that submitted the contract is at fault.
Apache

[Fbone]

Originally Posted by HarryT

If you, in the US, enter into a contract with Amazon, one of the clauses of which states that you won't sell your products more cheaply elsewhere than they are sold at Amazon, US contract law is what makes that agreement legally enforceable. That's what the previous poster meant.

Thanks, Harry. Sometimes I forget people don't read my mind.

I remember Baen having to deal with MFN when entering Amazon's market. The specifics escape me but it did cause them to alter pricing.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Fbone

Thanks, Harry. Sometimes I forget people don't read my mind.

I remember Baen having to deal with MFN when entering Amazon's market. The specifics escape me but it did cause them to alter pricing.

BAEN's issue isn't classic MFN (forbidding lower prices elsewhere) but rather a hardwired price match clause which Amazon demands from all publishers, traditional or Indie: if their Spiders detect a book for sale for less elsewhere, they will match the price, take their cut based on the original price, and pay whatever remains to the publisher.

(It causes a fair amount of pain to Indies listed on Google when Google puts their books on sale unilaterally because Google's share is so miniscule the sale doesn't move enough books to justify the losses at Amazon, Apple, or even Nook. Many Indies protect themselves by not going through Google.)

What BAEN did was raise their ebookstore prices by Amazon's cut and then divide the added revenue on their store between them and the authors. And they told everybody. So those of us who know how to buy at the BAEN store know to keep on doing it while all the Kindle owners who don't know about the BAEN store generate added sales offsetting the losses from the higher prices.

Far from ideal but the real world is far from ideal anyway.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Apache

Just because you signed a contract does not always mean it is a legal contract. For example a contract can say that you can not work for your companies competitor within a 10 mile radius. A contract can not prevent you from making a living, so it can not say you can not work for competitors at all. Also, if the wording on a contract is ambiguous then the party that submitted the contract is at fault.
Apache

Quite true, but at the moment, MFN clauses are considered legally binding. That could change, of course. Various judges' interpretation of the law can change even if the actual law doesn't.

[Conan46]

Whatever you want to call them, Amazon has won the book/ebook war. No one else even comes close. No one has better customer service. Arguably no one has a better selection. No one is more convenient. I tried to rid myself of Amazon for ebooks over the summer, but finally threw in the towel. Google Play Books seemed promising, but their ebook selection is incredibly inadequate, and they really seem only remotely interested in books at this point. I know many of you like Kobo, but their device quality and service issues caused me some concern, with Amazon, if it doesn't work correctly they take care of business quickly. Nook? I don't even need to go there, too many issues to list.
Who else do we have? When it comes to books/ebooks Amazon is King across the board. And I really wish there was at least a close second, but I don't see anyone even in the running.

[Phogg]

Originally Posted by Conan46

Whatever you want to call them, Amazon has won the book/ebook war. No one else even comes close. No one has better customer service. Arguably no one has a better selection. No one is more convenient. I tried to rid myself of Amazon for ebooks over the summer, but finally threw in the towel. Google Play Books seemed promising, but their ebook selection is incredibly inadequate, and they really seem only remotely interested in books at this point. I know many of you like Kobo, but their device quality and service issues caused me some concern, with Amazon, if it doesn't work correctly they take care of business quickly. Nook? I don't even need to go there, too many issues to list.
Who else do we have? When it comes to books/ebooks Amazon is King across the board. And I really wish there was at least a close second, but I don't see anyone even in the running.

Amazon hasn't "won."
There is still competition.
And Amazon didn't even achieve its market position entirely by its own actions.
As has been recounted on these forums ad nauseum, the actions taken by the BPHs during the antitrust scandal damaged Amazon's more robust competitors whilst Amazon's diverse product lines and indie distribution allowed them to easily weather the storm.

No sympathy for the Menendez Publishers, and the book buying public has them to thank for the current state of affairs more than Amazon.