Apple eBook price fixing case going to court

[pwalker8]

Sure, it's an estimate just like all percentages of the market (pretty much any market) are estimates. The difference is they know how much they sold. They look at the various estimates on how many ebooks are sold, and go from there. Actually, I suspect that the ebook's sold figures are pretty solid. Remember, authors are paid based on ebooks sold, so there is at least a paper trail (or electronic trail as the case may be) backing up the check they get. Interview enough authors and you get a pretty good idea. I would think that it's more likely to be correct than not.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I'm not disagreeing to what Apple said in court, I'm disagreeing that it's true. I don't think Apple has 20% of the eBook market because (IMHO) I think that if we were able to tally up ePub (including B&N but not Apple) and Amazon into one, we'd have more then 80% (in the US and world wide).

That actually wasn't directed at you or anything you said.

I certainly agree that it's more than I would have expected, but then again, one would think that companies like Amazon and Apple keep a pretty close eye on the sales figures. Until someone who is in a place to know, such as one of the publishers, or other ebook stores, publishes something that contradicts what those, I'll accept what Apple says on the matter. So far, I don't think any of the other ebook stores have contradicted Apple.

As I have said before, I would not be surprised if Apple tends to sale more to readers not on this board, i.e. not the hardcore ebook readers, more like those who buy the summer thrillers for reading on vacation and the like.

[leebase]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I'm not disagreeing to what Apple said in court, I'm disagreeing that it's true. I don't think Apple has 20% of the eBook market because (IMHO) I think that if we were able to tally up ePub (including B&N but not Apple) and Amazon into one, we'd have more then 80% (in the US and world wide).

Does it matter? Apple thinks they have 20%....it's probably 20% of the sales of the publishers that sell through Apple. They don't have to know what Amazon sells, they just know what their publishers tell them. But does it matter to this discussion?

Apple is going to win this because there is no proof of conspiracy....whether or not one actually happened. Apple was able to show they had good, legal and legitimate reasons to negotiate with each -- individually -- of the 6 publishers. When you have a real, legal and legitimate reason something --may-- have happened....and an inference/suspicion that something illegal -- may-- have happened....you won't have met the criteria to be guilty...no matter what ACTUALLY happened.

Apple was able to show that their interest was to be able to sell ebooks at a profit. That's legal. While it may have benefitted Apple for the publishers to force agency on Amazon....Apple showed that with "most favored nation" clause they did not care what the publishers did with Amazon.

Far from being the ring leader, it was established that the publishers were considering the agency model before Apple was considering going into the ebook business.

It was also established that the publishers were already putting "windowing" of ebooks into practice BEFORE dealing with Apple.

The threat of Apple as a competitor took away Amazon's power to say "we'll stop selling your ebooks"...and that didn't take a conspiracy.

I think the publishers could have won their cases as well...but we'll never know. Maybe there were secret meetings between them that they didn't want brought to light. We'll never know.

It is not illegal in this country to control the price of your own product. The publishers were well within their individual rights to stop letting Amazon sell their best selling products below cost. They just can't collude with other publishers.

Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. Apple established legitimate business reasons for their actions. True or not, lacking any real proof of actual collusions (say...Jobs and the CEO's got together at Camp David and worked out an agreement), the government has lost.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Sure, it's an estimate just like all percentages of the market (pretty much any market) are estimates. The difference is they know how much they sold. They look at the various estimates on how many ebooks are sold, and go from there. Actually, I suspect that the ebook's sold figures are pretty solid. Remember, authors are paid based on ebooks sold, so there is at least a paper trail (or electronic trail as the case may be) backing up the check they get. Interview enough authors and you get a pretty good idea. I would think that it's more likely to be correct than not.

I know, know, know I will be sorry to join in on this discussion, BUT, given that the vast bulk of Apple's catalog are free books from SW, the ability to inflate figures by including free book downloads is pretty easy. iBooks also comes with free books already installed on it, so those may or may not be included in Apple's figures. Apple certainly does not have any way to "interview" authors that aren't included in its catalog, like the hundreds of thousands that are pubbed on Amazon or Amazon & B&N alone. As I said, in our author list, (which includes NY-Times bestselling authors, Pulitzer-winners, Edgar winners, as well as self-pubs) the average is one book on iBooks for 1,000 (literally) on Amazon. I can't reconcile that to "20%" of the ebook market. I simply cannot. Are they counting every installation of iBooks? Every sale? I mean...how are they quantifying what counts as:

"sales grew 100 percent last year at the iBookstore and it had over 100 million customers."

Sales growing 100% means nothing. That could be $2 from $1, for all we know. With regard to "it had over 100 million customers," again: is that everyone that installs iBooks? I honestly don't remember if iBooks came pre-installed on my iPad--I believe it did. If that's how they are counting "customers," that's a mightily-inflated figure. Worse, what about people who install it on their iPhones, and never use it again? Are they counting those folks, too? I do not believe--not for one second--that they sold 100 million books in 2012. Do you? When Apple releases actual sales figures, and says "we sold, for money, X books," that will give us a real idea. But verbiage as deliberately obfuscatory and misleading as this is not my idea of evidence, nor facts. There's a fine art to misleading a courtroom, and that statement is a prime example of it.

Again: not taking the position that Apple doesn't have 20% of "the ebook market," although I just don't see it. I don't care about this argument, but there is a genuine difference between actual facts and statements that may as well be press releases. That statement is, with all due respect, completely meaningless and has zero factual data to back it up, that has been provided in this case (or in any other fashion). It's not like they submit SEC filings saying that they sold X books for Y dollars (nor does Amazon, B&N, Sony, Diesel, etc.). Without those numbers, we are all guessing and quite frankly, arguing over absolutely nothing but air.

I mean, hell, if we're all going to argue, let's not argue over something that has about as much evidence as the possibility of intelligent life somewhere else in the Universe. If/when the court compels them to turn over HARD DATA, then, gang, this particular non-factoid will be worth arguing over. Until then, it's like arguing about religion.

Just my $.02.

Hitch

[kennyc]

Lee you're a card...

[jgaiser]

Originally Posted by leebase

Does it matter? Apple thinks they have 20%....it's probably 20% of the sales of the publishers that sell through Apple. They don't have to know what Amazon sells, they just know what their publishers tell them. But does it matter to this discussion?

Shakes his head.. No, of course it doesn't matter. We'll just make up some numbers and the fanboys will believe us anyway.

I'm starting to agree with Kenny. Are you sure you don't work for Apple, because you're really good at spinning the story, even if you provide no proofs.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by leebase

Apple is going to win this because there is no proof of conspiracy....

You're on a pretty long limb here. Only the judge knows how she is going to rule. And maybe not even her, as she has weeks more time to make up her mind. Perhaps a law clerk will sway her. Just hope that clerk isn't on this board

By the way, what I would call proof isn't needed for a finding against a company in a civil antitrust case like this. Even with criminal antitrust, all conviction requires is for the government's claims to be more likely true than not true.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

You're on a pretty long limb here. Only the judge knows how she is going to rule. And maybe not even her, as she has weeks more time to make up her mind. Perhaps a law clerk will sway her. Just hope that clerk isn't on this board

By the way, what I would call proof isn't needed for a finding against a company in a civil antitrust case like this. Even with criminal antitrust, all conviction requires is for the government's claims to be more likely true than not true.

And in legal terms "conspiracy" isn't the cloak-and-dagger thing it is in movies.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...com/conspiracy

An agreement between two or more persons to engage jointly in an unlawful or criminal act, or an act that is innocent in itself but becomes unlawful when done by the combination of actors.

Conspiracy is governed by statute in federal courts and most state courts. Before its Codification in state and federal statutes, the crime of conspiracy was simply an agreement to engage in an unlawful act with the intent to carry out the act. Federal statutes, and many state statutes, now require not only agreement and intent but also the commission of an Overt Act in furtherance of the agreement.

Bold-faced mine.

Apple spinmeisters aside, it is pretty clear that while switching to Agency by one player (Random House, for example) is innocent of wrong-doing, 5 of them coordinating with Apple to do it at the same time *is* illegal.
And they didn't just think about it or talk about it; they *did* something overt.

Note that nowhere does it say all the players have to meet together. They just have to jointly agree. As in: Apple telling Penguin that all the others are onboard.

Anybody looking for a smoking gun just needs to look there.
(And since Apple was the go-beween they are as guilty as the rest.)

[AnemicOak]

Judge Rules that Apple Conspired to Raise Prices on eBooks

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by AnemicOak

Judge Rules that Apple Conspired to Raise Prices on eBooks

Excellent!

Thanks for the notice!

New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/11/te...rial.html?_r=0

and from the Wall Street Journal:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...053469898.html

[Graham]

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100791404

[Judge Denise] Cote said the conspiracy resulted in prices for some e-books rising to $12.99 or $14.99, when Amazon had sold for $9.99.

"The plaintiffs have shown that the publisher defendants conspired with each other to eliminate retail price competition in order to raise e-book prices, and that Apple played a central role in facilitating and executing that conspiracy," Cote said.

Apple's team made a good job of chipping away at some of the evidence presented in the DOJ's case, but I felt that the media made too much of some of those victories. In the end, it seems that the remainder of the case was still strong enough.

I've been trying to find the full text of the judge's 159 page ruling but I can't see it on the DOJ site. Anyone got a link?

Edit: link to the ruling. Thanks to Gizmodo for posting it.

http://nysd.uscourts.gov/cases/show....special&id=306

Graham

[leebase]

http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2013/07/...nstorm+Tech%29

I was wrong....I thought Apple had made their case well and would win. I was right in that no matter what the ruling, it wouldn't change my opinion (or anyone else's).

It will be interesting to see if this makes it to the Supreme Court.

[fjtorres]

From cnet:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-575...-books-prices/

"There is, at the end of the day, very little dispute about many of the most material facts in this case," Judge Cote wrote in her ruling.

Translation: lots of smoke and mirrors, no significant legal issue at stake.

The only case Apple made was that Amazon is eeeee-vile.

Took the judge two weeks instead of two months to dispense with the irrelevancies.

Now, on to SCOTUS.

[jgaiser]

Yep.. Apple won't go quietly into the night.

[AnemicOak]

I think we have four threads where this is being discussed now?


A link to the full decision...
http://nysd.uscourts.gov/cases/show....special&id=306