Amazon vs. Hachette Update - It's About Price

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

It may be deep, but it's also not what I said.

So sorry. How about:

"The people who don't talk about book pricing, don't talk about book pricing."

"I know everyone in the not-on-MR "traditional groups" and they don't actively deride each other over book pricing."

"The tiny subset of readers I personally know tend not to deride each other over book pricing methods."

Or my personal favorite:
"I have no idea how--or even if--people not on MobileRead (as a whole) discuss book pricing, so it was silly of me to suggest that I might."

Even if you're right; all you've said is; "People who don't care, don't care. People who DO care, tend to get testy with each other when discussing." Like I said. Deep.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Why? Do you oppose mark up in every other product? Way back when I was a teenager, working in fast food, I was shocked to see how little a large coke cost the retailer compared to what it was sold for. Have you checked out the difference in price for a can of Coke in a vending machine verses a QuickTrip verses a grocery store? The difference in the cost of a liter of Coke and a can of Coke isn't the difference in cost between producing the two products.

I favor the same pricing structure with other consumer products.

[Shane R]

Sometimes I think TubeMonkey has his money crazyglued to his wallet.

:-)

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by Shane R

Sometimes I think TubeMonkey has his money crazyglued to his wallet.

:-)

Maybe he likes shades of green. At least in Europe it would be multi colored. Oh well, the new bills start to have a little more color now ...

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by rhadin

No, that is incorrect. The agency pricing was never illegal. Only the collusion to bring it about industrywide and simultaneously.

Nice try, but no. We will have to agree to disagree. I basically said what you said (I highlighted it in bold). It was in response to "they were in their right to want agency pricing" - and no they weren't since they colluded about it to raise prices. If they colluded and enforced lower prices on the consumer, the DoJ would not have given 2 hoots about it.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

Nice try, but no. We will have to agree to disagree. I basically said what you said (I highlighted it in bold). It was in response to "they were in their right to want agency pricing" - and no they weren't since they colluded about it to raise prices. If they colluded and enforced lower prices on the consumer, the DoJ would not have given 2 hoots about it.

I'm afraid you'll have to agree to disagree with reality in this case.
Duckie, by your reasoning, it's illegal for BPH's to use email because they used it to collude.
Several normal business activities are now being monitored because of the verdict. That does not mean that those activities are illegal, or not within their rights to do, or to be avoided because of unwanted attention. Only that they must be careful to use those normal activities for legal purposes, just like everyone else.


I do disagree with you about the lower prices collusion. I can't really see how it could happen, or how it could be in the conspirators best interests, but if there ever was a case of colluding to fix lower prices IN A WAY THAT WAS HARMFUL TO COMPETITION, which is what these laws are concerned with, IIUC, I believe it would be as likely to be prosecuted as any other case.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by ApK

I'm afraid you'll have to agree to disagree with reality in this case.
Duckie, by your reasoning, it's illegal for BPH's to use email because they used it to collude.

Collusion by definition does mean that you talked together and freewilly agreed to break the law together which you could not do by yourself. Using email to collude is still illegal no matter how you twist it, because you colluded, not that you talked through email.
From http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/collusion :

collusion n. where two persons (or business entities through their officers or other employees) enter into a deceitful agreement, usually secret, to defraud and/or gain an unfair advantage over a third party, competitors, consumers or those with whom they are negotiating. Collusion can include secret price or wage fixing, secret rebates, or pretending to be independent of each other when actually conspiring together for their joint ends. It can range from small-town shopkeepers or heirs to a grandma's estate, to gigantic electronics companies or big league baseball team owners.

Originally Posted by ApK

Several normal business activities are now being monitored because of the verdict. That does not mean that those activities are illegal, or not within their rights to do, or to be avoided because of unwanted attention. Only that they must be careful to use those normal activities for legal purposes, just like everyone else.

Right, I don't disagree. And it probably is annoying if monitoring is now more strict to prevent or detect illegal activities such as cullusion. If Hachette, for example, sets the precedent to push hard for agency pricing in order for the other publishers to have more power in their negotioations - that could raise an eyebrow or two. But then, of course, it is entirely possible that

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Hachette and Amazon may have agreed on day one about whether or not to go back to agency, and now are on to something else. And according to the best informed source on this I can find, the dispute between Amazon and Hachette is indeed about something else.

If that is true, then Hachette has nothing to worry about sticking to agency pricing and being accused of colluding with the other publishers about that again. Negotiations happen behind closed doors - what we hear about it is only the bits and pieces that are meant to surface in big and nasty PR stunts. It keeps everybody guessing what the real problem is about. Even bad PR can be good PR as long as you are in the press and are being talked about.

Originally Posted by ApK

I do disagree with you about the lower prices collusion. I can't really see how it could happen, or how it could be in the conspirators best interests, but if there ever was a case of colluding to fix lower prices IN A WAY THAT WAS HARMFUL TO COMPETITION, which is what these laws are concerned with, IIUC, I believe it would be as likely to be prosecuted as any other case.

In that case under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act agency pricing would fall under price fixing and be prosecuted as such. Except not everything under this act is being prosecuted. See monopolies for example, under the Sherman Act ANY monopoly would be illegal, but not every monopoly will be prosecuted:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...m/Price+Fixing

Although the language of the Sherman Act forbids all monopolies, the courts have held that the act only applies to those monopolies attained through abused or unfair power. Monopolies that have been created through efficient, competitive behavior are not illegal under the Sherman Act, as long as honest methods have been employed.

Now agency pricing has been found to be not illegal. So the fact that it is harmful for competition (no retailer can be cheaper than another retailer for the same title) is off the table. That leaves the part of the Sherman Act that prevents price fixing for the consumer. If same principle applies as for monopolies, then I may reasonably conclude that the courts will only act upon and prosecute harmful behavior to the consumer. Lower prices would not be harmful, imo.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

Right, I don't disagree.

It's your insistence on referring to the agency pricing as 'illegal.' that is making it sound like you are disagreeing when all your explanations seem to say you are not disagreeing.

You say:

In that case under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act agency pricing would fall under price fixing and be prosecuted as such.

but if they had colluded to fix wholesale prices then it would be:

In that case under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act wholesale pricing would fall under price fixing and be prosecuted as such.

and if they had colluded to fixed direct sales prices then it would be:

In that case under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act direct sales pricing would fall under price fixing and be prosecuted as such.

See? The agency pricing element is irrelevant and not at issue, and we can't understand why you insist on saying it's illegal, when you seem to be clearly saying that you understand it is not.
Why are you insisting on using the misleading language?

Except not everything under this act is being prosecuted.

EVERYTHING is never prosecuted under any law. We'd need a court system 1000 times bigger, and how could MORE LAWYERS be good for anyone?

See monopolies for example, under the Sherman Act ANY monopoly would be illegal, but not every monopoly will be prosecuted:
[...]

You are confusing "seeming to be illegal by the language of the law" with "proven to be illegal in case law."
(I'm pretty I'm using the term 'case law' correctly here. The lawyers about can correct me if I'm wrong.)

You say "all monopolies are illegal under the act" but then you later quote evidence that states "not all monopolies are illegal under the act."
"Would seem to be illegal" is not the same thing as "is illegal" especially when the courts have already established otherwise. There are LEGAL monopolies.
While it's probably true that even some illegal monopolies go under the courts radar from lack of resources just like with anything else, it says nothing about anything to say that LEGAL monopolies are not prosecuted. That's obvious.

Now agency pricing has been found to be not illegal.

There was never any question that it was, as far as I know.

then I may reasonably conclude that the courts will only act upon and prosecute harmful behavior to the consumer. Lower prices would not be harmful, imo.

You would be mistaken. It's not just the consumer that is protected by these laws, it's the businesses and the market economy as well.
Predatory pricing is an example of when lower prices to the consumer are indeed illegal and prosecuted under these laws.
I just can't happen to think of a situation where collusion to set lower prices across the board would be a realistic scenario.

ApK

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

So sorry. How about:

"The people who don't talk about book pricing, don't talk about book pricing."

"I know everyone in the not-on-MR "traditional groups" and they don't actively deride each other over book pricing."

"The tiny subset of readers I personally know tend not to deride each other over book pricing methods."

Or my personal favorite:
"I have no idea how--or even if--people not on MobileRead (as a whole) discuss book pricing, so it was silly of me to suggest that I might."

Even if you're right; all you've said is; "People who don't care, don't care. People who DO care, tend to get testy with each other when discussing." Like I said. Deep.

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. It's certainly doesn't reflect anything that I wrote.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. It's certainly doesn't reflect anything that I wrote.

Sure you do. And it certainly does. You made a silly unverifiable claim: that when examined closely, says nothing, anyway.

The difference is that the traditional groups don't actively deride each other and insist that their way is the one and only true way to price books.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. It's certainly doesn't reflect anything that I wrote.

"The first time someone calls you a horse you punch him on the nose. The second time someone calls you a horse you call him a jerk. But the third time someone calls you a horse, well then perhaps it's time to go shopping for a saddle."

-- The Rabbi, "Lucky Number Slevin"

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by ApK

"The first time someone calls you a horse you punch him on the nose. The second time someone calls you a horse you call him a jerk. But the third time someone calls you a horse, well then perhaps it's time to go shopping for a saddle."

-- The Rabbi, "Lucky Number Slevin"

That's why I eat bananas

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by ApK

It's your insistence on referring to the agency pricing as 'illegal.' that is making it sound like you are disagreeing when all your explanations seem to say you are not disagreeing. [...]
The agency pricing element is irrelevant and not at issue, and we can't understand why you insist on saying it's illegal, when you seem to be clearly saying that you understand it is not.
Why are you insisting on using the misleading language?

Not misleading, simple a shortcut. Enforcing agency pricing all at once in order to uniformly and instantly raise the prices of ebooks is the bad part. Not just one publisher, but several all at once. If it wasn't for Apple the publishers could not have pulled it off at the same instant. Apple just gave them the means to do away with the heavy discounts Amazon was giving. The publishers all agreed that they did not like it, they just could not legally do anything about it. So they gave in and let Apple help them do it illegally (by means of collusion).

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

"The readers who don't go online and talk about book pricing on internet forums never argue and deride each other over book pricing."

That's deep, man.

EDIT: Crap! I broke my own new rule about not giving two hoots about Multinational X vs Multinational Y. And my complexion was starting to clear up nicely, too.

You haven't done so that I can see, you just gave a hoot or two about a really weird comparison by a professional maker of FUD.

Unless you mean by reading this thread at all.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

Not misleading

See Rabbi quote above.

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

Enforcing agency pricing all at once in order to uniformly and instantly raise the prices of ebooks is the bad part.

No!

All colluding to set the prices was the bad part!

It had NOTHING to do with agency pricing, whether individually or as a group, at the same time or staggered over weeks. None of that is any more relevant to what was illegal than is the fact they used email or that they did it on a Tuesday.

It would have been the same if they did it though wholesale pricing or direct pricing. I don't understand why you are arguing about this?

ETA: I propose a compromise, so we can get past this silliness: You stop saying agency pricing is illegal, and I'll stop arguing with you about it.