DOJ suing Apple over ebooks.

[jgaiser]

Originally Posted by howyoudoin

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to ProfCrash again.

'Sall right.. Took care of for you.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by ProfCrash

Three Publishers settled. As part of the settlement, they are each going to pay $51 million. So, half the defendents have agreed to wrong doing and are taking a decent size financial hit in the process.

I have always understood that you do not agree to wrong doing when settling. You settle because you think the odds are to bad and loosing will cost more.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by tompe

I have always understood that you do not agree to wrong doing when settling. You settle because you think the odds are to bad and loosing will cost more.

Depends on the terms of the settlement. You might agree to stipulate some specific wrongdoings, just not the full extent of whatever you're being accused of. But often, yes; a settlement is not an admission of guilt.

[sabredog]

http://www.teleread.com/paul-biba/th...s-joe-konrath/

Joe Konrath weighs in again...

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

How have Amazon broken the law?
And if they haven't, how can there be uneven enforcement of the law they haven't broken?

Quite a few people think Amazon engaged in predatory pricing to drive out ( or keep out) competitors.
Predatory pricing has become difficult to prosecute because of recent Supreme Court cases. At least one analyst argued that played role in DOJ ignoring Amazon.

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Depends on the terms of the settlement. You might agree to stipulate some specific wrongdoings, just not the full extent of whatever you're being accused of. But often, yes; a settlement is not an admission of guilt.

THE publishers all put out statements denying wrongdoing, and saying that they settled for "business" reasons

[DiapDealer]

THE publishers all put out statements denying wrongdoing, and saying that they settled for "business" reasons

Oh, well then it must be true.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by sabredog

http://www.teleread.com/paul-biba/th...s-joe-konrath/

Joe Konrath weighs in again...

Excellent and the linked blog is great too:

http://aprillhamilton.blogspot.com/2...-lets-get.html

[jgaiser]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Quite a few people think Amazon engaged in predatory pricing to drive out ( or keep out) competitors.
Predatory pricing has become difficult to prosecute because of recent Supreme Court cases. At least one analyst argued that played role in DOJ ignoring Amazon.

You're a peach. Quite a few people think ... At least one analyst argued ...

“If you’re weak on the facts and strong on the law, pound the law. If you’re weak on the law and strong on the facts, pound the facts. If you’re weak on both, pound the table.” -- Oliver Wendell Holmes

[ScalyFreak]

Originally Posted by MrsJoseph

You know, I really hate it when people assume that someone else is "wealthy" because of a few items that they happen to see. It's like people have never heard of sacrificing for things that are important to them before. I bought a new bookcase this weekend. Does that mean I'm rich? No. It means that I've been saving up for bookcases for months on end and finally found the ones that look right and fit in my budget.

I would give you karma but I can't right now.

Did it for you. Because you're absolutely right and I completely agree with you.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Oh, well then it must be true.

What is true is that they have not admitted any wrongdoing which was the issue here.

[John F]

A comment from Kobo:

... Serbinis also revealed that thanks to the acquisition of Kobo by the giant Japanese e-commerce company Rakuten, Kobo now had its own “nuclear deterrent” should Amazon begin to cut e-book prices aggressively. ...

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by ProfCrash

Three Publishers settled. As part of the settlement, they are each going to pay $51 million. So, half the defendents have agreed to wrong doing and are taking a decent size financial hit in the process.

ProfCrash, you are wrong about the settlers agreeing that they did wrong. They didn't. The settlement is very clear that there is no admission of wrongdoing and that the settlers decided that it was in their shareholders' best interests not to spend the millions of dollars necessary to defend the lawsuits. In fact, at least one of the settling CEOs stated pointedly that there was no law breaking, no coluusion, no wrong doing. Settling was just a business economic decision.

We can imply/assume/believe that they must believe there was wrongdoing or they wouldn't have settled, but that doesn't make it so. In civil actions, which this is, as opposed to criminal actions, which this isn't, economics plays a bigger role than right or wrong in corporate decisions.

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by ProfCrash

So Random House can keep Agency Pricing. I doubt it will because its books will probably be more expensive then the other Publishers.

I see no reason for Random House to abandon agency pricing for competitive reasons. It is the only publisher of the specific books it publishes and either consumers want to read the book or they don't. It is not as if 3 publishers all publish the same Stephen King novel and have to compete on price.

The only way it would matter is if every book by the other publishers was sold at, say, $10 and RH books were $13. It might not look good for RH even though the books are not interchangeable. But not all of the books published by the other publishers will be sold for $10; pricing will be all over the map, just as it has been in the past.

[JoeD]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

It's like the DoJ is saying "it was illegal for you to talk to one another, but what you were doing was legal, and we're going to stop you from doing it anyway."

It's not like that, it IS that.

The publishers (if guilty) went about it the wrong way. They went (allegedly) the illegal route. The DOJ have no way of knowing if non-collusion would have still enabled the publishers to reach an agency model. The publishers think it wouldn't as none of them were willing to move without the other. Why should they be rewarded for taking an illegal short-cut to getting to a new sales model. Whether it's for the good of the industry or not, those publishers if guilty should not be allowed to continue under the terms obtained through collusion.