Publishers Claim Apple Order Illegally Hobbles Return to Agency Model

[Connallmac]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

It is standard procedure for many companies to enter into a settlement to avoid the uncertainly and expense of a trial.

It's also a common practice for companies that want to avoid the discovery phase of a trial.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Quite frankly, I really didn't care how this case turned out. I'm quite cynical about our legal system and outcomes are frequently based on who's running the show versus the actual merits of a case.

That said; when a company charges too much for a product, I quit buying that product and seek a less expensive alternative. I don't like agency pricing and refuse to buy those books. I don't care if agency pricing gets re-instated or not; it won't affect me. There's always something else to read.

I thought you don't buy anything except freebies anyway?

[jersysman]

That's why the Monkey doesn't care about Agency pricing because he won't be buying them anyway.

[eschwartz]

Monkey sez: "I don't like agency pricing and refuse to buy those books."

Monkey ALSO sez: I only buy freebies.

Stira minei u'bei.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Connallmac

It's also a common practice for companies that want to avoid the discovery phase of a trial.

Mostly because it's a common tactic to use the discovery phase to harass the other party and drive up the expense by making outrageous demands. Some judges are finally starting to crack down on this.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

I thought you don't buy anything except freebies anyway?

Originally Posted by jersysman

That's why the Monkey doesn't care about Agency pricing because he won't be buying them anyway.

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Monkey sez: "I don't like agency pricing and refuse to buy those books."

Monkey ALSO sez: I only buy freebies.

Stira minei u'bei.

Except, I do buy books with credits I get from Amazon. Since Agency titles are priced higher, I wouldn't get them. Instead, I'd get something more reasonably priced.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Except, I do buy books with credits I get from Amazon. Since Agency titles are priced higher, I wouldn't get them. Instead, I'd get something more reasonably priced.

OK then. Mystery solved.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Ever? As in centuries? Wouldn't this be punishing the children for the father's sins?

As for simplicity, I question that. For one thing, it would lead to a long period of litigation concerning to whom it applies after mergers and divestitures.

Another problem is that after a decade or two, the dividing line between a book and a video and a video game will likely blur or change, again leading to legal uncertainty and and a drawn out process of developing case law.

Yet another difficulty is determination of what sorts of retail price maintenance rise to the level of agency. Personally, I think that retail price maintenance and agency are essentially the same, but most people seem to disagree.

The beauty of making the restrictions temporary is that almost all the above problems don't have time to crop up.

To me, it's unfair to single out one industry for permanent retail price maintenance prohibition. And if the prohibition is going to apply to all products, the cost of enforcement would be substantial.

However, I have a more modest proposal that I think could achieve some of what you want while being cheaper to enforce. Pass a law stating that all commercial agreements between retailers and suppliers be put on the retailer's web site. Putting out there, on the web, written minimum price agreements would be embarrassing, so there would be fewer such agreements.

Assuming that they were bad or illegal agreements, that anyone read them, understood them and cared enough to protest, and that they were actually put on the websites without a lot of legal enforcement maybe.

I see a lot of product conditional pricing and caveats that annoy me on physical products themselves, and I know the Australians see more, but I have yet to get out the picket signs even metaphorically . Have you?

Helen

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Quite frankly, I really didn't care how this case turned out. I'm quite cynical about our legal system and outcomes are frequently based on who's running the show versus the actual merits of a case.

That said; when a company charges too much for a product, I quit buying that product and seek a less expensive alternative. I don't like agency pricing and refuse to buy those books. I don't care if agency pricing gets re-instated or not; it won't affect me. There's always something else to read.

I agree for the most part, although perhaps monkeys over think these things and are not as simple as they would have us believe. Most people wouldn't know what agency pricing was if it came up and bit them.

Most of my life, I just paid the cover price of the book printed on the spine. Of course I could have trundled around to every bookstore in town in hopes of saving a buck or two, but I seemed to have better things to do.

If there was a big sale I would buy books and that was good, but mostly I just bought the book I wanted when I wanted it or went to the library.

Back before ebooks, prices were pretty standard. At one time all of the anthologies by different publishers were pretty much the same (usually exactly the same) There were variations of course, but more often book prices by genre and size were pretty standard. Were they all colluding? Perhaps but more likely competing.

Definitely collusion was going on and I think this was both stupid and wrong. But agency (consistent) pricing is often a matter of competition and not always exorbitant. And someone will soon drop the price barrier lower and chances are all prices will be lower

Most of the grocery stores I shop at all charge the same prices for the same type of product, and electronics stores, drugstores etc. but sales occur and bargains can be found. I'm pretty thrifty, but if I want something I will buy it even if it is the same price in every store.

Helen

[frahse]

Talk about "market leaders."

Apple certainly leads in "chicanery!"

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

Definitely collusion was going on and I think this was both stupid and wrong. But agency (consistent) pricing is often a matter of competition and not always exorbitant. And someone will soon drop the price barrier lower and chances are all prices will be lower.

In this case prices definitely went up -- just as Jobs announced before the fact.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by frahse

Talk about "market leaders."

Apple certainly leads in "chicanery!"

Definitely.