Literary elites v. Amazon: yes, it's class warfare

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

Who cares about initially? You are still hoping that Apple will turn over on appeal. And I hope they don't. And even if Apple magically overturns, it changes nothing in regard of Amazon.

You are clutching at straws when you want Apple to use Microsoft as precedent when it comes to impartiality of judge.

You should read a bit more carefully. No where do I say that Apple should use Microsoft as precedent when it comes to impartiality of judge. Lack of impartiality has been grounds for appeal for a very long time. Anyway, given that Apple filed their appeal last winter/spring and I didn't see any mention in the posted appeal, it's somewhat too late for me to "want Apple to use Microsoft as precedent" regardless. What I am pointing out is that there are a lot of parallels between the two cases. The basic facts of the Microsoft case (that Microsoft was bundling a browser for free while others were trying to sell browsers) are rather different the basic facts in the Apple case (that Apple proposed moving to an agency model rather than a wholesale model).

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

Making a complaint to government isn't, without more, crony capitalism. What evidence do you have that there was malfeasance on the part of Amazon or the Department of Justice? In Canada, groups make filings all the time to the Competition Bureau to make them aware of anticompetitive behaviour; of course they do it selfishly, but it's for the Bureau and the courts to determine if there's merit. That's a well-functioning system, not the subplot of a Tom Clancy book.

Reimagining the publishers' price fixing conspiracy as the result of a nefarious scheme by Amazon, aided by the federal government, seems a little silly unless you have more compelling evidence to offer than the fact that your "team" got its wrist slapped and you don't like Amazon.

Just so I'm clear: An opinion piece in the WSJ isn't great evidence of anything. Particularly given the fact that the WSJ is owned by News Corp., which also happens to own Harper Collins.

Bonus

I love this part of the WSJ article:

"The larger point is that the executive and judicial branches intervened to aid Amazon, a quasi-monopolist incumbent at a crucial competitive juncture amid the shift to digital from print, preventing a market resolution."

I'm not sure that I can feel bad that the publishers' illegal collusion was found out about at an inconvenient time for them. Whether or not Amazon is a monopoly or quasi-monopoly is irrelevant to the fact that the publishers were engaged in illegal activity.

Making a complaint isn't crony capitalism, getting more attention because you gave to the party in power is crony capitalism. I'm not claiming malfeasance, I'm claiming favoritism, which happens all the time and is the major reason that companies donate to political parties and have lobbying offices in Washington DC.

Are you saying that the meat of the article, that David Zapolsky submitted a confidential white paper to the Federal Trade Commission and Justice's antitrust division is untrue?

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Resetting wholesale prices would've been easier and saved them from the legal nightmare they got themselves into.

Is it really a nightmare?

I wonder if the conspiring firms saw profits decline, relative to other publishers and computer companies, in the wake of the settlements. My hypothesis is no.

One problem with civil antitrust is that real punishment would hurt average to low paid company employees most. As a result, civil penalties are too low to bite.

Now, there is such a thing as criminal antitrust. I'm glad the publishing executives who went to the infamous conspiracy dinner didn't get hit with it, on grounds of generally disliking prisons. But I don't know why the publishing executives were exempt. Would they have dared indict the arguable chief conspirator, Steve Jobs, if he had lived? Didn't think so. See:

Antitrust Division 2013 Criminal Enforcement Update

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Making a complaint isn't crony capitalism, getting more attention because you gave to the party in power is crony capitalism. I'm not claiming malfeasance, I'm claiming favoritism, which happens all the time and is the major reason that companies donate to political parties and have lobbying offices in Washington DC.

Are you saying that the meat of the article, that David Zapolsky submitted a confidential white paper to the Federal Trade Commission and Justice's antitrust division is untrue?

I'm not saying it's untrue, I'm saying that that fact alone isn't particularly interesting.

I've worked for a number of companies in industries that have issued reports to governments, sent in comments during government consultation processes on amending or enacting laws and helped with amicus briefs during court proceedings. It's an appropriate way for governments and courts to understand complex issues, and those submissions aren't evidence of any wrongdoing or favouritism. At the end of the day, it's governments and courts that make the decisions.

Also, what's your evidence of favoritism, or of favouritism skewing the result? Not even the WSJ article you pointed to claimed favouritism or crony capitalism.

[Rizla]

The perception that Amazon is on the side of readers or authors anymore than publishing houses is absurd. What Amazon do they do to suit themselves. It might suit you today and it might not suit you tomorrow. There is nothing altruistic about any of them.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by Rizla

The perception that Amazon is on the side of readers or authors anymore than publishing houses is absurd. What Amazon do they do to suit themselves. It might suit you today and it might not suit you tomorrow. There is nothing altruistic about any of them.

Then it is a good thing we never expected them to be anything but self-serving.

The "subtle" point you may have missed is that Amazon currently recognizes that doing what's best for them means imitating altruism. Which means that readers currently enjoy buying through Amazon, at what we consider fair prices, with no obligation to keep buying if one day all the what-ifs come true, and writers enjoy publishing through Amazon while keeping their rights to pull their wares at any time and retain full ownership.

[joblack]

Some author fat cats complaining about falling prices.

I couldn't care less.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

I'm not saying it's untrue, I'm saying that that fact alone isn't particularly interesting.

I've worked for a number of companies in industries that have issued reports to governments, sent in comments during government consultation processes on amending or enacting laws and helped with amicus briefs during court proceedings. It's an appropriate way for governments and courts to understand complex issues, and those submissions aren't evidence of any wrongdoing or favouritism. At the end of the day, it's governments and courts that make the decisions.

Also, what's your evidence of favoritism, or of favouritism skewing the result? Not even the WSJ article you pointed to claimed favouritism or crony capitalism.

Are you claiming that Amazon's white paper got the same level of attention as some missive from Joe the Plummer? According to the article, much of the Government's narrative was lifted from Amazon's white paper. Crony capitalism is basically government doing favors for a company. Extending the copyright law to make sure that Mickey never goes out of copyright is crony capitalism.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Are you claiming that Amazon's white paper got the same level of attention as some missive from Joe the Plummer? According to the article, much of the Government's narrative was lifted from Amazon's white paper. Crony capitalism is basically government doing favors for a company. Extending the copyright law to make sure that Mickey never goes out of copyright is crony capitalism.

And "Amazon alerted the government to a serious issue, and the DoJ agreed with Amazon's understanding based on their own analysis" is just as valid an interpretation.

Honestly, I would be very worried if the DoJ agreed with Amazon and yet overlooked the supporting rhetoric that Amazon provided -- it would show a lack of intelligence that would say worrying things about my government.

It would be a problem if the DoJ disagreed with Amazon, but ruled in their favor anyway. And they could do that with their own handmade unique arguments as well.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by joblack

Some author fat cats complaining about falling prices.

If you are talking about the thousand or so authors who signed on to those anti-Amazon newspaper ads, or petitioned the Amazon board, I suspect their median incomes are well below those of people who buy new hardcovers, or eBooks, during the first year or two after release. And, yes, I do realize that some people with below-average incomes (at least in high GDP countries) spend a lot of their low incomes on books. Some of those people are authors!

I believe that self-publishing Amazon loyalists also likely have below-average median incomes.

Even authors who make an occasional appearance in the bottom half of the bestseller list are far from fat cats. Author, and fat cat, don't really go together.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

If you are talking about the thousand or so authors who signed on to those anti-Amazon newspaper ads, or petitioned the Amazon board, I suspect their median incomes are well below those of people who buy new hardcovers, or eBooks, during the first year or two after release. And, yes, I do realize that some people with below-average incomes (at least in high GDP countries) spend a lot of their low incomes on books. Some of those people are authors!

I believe that self-publishing Amazon loyalists also likely have below-average median incomes.

Even authors who make an occasional appearance in the bottom half of the bestseller list are far from fat cats. Author, and fat cat, don't really go together.

But their standard-bearer and Prime Mover is Douglas Preston...

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

I believe that self-publishing Amazon loyalists also likely have below-average median incomes.

Seriously?

I mean, you actually believe that?

Wow, you must be an elitist snob with that kind of attitude.

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Are you claiming that Amazon's white paper got the same level of attention as some missive from Joe the Plummer? According to the article, much of the Government's narrative was lifted from Amazon's white paper. Crony capitalism is basically government doing favors for a company. Extending the copyright law to make sure that Mickey never goes out of copyright is crony capitalism.

I asked for evidence, not speculation.

Perhaps the DOJ would have responded to a similar complaint made by Joe the Plumber, if that complain described a real, substantive issue. The fact that the DOJ acted on a complaint, and applied the legal analysis of the complainant (after conducting its own analysis) isn't evidence of crony capitalism, just evidence that Amazon's complaint highlighted a substantive breach of the law and their lawyers did a good job in describe the current state of the law.

Evidently there must have been some merit in Amazon's complaint, since a judge agreed that illegal collusion on he part of the publishers had occurred. Or was the judge also doing favours for Amazon?

From this thread, I think we've all learned that "crony capitalism", means someone you don't like getting a favourable result at court, regardless of the facts or merits of the case.

[darryl]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Are you claiming that Amazon's white paper got the same level of attention as some missive from Joe the Plummer? According to the article, much of the Government's narrative was lifted from Amazon's white paper. Crony capitalism is basically government doing favors for a company. Extending the copyright law to make sure that Mickey never goes out of copyright is crony capitalism.

When someone commits a crime, you report it to the Police, who take your statement.

Are you seriously suggesting that Amazon should not have complained about the reprehensible conduct of Apple and the BWM?

[darryl]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Even authors who make an occasional appearance in the bottom half of the bestseller list are far from fat cats. Author, and fat cat, don't really go together.

I agree with you on this one, Steve. Authors cannot generally be regarded as "fat cats". I thought that term was mostly reserved for those making enormous salaries perceived to be doing little to earn their money. Writing books cannot possibly fall into this category.