Indies on Amazon Kindle Only

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Amazon better hope that the Bork approach is the controlling approach since their market share with regards to ebooks makes it likely they would be guilty of a per se violation on any attempt to squeeze suppliers.

Of course, that is a bunch of bologna. Neither approach makes it likely for Amazon to be guilty under their current practices. Name a single, valid, reason why Amazon is even close to squeezing a supplier.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

Of course, that is a bunch of bologna. Neither approach makes it likely for Amazon to be guilty under their current practices. Name a single, valid, reason why Amazon is even close to squeezing a supplier.

Seriously, you ask how a company that removed the buy button from the publisher they were in a contract negotiation with is even close to squeezing a supplier?

[darryl]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Seriously, you ask how a company that removed the buy button from the publisher they were in a contract negotiation with is even close to squeezing a supplier?

Yet the company concerned did nothing about it but bleat pitifully to the press. Whilst neglecting to mention their status as a price fixing conspirator. It took no legal action, anti-trust or otherwise. I wonder why not?

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by darryl

Yet the company concerned did nothing about it but bleat pitifully to the press. Whilst neglecting to mention their status as a price fixing conspirator. It took no legal action, anti-trust or otherwise. I wonder why not?

You really think that the DOJ at the time would have taken any action against Amazon? Amazon has the largest lobbying presence of any company in the US. The administration at the time was very much in love with Amazon. The current administration isn't so much in love with Amazon.

Federal prosecution in such cases is as much a political act as it is a civil or criminal act. US Attorney (i.e. Federal prosecutor) is a political office, not a civil service office. The Attorney General is an appointed post. Why is Qualcom being charged with Anti-trust now for actions that they have been doing for years? Answer, a different administration with different priorities.

[darryl]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

You really think that the DOJ at the time would have taken any action against Amazon? Amazon has the largest lobbying presence of any company in the US. The administration at the time was very much in love with Amazon. The current administration isn't so much in love with Amazon.

Federal prosecution in such cases is as much a political act as it is a civil or criminal act. US Attorney (i.e. Federal prosecutor) is a political office, not a civil service office. The Attorney General is an appointed post. Why is Qualcom being charged with Anti-trust now for actions that they have been doing for years? Answer, a different administration with different priorities.

But they could have taken action themselves if they actually had a case. If they won they would get treble damages plus attorney's fees. Quite an incentive. Unless of course you don't have a case.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by darryl

But they could have taken action themselves if they actually had a case. If they won they would get treble damages plus attorney's fees. Quite an incentive. Unless of course you don't have a case.

There is a reason that one rarely sees non governmental anti-trust suits in the US. You see a lot of pile on suits, but most companies file a complaint with the FTC or DOJ rather than actually file a suit themselves against another company. The publishers had earlier complained about Amazon to the DOJ and nothing happened. No reason to think that the DOJ under the previous administration would have taken any action about that either.

Publicizing Amazon's actions and fighting Amazon in the court of public opinion was the smart thing to do. That's what they did, and it worked quite well. The various publishers are in business to make money. The correct response isn't always to sue.

[darryl]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

There is a reason that one rarely sees non governmental anti-trust suits in the US. You see a lot of pile on suits, but most companies file a complaint with the FTC or DOJ rather than actually file a suit themselves against another company. The publishers had earlier complained about Amazon to the DOJ and nothing happened. No reason to think that the DOJ under the previous administration would have taken any action about that either.

Publicizing Amazon's actions and fighting Amazon in the court of public opinion was the smart thing to do. That's what they did, and it worked quite well. The various publishers are in business to make money. The correct response isn't always to sue.

It was certainly the right thing to do. The world would have been deprived of Joe Konrath's fisking efforts had they believed they could succeed in Court. No doubt some people simply accepted their propaganda. But in many circles it was widely ridiculed. And their Amazon problem remains today. Duckie is correct.

Amazon has now faced a hostile administration for some time, yet the DOJ has taken no action. If Amazon is breaching anti-trust laws, why not? But if the DOJ won't, the Big 5 has shown they have no problems colluding so their solution is simple. Get together and sue Amazon. An easy award of treble damages and attorney fees! Injunctions restraining the offending conduct in future. A Judge might even appoint someone to supervise future compliance as happened with Apple. What on earth could be stopping them? Why be deterred by the minor detail that they have no case? They had none when they entered into the conspiracy, but did so anyway.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by darryl

It was certainly the right thing to do. The world would have been deprived of Joe Konrath's fisking efforts had they believed they could succeed in Court. No doubt some people simply accepted their propaganda. But in many circles it was widely ridiculed. And their Amazon problem remains today. Duckie is correct.

Amazon has now faced a hostile administration for some time, yet the DOJ has taken no action. If Amazon is breaching anti-trust laws, why not? But if the DOJ won't, the Big 5 has shown they have no problems colluding so their solution is simple. Get together and sue Amazon. An easy award of treble damages and attorney fees! Injunctions restraining the offending conduct in future. A Judge might even appoint someone to supervise future compliance as happened with Apple. What on earth could be stopping them? Why be deterred by the minor detail that they have no case? They had none when they entered into the conspiracy, but did so anyway.

So what has Amazon done to the big 5 since the new administration? Amazon signed contracts with the Big 5 years ago and basically gave them everything they wanted. Why would the Big 5 sue? That's just silly.

As far as indie writers suing because Amazon is changing the terms on them, or 3rd parties suing because Amazon is cutting off access (such as authoralert), most of them don't have the resources to go against Amazon.

I personally don't think they would win anyway, but then again, if you go back and look at what I actually said rather than what is being projected by others, I said that Amazon needs to be careful when they squeeze their suppliers. No more, no less.

My point is that the current administration won't give them a flier like the previous administration did. Remember several judges during the Apple trial said that they thought that Amazon likely was engaged in an anti-trust violation, but that Amazon was not the company on trial. Jacobs came out and said as much in his opinion. Heck, even Cote acknowledged it in passing.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I personally don't think they would win anyway, but then again, if you go back and look at what I actually said rather than what is being projected by others, I said that Amazon needs to be careful when they squeeze their suppliers. No more, no less.

(Bold mine). You are confusing your own opinion (ungrounded) with what the real lawyers and judges should agree with. By repeating, on your part, that Amazon is unfairly squeezing, does not make it so. You bring up Hachette? Laughable. Amazon did not remove buy buttons. They removed pre order buttons on books that were not even for sale yet. It could even be argued that Amazon did Hachette a solid favor by not removing the buy buttons from actual books for sale.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

(Bold mine). You are confusing your own opinion (ungrounded) with what the real lawyers and judges should agree with. By repeating, on your part, that Amazon is unfairly squeezing, does not make it so. You bring up Hachette? Laughable. Amazon did not remove buy buttons. They removed pre order buttons on books that were not even for sale yet. It could even be argued that Amazon did Hachette a solid favor by not removing the buy buttons from actual books for sale.

Really? So, you don't consider the judges that I quoted as real judges? As far as Amazon's battle with Hachette, I fear your memory is somewhat selective.

https://www.businessinsider.com/how-...-start-2014-10

https://www.engadget.com/2014/08/25/...tte-explainer/

It also mentions that the authors and publishers urged the DOJ to investigate Amazon for anti-trust. Needless to say the DOJ under the previous administration declined to do so. If the same thing happened now, I doubt the restraint by the DOJ would occur.

[darryl]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Remember several judges during the Apple trial said that they thought that Amazon likely was engaged in an anti-trust violation, but that Amazon was not the company on trial. Jacobs came out and said as much in his opinion. Heck, even Cote acknowledged it in passing.

To which passages of which judgements are you referring to?

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Really? So, you don't consider the judges that I quoted as real judges? As far as Amazon's battle with Hachette, I fear your memory is somewhat selective.

https://www.businessinsider.com/how-...-start-2014-10

https://www.engadget.com/2014/08/25/...tte-explainer/

It also mentions that the authors and publishers urged the DOJ to investigate Amazon for anti-trust. Needless to say the DOJ under the previous administration declined to do so. If the same thing happened now, I doubt the restraint by the DOJ would occur.

You are bringing up the different administration again, as if the current one would have done different. Go ahead, doubt as much as you want.

Thanks of reminding me of the new low some authors scooped down to. That was quite embarrassing, for the authors at least. In the quoted article from you I still fail to see where Amazon removed the buy option of released books. It was business as usual. Normal contract negotiations. Both sides are big, both sides pushed, both sides came to an agreeable contract in the end. Everybody else learned from Hachette by not doing the same mistake and let the contract expire.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

You are bringing up the different administration again, as if the current one would have done different. Go ahead, doubt as much as you want.

Thanks of reminding me of the new low some authors scooped down to. That was quite embarrassing, for the authors at least. In the quoted article from you I still fail to see where Amazon removed the buy option of released books. It was business as usual. Normal contract negotiations. Both sides are big, both sides pushed, both sides came to an agreeable contract in the end. Everybody else learned from Hachette by not doing the same mistake and let the contract expire.

Every time a network and a cable/satellite company get into a catfight over contract renewal, the distributor pulls the plug on the channels in dispute. It is standard practice not to distribute something you are not contracted to distribute. It happens every time:

https://sports.yahoo.com/news/10-deg...43146-mlb.html

https://coxcommitment.com/what-others-are-saying/

https://www.latimes.com/business/hol...102-story.html

Amazon *didn't* stop distributing Hachette; they merely stopped warehousing the books for free and they stopped taking orders for books they had no assurance they would be able to sell. After all, with no contract, Hachette could refuse an order or choose to "window" Amazon the way TOR is blocking library ebooks today. If anytging, Amazon showed enormous patience and restraint with Hachette's stonewalling.

It should be noted that the DOJ did take note of the dispute: they asked all the BPHs for copies of any communications they had during the negotiation period, reminding them they couldn't coordinate negotiations again and that dragging their feet to synchronize their negotiation periods would be cause for deeper inquiry. S&S got the message real fast.

If squeezing suppliers is bad, suppliers squeezing retailers is far worse, especially when they collude to raise prices. Hachette dragging their feet was really an attempt at collusion 2.0 that the feds nipped in the bud.

All available evidence shows the DOJ is more concerned about illegal behavior by the BPHs than about anything Amazon has done.

As for the public hostility of the current administration it should be noted they haven't actually changed anything except, maybe, Amazon boosting their own delivery services.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/30/amaz...by-embark.html

Which started before 2016 and is already boosting their revenues:

https://www.ecommercebytes.com/2019/...n-q4-earnings/

There remains much speculation about Amazon competing with shipping carriers. Asked about Amazon delivery and Amazon logistics, the company said it has great partners in place, and said it would continue to build out its programs such as Amazon DSP (Delivery Service Partner), Amazon Flex, and Ship with Amazon programs.

During the quarter, Amazon self-delivery was a much bigger presence year-over-year, “so we’re happy with that both from a performance standpoint. The delivery estimate accuracy, as we call it, was very strong on our self-delivered products, and also the cost profile is very good as well.”

Amazon explained that it adds capacity where it feels is needed to speed up service or ensure demand, particularly at peak. (Geekwire has more info on Amazon fourth-quarter shipping costs in this piece. https://www.geekwire.com/2019/amazon...edium=webfeeds)

The company continues to expand its Amazon logistics and delivery capability and it also matches up with the faster ship speed for Prime members. “We have over 100 million items that customers could get within two days, but there’s now over 3 million that will be delivered within one day or faster in 10,000 cities and town.”

Amazon deliveries are a big part of that. Often it costs the same or less as using its outside shipping partners. Amazon invests selectively because it has more perfect information about where demand is and how it’s moving items – “by not involving third parties all the time, we can find that we can extend our order cut offs.”

As it stands, Amazon's biggest challenge isn't the feds, it's Microsoft:

https://www.nbcnews.com/business/bus...-spine-n966046

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

You are bringing up the different administration again, as if the current one would have done different. Go ahead, doubt as much as you want.

Thanks of reminding me of the new low some authors scooped down to. That was quite embarrassing, for the authors at least. In the quoted article from you I still fail to see where Amazon removed the buy option of released books. It was business as usual. Normal contract negotiations. Both sides are big, both sides pushed, both sides came to an agreeable contract in the end. Everybody else learned from Hachette by not doing the same mistake and let the contract expire.

Authors stoop to a new low by complaining about Amazon doing something that cut their sales in half? You and I have very different ideas about who stooped to the new low in that situation. Kind of funny given that prior to that, the narrative about Amazon was that they really cared about the authors. Don't hear that narrative much anymore.

Amazon is a large corporation that cares about it's profits, just like those nasty publishers. Bezos is on record for using the Walmart model of business which involves a focus on cost reduction techniques such as squeezing suppliers. It was very successful for Walmart and has been very successful for Amazon. It's made Bezos the richest man in the world.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Authors stoop to a new low by complaining about Amazon doing something that cut their sales in half? You and I have very different ideas about who stooped to the new low in that situation. Kind of funny given that prior to that, the narrative about Amazon was that they really cared about the authors. Don't hear that narrative much anymore.

Amazon is a large corporation that cares about it's profits, just like those nasty publishers. Bezos is on record for using the Walmart model of business which involves a focus on cost reduction techniques such as squeezing suppliers. It was very successful for Walmart and has been very successful for Amazon. It's made Bezos the richest man in the world.

Hmmm...Is Amazon really squeezing suppliers like Walmart does? In what way? When you say "suppliers" are you talking about the ones who sell on Amazon and store their product in Amazon's warehouses; or the ones who sell on Amazon and ship directly from their own warehouses; or the ones who sell products to Amazon at wholesale prices, and Amazon then sells at retail?

Shari