Apple eBook price fixing case going to court

[leebase]

Originally Posted by AnemicOak

Yeah, cause the facts that the Kindle 'just works' even for non-tech folks,...

The kindle is nice -- but not 90% marketshare nice. One can debate the 90% or how many books were sold below cost. What is missing in every "Amazon isn't that bad" argument is the publisher's reality. Whatever Amazon was doing, it was so bad that the publishers had to go to war with their number 1 customer.

Amazon wasn't just a retailer. Amazon was a retailer so powerful, that a publisher couldn't dare do without Amazon. Amazon showed the publishers worries to be well founded when Bezos completely eliminated all sales of all versions (paper and electronic) of all books for a publisher. If the publisher had been going it alone, the publisher would have suffered dire consequences. As it was...Amazon had to back down.

Amazon is the Walmart of the internet. Coming into small towns and using it's pricing to drive everyone else out of business. Amazon is not some champion of the people. They are every bit the greedy mega corporation that Apple is, that the Big 6 publishers are and that Walmart is.

The publishers do not have the power, even with Agency pricing, to price their books higher than the market will bear. No one has to buy a book. There are thousands and thousands of authors and independent publishers offering their books for cheap on Amazon. This is not heating oil, or milk or bread. There is no public harm in selling a James Patterson novel for $14.99 instead of $9.99.

There is great public harm in driving all the other book retailers out of business with predatory pricing.

[John F]

Originally Posted by leebase

...

It is apparent that the publishers did collude though I agree with Apple that Apple did not. The judge decided that Apple is guilty because Apple's actions allowed the publishers colluding to succeed.

...

I'm not sure I've heard that interpretation of the Judge's decision. From all the reporting I've read, Apple played a central role. For example:

... U.S. District Judge Denise Cote in Manhattan found "compelling evidence" that Apple violated federal antitrust law by playing a "central role" in a conspiracy with the publishers to eliminate retail price competition and raise e-book prices. ...

http://news.yahoo.com/judge-says-app...125645469.html

Which sounds very different than Apple being an innocent enabler?

[ApK]

Originally Posted by leebase

Amazon is the Walmart of the internet. Coming into small towns and using it's pricing to drive everyone else out of business.

Liberal nanny-state protectionist nonsense. There are legitimate anti-competitive, or otherwise damaging business practices to complain about, which I'm sure Walmart and others are guilty of, but offering lower prices and better consumer experience is NOT in that category. You want to blame someone for "driving" a small shop out of business, blame the consumers who chose not to shop there. Better yet, blame the business owner for not doing their job as well as Sam Walton or Jeff Bezos did.

[afv011]

Originally Posted by leebase

To me, at best, this is a case of being guilty for shooting a burglar who's broken into your house. The judge ignored the burglary and focused only on the shooting.

A better analogy would be to order a hitman to kill someone and go unpunished because you didn't pull the trigger - that's what you suggest. Apple were the one behind the scenes orchestrating this.

I don't understand why they didn't settle like the others, they could have buried this. Now they're getting bad press, and they will drag themselves through the mud with the appeals process.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by kennyc

And of course now it's THE END OF THE BOOK!!!!

http://www.wired.com/business/2013/0...n-book-prices/

My beloved Amazon is Evil
.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by leebase

The very fact the the publishers HATED Amazon's pricing but were POWERLESS to do anything about it is proof positive that Amazon had monopoly power.

Yeah, no. Not so much.
Is that, that there new-fangled "proof positive" they're teaching in school or something?

They were always free to put pressure on Amazon by refusing to allow them to sell their books. The only thing it's "proof positive" of, is that the publishers wanted to have their cake and eat it too. They wanted to dictate retail price AND avail themselves of Amazon's vast customer base (something they're not inherently entitled to).

There was no monopoly. There were five publishers looking for a shortcut to get back into a game that they never saw any real value in in the first place--until too late. And a cocky gunslinger that was willing to bail them out for a piece of the action.

[John F]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

My beloved Amazon is evil

You need a capital E on evil.

[K. Molen]

Originally Posted by afv011

I don't understand why they didn't settle like the others, they could have buried this. Now they're getting bad press, and they will drag themselves through the mud with the appeals process.

Maybe it has something to do with what holymadness quoted earlier:

Apple is pressing this because they are playing the odds.

Since the late 90's, most per-se rules that existed for the antitrust act (vertical resale price maintenance, etc) have been converted back to rule of reason analysis by the Supreme Court.

The only one so far that has not is "horizontal price fixing", which is what Apple is accused of.

They are playing the odds that if they appeal it up the chain far enough, SCOTUS will take it and declare horizontal price fixing not per-se illegal.

Apple knows that Amazon's conduct will not save them from a per-se illegal ruling like what just happened, it would only possibly save them under the rule of reason. This argument (and that part of the decision) is really directed at getting the supreme court (or at least the appeals court) to decide on the merits if SCOTUS declares horizontal price fixing to be not per-se illegal, rather than have to go through a trial again, etc.

Essentially, apple has nothing to lose by pressing except a little bad press, and much to gain.

That's apparently a quote from someone on Reddit. I have no idea how much or little they know about this sort of thing, but they certainly sound informed.

Source: http://lo.reddit.com/r/technology/co..._judge/cazvdk7

(edited to add: there's some more relevant discussion regarding this at that link)

[ProfCrash]

Originally Posted by leebase

Or rather - it's the consistent opinion of someone who saw Amazon's actions as predatory pricing and anti-competitive since the beginning long before Apple entered the market. I'm an Amazon customer and I like doing business with Amazon, and continue to buy the majority of my ebooks from Amazon. However, Amazon didn't get 90% of the ebook market via honest competition but rather by buying market share with below cost pricing.

The very fact the the publishers HATED Amazon's pricing but were POWERLESS to do anything about it is proof positive that Amazon had monopoly power.

It is apparent that the publishers did collude though I agree with Apple that Apple did not. The judge decided that Apple is guilty because Apple's actions allowed the publishers colluding to succeed.

To me, at best, this is a case of being guilty for shooting a burglar who's broken into your house. The judge ignored the burglary and focused only on the shooting.

I am sorry but who was in the ebook market when Amazon entered? Was Barnes and Noble in the ebook market? Was Sony's bookstore any good? Kobo?

Amazon gained a huge market sharte because Amazon created the market. The Kindle was a huge gamble. Even when the K1 was doing well people were talking about it as a fad. Jobs was saying that Apple would not enter the ebook or ereader market because people don't read enough.

The low prices were meant as an incentive to those of us who paid $400 for the K1. The books were easy to get and less expensive so it was worth taking the risk on the reader.

Sorry, but you will have to find a different buyer for the predatory pricing argument. BN and Apple joined the ebook market after Amazon demonstrated that you could make money in it.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

My beloved Amazon is evil

Sorry to dash your monkey dreams.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by ProfCrash

I am sorry but who was in the ebook market when Amazon entered? Was Barnes and Noble in the ebook market? Was Sony's bookstore any good? Kobo?

Amazon gained a huge market sharte because Amazon created the market. The Kindle was a huge gamble. Even when the K1 was doing well people were talking about it as a fad. Jobs was saying that Apple would not enter the ebook or ereader market because people don't read enough.

The low prices were meant as an incentive to those of us who paid $400 for the K1. The books were easy to get and less expensive so it was worth taking the risk on the reader.

Sorry, but you will have to find a different buyer for the predatory pricing argument. BN and Apple joined the ebook market after Amazon demonstrated that you could make money in it.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by John F

You need a capital E on evil.

You're right... my bad

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Sorry to dash your monkey dreams.

My bananas comfort me in times of trouble

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

My bananas comfort me in times of trouble

In times of trouble banana comes to me
singing songs of comfort let it be, let it be.

[Graham]

Originally Posted by leebase

The very fact the the publishers HATED Amazon's pricing but were POWERLESS to do anything about it is proof positive that Amazon had monopoly power.

It is apparent that the publishers did collude though I agree with Apple that Apple did not. The judge decided that Apple is guilty because Apple's actions allowed the publishers colluding to succeed.

Your opinion is defensible only if you refuse to believe that Apple's actions included acting as a go-between to enable the collusion. However, the overwhelming evidence from the timing of phone calls and emails is that Apple was indeed orchestrating this.

Leebase, have you read the 160 pages of reasoned argument presented by Judge Cote?

It would help if you singled out exactly what parts of her argument you disagree with.

Graham