or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by malax

  Very well said.  I might argue that Apple DID "[discuss] a deal with each publisher individually and kept the details of each agreement private" but the court ruled otherwise.
I suspect Moffett's analysis is simply faulty. We don't know what the Apple-Verizon agreement actually says, but I seriously doubt there's a scenario where VZ is writing a multi-billion dollar check to Apple for iPhones not ordered. There agreement almost certainly specifies what the effect of not meeting sales goals are that are less draconian (or Verizon would have been insane to agree to the deal).
  It would be interesting to see what happened.  Would Amazon go crying to DoJ about it?
Distributing, yes.  Creating/marketing books is (can be) very expensive.   It's funny that we talk about "books" are if they are a commodity product like wheat or oil.  Especially for books from established authors, every book is to some extent a monopoly unto itself.  It's not like someone would say "Oh, publisher X is selling the series finale Game of Thrones book for $25, but publisher Y is selling the next Twilight book for $23.99, guess I'll snap up that sparkly...
  Except that's not how markets work.  Prisoners' Dilemma and all that.  It's hard for collaborators/conspirators to avoid the temptation to compete and it's even harder to prevent outsiders from coming in an exploiting the opportunity created by artificially high prices.  (Except in heavily regulated markets with high barriers to entry, such as airlines.)   Also, I'm not saying that everyone (or even consumers) would be better off it Apple gets its way on all things.  I...
  What?  You're not excited about the likelihood that the iWatch will have HVAC capabilities?  I'm wondering how Apple will ensure that the climate control will cover one's entire body.   /s
  You asked where you "logic" is wrong after I said that you were factually wrong.  So here are the things that you assert as facts that are wrong or misleading.   "Under the agreement signed with apple, Amazon was NOT ALLOWED to price their books less than a fixed price"   This is not true (capitalization or not).  Point to any "agreement signed with apple" that says what other retailers are allowed to do.   "As apple charges a 30% premium on content"  Except that Apple...
  That's a pretty good summary, but perhaps with the motivations wrong.   Apple literally didn't care what the prices were.  They simply wanted to sell box using their simple 70-30 model.  They didn't want to become a full-blown old-school retailer having Apple staff figuring out prices.  Like with the App Store, it's better for Apple if they let the providers of the content decide on pricing and Apple just takes 30% off the top.  That was their motivation, period.  If...
  Wrong.  Please go read up on the most-favored-nation clause.   "If I'm going to do business with you, you have to agree to give me the same deals you give someone else" is not the same as "You are not allowed to give deals to anyone else."  That's the simple version.
  BS.  Talk to someone trained in ConLaw and ask them about about of the major recent cases and which opinions are the most radical in terms of creating new legal principles out of thin air to support their side.  I'll give you a hint: Scalia will be a dissenter in most of those cases.  It's the newer liberal judges who should be ashamed of their legislating from the bench philosophy.
New Posts  All Forums: