or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Pendergast

  Interesting, but I would say it is applicable in that RPM is no longer always illegal, and the principles apply in this case, since the publishers are essentially manufacturers.   EDIT: Also, none of this needs to be applicable to Apple; it is applicable to the publishers. Apple is being accused of aiding the conspiracy of the publishers, being involved.      "The Court gave examples of situations where such pricing agreements will be particularly treacherous....
  He could have known about the MFN clause, which would mean Apple's price couldn't be higher than anyone else's, without knowing specifics.   It's not like he said, "Amazon's will also be $14.99".
  A bean counter? I thought he was a used car salesman.
  I don't know what your original point was; his words aren't damning. They could either mean that he knew the prices were going up, or that the prices simply would be the same (MFN clause), either higher or lower.
  You fixed it wrong.   Individually, a manufacturer has the right to set the price, and force the retailer to sell at that price.   Not illegal.   What can be illegal is collusion. The reason being is it can effectively create a monopolistic position, and cause just as much harm.   You are arguing semantics.   The WHOLE thing ALWAYS boils down to "restraint of trade", and is often caused by an abuse of market power. Individually, each publisher could not "restrain...
  The manufacturer's ability to set the price that the retailer sells it at (price fixing) is NOT illegal.   That's not the issue here, either.   It's all about collusion. Each individual publisher may not have a monopoly, but by colluding together they would have monopolistic power and could abuse the market. In that case, said price fixing could be considered an abuse, and therefore illegal.   Apple is being accused of facilitating the conspiracy, and thus also guilty.
  In the allegation, Apple is not the monopoly... it's the PUBLISHERS who, by colluding together, that form a monopoly, and then abused their market power. Allegedly.    In the DoJ's case, to put in simpler terms, Apple is being accused of at least being the bank robber's getaway car-driver, or even the mastermind. Not the actual robbers, but still a part of it.    As I've read it, that's the case they're basically trying to make.
    From a political standpoint, it sounds better for the DoJ to be targeting "big bad Apple" who raised prices with their "Apple tax", than to target Amazon's low prices. That sounds better, right? It's shortsighted, but sounds better. And that's politics for you.
  Yep.   Their main problem is lack of cash for content deals. 
New Posts  All Forums: