or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Amended class-action lawsuit alleges Apple, publishers engaged in 'price-fixing conspiracy'
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Amended class-action lawsuit alleges Apple, publishers engaged in 'price-fixing conspiracy' - Page 2

post #41 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by citivas View Post

Amazon then took a loss on the sale of the e-book, selling a title that cost them $13 for $9.99 because they were more interested in marketshare at the time

It's a bit naive to think they did it solely for market share.
Confessions of a Publisher: Were in Amazons Sights
post #42 of 104
The agency model has always bothered me. If I am a business that sells primarily wholesale, I have made my money in that sale. If the retailer wants to sell at a loss how does that hurt me? I am always amazed that I can go to the mall to five different shoe stores and the price is identical for the same shoe. It is not good for the consumer to not have the opportunity to save money on competitive pricing. For me if an ebook is more than a paperback, I will buy the paperback. That is the advantage of the iPad as it is not dependent on buying books to be a value to me. So Apple gave the publishers a way to raise their prices. The consumer always has the choice to not buy. I actually don't really think that. It is in our DNA to shop. It is ingrained in us. Just watch a 2 year old in the check out line spot that shiny piece of crap and go berserk until it gains possession. We are not at choice, we are addicted and programmed to consume. We have no one to blame for this then ourselves.
post #43 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by matrix07 View Post

It's a bit naive to think they did it solely for market share.
Confessions of a Publisher: Were in Amazons Sights

I don't. The real world is rarely as simple as one reason. But marketshare was definitely a big part of it. They were selling the hardware at a loss and making a loss on some titles. They have always had loss-leaders in their business model and it's always been about volume not only of customers but sales per customer -- if they can grab your loyalty as a customer losing on some items they will make it up with your overall purchase behavior.
post #44 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by cameronj View Post

You missed something.

The second line if the article to be exact.


Law firm Hagens Berman filed the original lawsuit last August on behalf of a group of consumers who allege Apple and most of the publishing industry colluded to introduce an agency e-book pricing model for the iBookstore to disrupt Amazon's wholesale model.

I did see that actually but the class as described here is extremely broad and vague and would seem to claim to represent the interests of everyone who has ever bought an ebook.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #45 of 104
Totally bogus. Letting publishers choose any price they want is not collusion. This lawsuit will fail.

Please update the AppleInsider app to function in landscape mode.

Reply

Please update the AppleInsider app to function in landscape mode.

Reply
post #46 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by citivas View Post

LOL. I usually ignore obvious fanboy comments. I love Apple but live in reality. But this comment was such over the top fiction that it was too much to ignore. Do you just make this stuff up?

Apple’s deal changed that. By requiring any publisher who wanted their distribution sales platform to contractually agree that no other retailer could have better pricing than Apple, by definition it required publishers to set retail pricing, a practice illegal in print books (but there was no case law for e-books yet).

Whatever the outcome of the case, it is based on solid legal grounds and precedent. Apple’s deals with publishers has removed retail pricing competition from the marketplace. That’s the definition of marketplace collusion. Sure publishers don’t need to make a deal with Apple but when a company with a meaningful share of the marketplace refuses access to the marketplace unless you agree to deals that exclude other companies in the marketplace from fair market competition, there is much case law that says that’s not okay. Similarly, there is already clear legal precedent that its not legal for publishers to enforce fixed retail pricing for books.

I think you may be confused. Horizontal price fixing is per se a violation of Sherman Anti-trust but vertical is not. The publishers are not colluding with each other to fix prices (horizontal) and the retailers (Amazon, Apple, Barnes and Noble, etc) are not colluding to fix retail prices.

The Supreme Court has stated in "[M]ost antitrust claims are analyzed under a “rule of reason,” according to which the finder of fact must decide whether the questioned practice imposes an unreasonable restraint on competition, taking into account a variety of factors, including specific information about the relevant business, its condition before and after the restraint was imposed, and the restraint’s history, nature, and effect." State Oil v. Khan, 522 U.S. 3 (1997).

So, your certainty about how the courts will rule on this matter is quite speculative. You can make your arguments as you like, but the arguments and facts presented by the parties and the court's take on these facts under the "rule of reason" are the only arguments anyone should be interested in.

That said, I can imagine some arguments otherwise. The "same" book could be offered to different retailers under different prices because the features of the ebooks are different. If say, Alice in Wonderland is offered to Apple with highly interactive features, the price of the book can be substantially higher than the "plain" ebook offered by Amazon.
post #47 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by jd_in_sb View Post

Totally bogus. Letting publishers choose any price they want is not collusion. This lawsuit will fail.

You should read up on collusion. This is a textbook example.

And there are two issues, the collusion and the pricing. On the pricing, what they are doing is already illegal for print books and many other forms of retail products. Manufacturers are always able to set whatever wholesale pricing they want for a consumer product, but rarely control third party retail pricing when they themselves are not a retail seller of the product. What they are doing now is the market equivalent of selling something off selling you something then legally dictating what you re-sell it for on E-Bay or whatever. They are controlling both their direct sale and the secondary sale price. You may feel it is "bogus" on some personal principle, which is your right, but it's certainly not bogus legally. I have no idea how this one will go, but suits like this one often succeed.
post #48 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by citivas View Post

You should read up on collusion. This is a textbook example.

And there are two issues, the collusion and the pricing. On the pricing, what they are doing is already illegal for print books and many other forms of retail products. Manufacturers are always able to set whatever wholesale pricing they want for a consumer product, but rarely control third party retail pricing when they themselves are not a retail seller of the product. What they are doing now is the market equivalent of selling something off selling you something then legally dictating what you re-sell it for on E-Bay or whatever. They are controlling both their direct sale and the secondary sale price. You may feel it is "bogus" on some personal principle, which is your right, but it's certainly not bogus legally. I have no idea how this one will go, but suits like this one often succeed.

This does not sound quite right to me. The Supreme Court invalidated laws prohibiting so-called "fair trade" pricing. Manufacturers are free to require retailers of their products to at least advertise prices at MSRP if they want -- and many do. I don't see the big difference in this case.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #49 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

I did see that actually but the class as described here is extremely broad and vague and would seem to claim to represent the interests of everyone who has ever bought an ebook.

All the better to make more money for the lawyers. I'm excited in anticipation of a check for $2.50.
post #50 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by cameronj View Post

All the better to make more money for the lawyers. I'm excited in anticipation of a check for $2.50.

Don't spend it all in one place. Take a lawyer to lunch.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #51 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by citivas View Post

Prior to the pricing arrangement between Apple and the major publishers Apple that forced every retailer to conform to Apples pricing...

...Amazon had a wholesale e-book $13 for $9.99...


...The result was prices shot up substantially on major publisher e-books everywhere and there is now zero price competition in the marketplace prices are the same everywhere for major publisher e-books. Books that had been selling for $9.99 on Amazon before the Apple agreement went up to $14.99 and even $19.99.

BULLSHIT!

The market has adjusted there are titles selling well below Amazon's $9.99 FIXED PRICE POINT

e.g. American Assassin $4.99
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #52 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

BULLSHIT!

The market has adjusted there are titles selling well below Amazon's $9.99 FIXED PRICE POINT

e.g. American Assassin $4.99

Sorry, but you are wrong, both on your point and your example. American Assassin is currently $9.99 on Amazon, Apple and BN.com. LOL. And it's a point of fact that the average price of major publisher bestselling e-books has risen since the Apple deal. This has been published in the NYC, WSJ and numerous other sources. The publishing industry doesn't even deny this. Their response is that the problem is not e-book pricing but that print books are sold cheaper than they should be by retailers.

BTW, priced were never fixed at $9.99 at Amazon. Most titles didn't exceed that but some did, and many titles were always well below that.
post #53 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

DaHarder bought 9 of them, 3 each for himself, his wife, and their dog.

:

Why does Apple bashing and trolling make people feel so good?

Reply

Why does Apple bashing and trolling make people feel so good?

Reply
post #54 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by citivas View Post

Sorry, but you are wrong, both on your point and your example. American Assassin is currently $9.99 on Amazon, Apple and BN.com. LOL. And it's a point of fact that the average price of major publisher bestselling e-books has risen since the Apple deal. This has been published in the NYC, WSJ and numerous other sources. The publishing industry doesn't even deny this. Their response is that the problem is not e-book pricing but that print books are sold cheaper than they should be by retailers.

BTW, priced were never fixed at $9.99 at Amazon. Most titles didn't exceed that but some did, and many titles were always well below that.

Maybe because it's part of a summer sale in the Australian iTunes store along with many other titles at $4.99.

FREE MARKET AT WORK

F*&K you Americans thinking you control the world with your whiny, petty complaints about prices different to $9.99.

Apple's lawyer "American Assassin is $9.99 on Amazon is that correct?"

Plaintiff "Yes".

Presents evidence of same title at $4.99 in iBooks store.

BAM, case dismissed the claims are shown to be wrong.
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #55 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by waldobushman View Post

. The "same" book could be offered to different retailers under different prices because the features of the ebooks are different. If say, Alice in Wonderland is offered to Apple with highly interactive features, the price of the book can be substantially higher than the "plain" ebook offered by Amazon.

This is correct. A piece of literary work should have a certain value and that value should be based on the product, not by what a end seller wants to sell it for. An engaging bells and whistles experience should certainly have more value than plain ol' boring white bread.

Why does Apple bashing and trolling make people feel so good?

Reply

Why does Apple bashing and trolling make people feel so good?

Reply
post #56 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by citivas View Post

And it's a point of fact that the average price of major publisher bestselling e-books has risen since the Apple deal. .


I don't quite understand what is wrong with that. Amazon was trying to keep Apple from making profits, and Apple was trying to enhance the experience for us customers by carrying the widest variety of e-books.

If it is good for Apple, then it is good for customers 99% of the time.
post #57 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

If it is good for Apple, then it is good for customers 99% of the time.

Your blatant Poe-ing is quite transparent.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #58 of 104
Last time I checked, deep antagonism wasn't against the law.

Steve Jobs winks in agreement.

   I am long on my shares of AAPL at $37.00

Reply

   I am long on my shares of AAPL at $37.00

Reply
post #59 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Maybe because it's part of a summer sale in the Australian iTunes store along with many other titles at $4.99.

FREE MARKET AT WORK

F*&K you Americans thinking you control the world with your whiny, petty complaints about prices different to $9.99.

Apple's lawyer "American Assassin is $9.99 on Amazon is that correct?"

Plaintiff "Yes".

Presents evidence of same title at $4.99 in iBooks store.

BAM, case dismissed the claims are shown to be wrong.

This is an American lawsuit based on American laws based on American pricing. Every territory has different agreements, laws, pricing. Aussie pricing is totally irrelevant to this.

So your story continues like this:

Presents evidence of same title at $4.99 on iBooks store.

Prosecution then presents evidence that the price is actually $9.99 on iBooks store and that the defense attempted to commit fraud on the court by quoting an irrelevant pricing in a different market. Judge holds defense in contempt of court...
post #60 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

I don't quite understand what is wrong with that. Amazon was trying to keep Apple from making profits, and Apple was trying to enhance the experience for us customers by carrying the widest variety of e-books.

If it is good for Apple, then it is good for customers 99% of the time.

LOL. I assume your statements were satirical.

Let's see:
1) Amazon wasn't trying to deny Apple anything because they never competed on book sales until after Apple had already established its pricing.
2) Absolutely nothing was preventing Apple from "carrying the widest variety of e-books" before their agency pricing agreements.

Customers benefit from choice and competition, almost always. No one was preventing publishers from charging whatever they wanted for wholesale books. How many of you would be happy if every piece of consumer electronics always sold everywhere for full MSRP, with no exceptions. TV's would cost about 35% more than what the average person pays for them. Hard drives, cameras, you name it. I can't recall the last time I paid MSRP for any consumer electronic product except from Apple. And Apple can charge whatever they want for their products. I'm just glad they don't force every single product the sell in their Apple stores or online to be full MSRP from everyone else like they do with e-books.

I love Apple. They just jumped the shark with this particular area. It happens. Most people see that, even the normal fans. And hardcore Apple can do no wrong people would be defending it no matter what happened.
post #61 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by citivas View Post

You should read up on collusion. This is a textbook example.

And there are two issues, the collusion and the pricing. On the pricing, what they are doing is already illegal for print books and many other forms of retail products. Manufacturers are always able to set whatever wholesale pricing they want for a consumer product, but rarely control third party retail pricing when they themselves are not a retail seller of the product. What they are doing now is the market equivalent of selling something off selling you something then legally dictating what you re-sell it for on E-Bay or whatever. They are controlling both their direct sale and the secondary sale price. You may feel it is "bogus" on some personal principle, which is your right, but it's certainly not bogus legally. I have no idea how this one will go, but suits like this one often succeed.

Not seeing any collusion right now.

If we take previous cases of price fixing, like the airlines and fuel surcharges, there were actual meetings held by the airlines, plus a few emails swapped and so forth. The airlines colluded to subvert market forces, and worked against the consumer.

However.

There is a very big difference between airlines and book publishers.

If I want to fly between London and New York, there are many airlines who can sell me a ticket. The service they offer is the same.

However, if I want to buy a Harry Potter book, then I can only buy it through one publisher. Admittedly, I could buy "any" book, but the chances are - I probably won't - I'll buy a book on a recommendation or review or advert. All of these things are specific to a single book. If I want to read about Harry Potter, my choices are limited.

So I'm not sure how publishers can be charged with price fixing when they sell different books. You could say that if you were looking for a book on Madrid there are many choices, but could you imagine a court trying to work out the difference between a Harry Potter book vs a Madrid travel book?

The other issue is quite how Apple are getting dragged into this. The lawyer mentions about companies wanting to retain "profitability" hence turning to Apple. That is not grounds for a price fixing case.

Apple asking for the same terms that other companies get is also not anti-competitive either, and is a common thing. Why would a company write a contract that puts them at a disadvantage? What could be illegal is asking for better terms (eg Google Books) than anyone else, but again, that's not always a bad thing.
post #62 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinman0 View Post

Not seeing any collusion right now.

If we take previous cases of price fixing, like the airlines and fuel surcharges, there were actual meetings held by the airlines, plus a few emails swapped and so forth. The airlines colluded to subvert market forces, and worked against the consumer.

However.

There is a very big difference between airlines and book publishers.

If I want to fly between London and New York, there are many airlines who can sell me a ticket. The service they offer is the same.

However, if I want to buy a Harry Potter book, then I can only buy it through one publisher. Admittedly, I could buy "any" book, but the chances are - I probably won't - I'll buy a book on a recommendation or review or advert. All of these things are specific to a single book. If I want to read about Harry Potter, my choices are limited.

So I'm not sure how publishers can be charged with price fixing when they sell different books. You could say that if you were looking for a book on Madrid there are many choices, but could you imagine a court trying to work out the difference between a Harry Potter book vs a Madrid travel book?

The other issue is quite how Apple are getting dragged into this. The lawyer mentions about companies wanting to retain "profitability" hence turning to Apple. That is not grounds for a price fixing case.

Apple asking for the same terms that other companies get is also not anti-competitive either, and is a common thing. Why would a company write a contract that puts them at a disadvantage? What could be illegal is asking for better terms (eg Google Books) than anyone else, but again, that's not always a bad thing.

You're arguing against someone presenting the case for Amazon. It will be up to the court to decide whether Amazon's frivolities can be accounted superior to Apple's righteousness.

Cheers
post #63 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

DaHarder bought 9 of them, 3 each for himself, his wife, and their dog.

Actually, I bought about a dozen '4th generation' Kindles this past Holiday season to give out as stocking stuffers.

Here's a pic of the Kindle Fire, Kindle Keyboard 3G, Kindle Touch 3G, and Kindle (and the iPad 2/64gb/Verizon that I often use for reading magazines etc.) that were given out to those in my immediate household.

So Many Wonderful eReading Devices

"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
post #64 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by minicapt View Post

You're arguing against someone presenting the case for Amazon. It will be up to the court to decide whether Amazon's frivolities can be accounted superior to Apple's righteousness.

Cheers

The case is filed on behalf of consumers, not Amazon. Amazon isn't even a party to it. This isn't about Amazon per se. Every other retail seller of e-books was impacted the same way -- Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Sony, etc.
post #65 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by citivas View Post

This is an American lawsuit based on American laws based on American pricing. Every territory has different agreements, laws, pricing. Aussie pricing is totally irrelevant to this.

So your story continues like this:

Presents evidence of same title at $4.99 on iBooks store.

Prosecution then presents evidence that the price is actually $9.99 on iBooks store and that the defense attempted to commit fraud on the court by quoting an irrelevant pricing in a different market. Judge holds defense in contempt of court...

Wrong, the book IS available to iTunes customers as an iBook for $4.99, in a country where the market decides, not some over regulated state where pricing is dictated by pen pushing public servants in the Government.

I could even purchase it and send it as a gift to an American in the land of the judicially enslaved from the land of the free if I wanted to.

Btw Amazon doesn't even sell it here.
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #66 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post

Actually, I bought about a dozen '4th generation' Kindles this past Holiday season to give out as stocking stuffers.

Here's a pic of the Kindle Fire, Kindle Keyboard 3G, Kindle Touch 3G, and Kindle (and the iPad 2/64gb/Verizon that I often use for reading magazines etc.) that were given out to those in my immediate household.

So Many Wonderful eReading Devices


Of the three e-ink kindles, which one do you like most, and why?
post #67 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Of the three e-ink kindles, which one do you like most, and why?

The basic Kindle (no touchscreen/no 3G), as it's the lightest, most ergonomically friendly of them all while proving the single best eReading experience currently available on any electronic reading device I've yet owned (including my NOOK Simple Touch).
"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
post #68 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by minicapt View Post

You're arguing against someone presenting the case for Amazon. It will be up to the court to decide whether Amazon's frivolities can be accounted superior to Apple's righteousness.

Cheers

It has nothing to do with Amazon - or Apple for that matter.

The only way Apple could be brought into this is to host a meeting with the CEOs of the publishing houses where they all agree a pricing policy. This would great a cartel, which is obviously illegal, and frankly, Apple's lawyers would barricade reception if they got wind of management doing anything so daft.
post #69 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

You said "It was a much different time in the gadget-sphere, and those numbers were quite good for said time." yet you claim that time didn't include the 2010 iPad launch 2 years later so I included a launch pre-dates the Kindle. Now your claim is that 2007 doesn't count? I can show you the iPhone sales for 2008 but it hurts your argument even more and I've already destroyed plenty of your arguments tonight so I think I'll let others take over from here.

Both these arguments are pointless....

It doesn't matter if the Kindle sold well "relative" to some benchmark. The accusation by Amazon is of Price Fixing. If this had any chance in Hell of sticking, Apple would have to be proven to be colluding with other companies to set prices.

"Fixing" the price of books for your company is like having 99 cent songs... it's a price. Is the airline industry guilty of "fixing prices" because business class pays more than vacationers who are flexible on dates?

Amazon's Kindle did well for a short time because there was NOTHING else.

This lawsuit has no merit,... but maybe the lawyers are on retainer or trying to slow down the iPad as "some company" is trying to slow down Android.
post #70 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinman0 View Post

It has nothing to do with Amazon - or Apple for that matter.

The only way Apple could be brought into this is to host a meeting with the CEOs of the publishing houses where they all agree a pricing policy. This would great a cartel, which is obviously illegal, and frankly, Apple's lawyers would barricade reception if they got wind of management doing anything so daft.

No. Apple meeting with all the publishing CEOs would even then NOT be price fixing.

Apple and another outlet that was ePublishing would have to agree what the price would be. This isn't like the Oil industry fixing the price of gas folks.
post #71 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post

Sure... If that's what you need to believe, but the FACT is that the Kindle 1 sold very well for its time, especially for a first generation device from a company not known for selling their own hardware.

http://techcrunch.com/2008/08/01/we-...s-sold-240000/

They topped Amazon's sales charts numerous times, and we're often sold out during that first year, and continue to sell extremely well today.


Sad to say those figure are not from Amazon but an ANALyst who was guessing the figures.
post #72 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by citivas View Post

The case is filed on behalf of consumers, not Amazon. Amazon isn't even a party to it. This isn't about Amazon per se. Every other retail seller of e-books was impacted the same way -- Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Sony, etc.

If you don't think Amazon had anything to do with it, you're naive.

Anyone want to bet how many of the plaintiffs are Amazon employees or family members?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fake_William_Shatner View Post

No. Apple meeting with all the publishing CEOs would even then NOT be price fixing.

Apple and another outlet that was ePublishing would have to agree what the price would be. This isn't like the Oil industry fixing the price of gas folks.

The person you responded to said that if Apple met with all the publishing CEOs and they agreed at that meeting on the price that it would be price fixing. And that is pretty much true.

From a legal perspective, if Apple did meet with a large number of publishers all at the same time, their attorneys would probably not let them discuss price at all.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #73 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fake_William_Shatner View Post

Both these arguments are pointless....

It doesn't matter if the Kindle sold well "relative" to some benchmark. The accusation by Amazon is of Price Fixing. If this had any chance in Hell of sticking, Apple would have to be proven to be colluding with other companies to set prices.

"Fixing" the price of books for your company is like having 99 cent songs... it's a price. Is the airline industry guilty of "fixing prices" because business class pays more than vacationers who are flexible on dates?

Amazon's Kindle did well for a short time because there was NOTHING else.

This lawsuit has no merit,... but maybe the lawyers are on retainer or trying to slow down the iPad as "some company" is trying to slow down Android.

They are pointless if we were talking about price fixing, but we weren't. MY comments were specifically about the Kindle selling phenomenally well for CE in 2008. Nothing more.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #74 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

If you don't think Amazon had anything to do with it, you're naive.

Anyone want to bet how many of the plaintiffs are Amazon employees or family members?



The person you responded to said that if Apple met with all the publishing CEOs and they agreed at that meeting on the price that it would be price fixing. And that is pretty much true.

From a legal perspective, if Apple did meet with a large number of publishers all at the same time, their attorneys would probably not let them discuss price at all.

I doubt Amazon was behind the companion investigation launched by the EU. They too have concerns about illegal dealings between Apple and the publishers.
http://www.engadget.com/2011/12/06/a...price-rigging/

IMHO, Apple doesn't have entirely clean hands in this particular case. Of course my opinion isn't worth any more than anyone else's in this thread.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #75 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I doubt Amazon was behind the companion investigation launched by the EU. They too have concerns about illegal dealings between Apple and the publishers.
http://www.engadget.com/2011/12/06/a...price-rigging/

IMHO, Apple doesn't have entirely clean hands in this particular case. Of course my opinion isn't worth any more than anyone else's in this thread.

Apple is entering the market, whereas Amazon had a monopoly(?) position before iBookstore. I see a lot more potential wrong doing on Amazon's part with:
  • Dumping: where a company sells a product in a competitive market at a loss.
  • Exclusive dealing: where a retailer or wholesaler is obliged by contract to only purchase from the contracted supplier.
  • Price fixing: where companies collude to set prices, effectively dismantling the free market.
  • Refusal to deal: where two companies agree not to use a certain vendor
  • Limit Pricing: where the price is set by a monopolist at a level intended to discourage entry into a market.
I could make an argument for all of these actions on Amazon's part but that doesn't mean they would be guilty in a court of law.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #76 of 104
"weve uncovered statements from executives at several publishers that demonstrate they viewed Amazon as a significant threat to the long-term survival of their profitability"

And they choose not to use this service? Sure.

And you sue them for it? Ummm

So what's next, I get sued for not buying a Porsche?
post #77 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Apple is entering the market, whereas Amazon had a monopoly(?) position before iBookstore. I see a lot more potential wrong doing on Amazon's part with:
  • Dumping: where a company sells a product in a competitive market at a loss.
  • Exclusive dealing: where a retailer or wholesaler is obliged by contract to only purchase from the contracted supplier.
  • Price fixing: where companies collude to set prices, effectively dismantling the free market.
  • Refusal to deal: where two companies agree not to use a certain vendor
  • Limit Pricing: where the price is set by a monopolist at a level intended to discourage entry into a market.
I could make an argument for all of these actions on Amazon's part but that doesn't mean they would be guilty in a court of law.

If all of that was true, I would expect the EU to open a case on Amazon too, wouldn't you? They don't seem to shy away from high-profile investigations.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #78 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

If all of that was true, I would expect the EU to open a case on Amazon too, wouldn't you? They don't seem to shy away from high-profile investigations.

I dont' think any of them are true in the sense they can be proven in a court of law. Amazon's position in the eBook market segment seems to be completely natural, at least up until Apple entered it and Amazon appears to have at least threatened not to use publishers if they used Apple's iBookstore.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #79 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kibitzer View Post

"Deep antagonism" equates to price-fixing? I'd like to be present if this plays out in court. It'll be hilarious to watch the judge kick the Hagens Berman attorney's ass up around his ears for even trying to make such a tortured argument.

Kind of makes you think Amazon is involved in this suit, behind the scenes, though.
post #80 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

If you don't think Amazon had anything to do with it, you're naive.

Anyone want to bet how many of the plaintiffs are Amazon employees or family members?



The person you responded to said that if Apple met with all the publishing CEOs and they agreed at that meeting on the price that it would be price fixing. And that is pretty much true.

From a legal perspective, if Apple did meet with a large number of publishers all at the same time, their attorneys would probably not let them discuss price at all.

No -- Apple is the SINGLE outlet for the eBooks they sell.

The Publishers are NOT fixing prices to consumers with other outlets -- they are agreeing to a standard price with APPLE's stores. It's really, really not the same thing though it appears to be.

If Apple and Amazon had the same prices -- that would be Fixing prices of eBooks.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
  • Amended class-action lawsuit alleges Apple, publishers engaged in 'price-fixing conspiracy'
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Amended class-action lawsuit alleges Apple, publishers engaged in 'price-fixing conspiracy'