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 3

post #81 of 104
1/22/12 at 9:26am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

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.

Actually, Gatorguy's opinion isn't worth anything since we know he's paid to post anti-Apple propaganda here.
Reply
Reply
post #82 of 104
1/22/12 at 9:31am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

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.

Apple lowered prices and only fixed prices coming through THEIR store -- thus this is not price fixing in the marketplace. Case closed.
Reply
Reply
post #83 of 104
1/22/12 at 9:32am
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Actually, Gatorguy's opinion isn't worth anything since we know he's paid to post anti-Apple propaganda here.

It's shocking, but some people put paid shills out of a job by doing it for free.
Reply
Reply
post #84 of 104
1/22/12 at 9:33am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fake_William_Shatner View Post

Apple lowered prices and only fixed prices coming through THEIR store -- thus this is not price fixing in the marketplace. Case closed.

My comment was squarely talking about Amazon's potential anti-competitive practices, not Apple's.

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply
post #85 of 104
1/22/12 at 10:22am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fake_William_Shatner View Post

It's shocking, but some people put paid shills out of a job by doing it for free.

Even when he may be wrong, at least a "shill" who's doing it for free is being honest in his opinions. When he's being paid, he's just whoring himself.
Reply
Reply
post #86 of 104
1/22/12 at 10:29am
The European Commission's official announcement of similar anti-competitiive price-fixing concerns is here:
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleases...guiLanguage=en

An investigation is of course no evidence that anything illegal actually happened. It's not unusual for formal antitrust proceedings like those announced to be closed with no findings of misdeeds.

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply
post #87 of 104
1/22/12 at 10:50am
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Actually, Gatorguy's opinion isn't worth anything since we know he's paid to post anti-Apple propaganda here.

Okay, do we KNOW this, or are you just hyperbolizing his perpetual dislike of Apple?
PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
post #88 of 104
1/22/12 at 12:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Okay, do we KNOW this, or are you just hyperbolizing his perpetual dislike of Apple?

There's no doubt in my mind.
Reply
Reply
post #89 of 104
1/22/12 at 1:02pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

There's no doubt in my mind.

But unless you have absolute proof, it has to be treated like a proper someone with differing opinions.
PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
post #90 of 104
1/22/12 at 1:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

But unless you have absolute proof, it has to be treated like a proper someone with differing opinions.

Well, as moderators, yes, but, if he's not going to be honest about why he's here, the rest of us can make sure everyone knows.
Reply
Reply
post #91 of 104
1/22/12 at 2:42pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by shompa View Post

It wasn't the low prices on Amazon ebooks that drove publishers mad. It was the cracy 70-30 split of revenue. Amazon 70% and publishers 30%. This is the reason why many ebooks are more expensive then retail books.


How adorable. Another Apple fanboy making shit up to fit his own wet dreams. I don't suppose our public education is doing a good job of educating our young in the art and craft of objectivity and stating the truth.


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?

Amazon NEVER got a 70-30 split in its favor. 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 pricing model that was based on print books. So if the book was in hardcover and Amazon typically paid the publisher $15 for the book, they paid the publisher $13 for every e-book of that title sold as well. The publisher made the exact same take it did on print titles, and the authors got precisely the same commission as on print titles. Amazon was then free to set its own retail pricing just as they do for print, where the courts have already ruled that it is illegal for publishers to enforce fixed retail pricing. In many cases 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 and every other retailer was free to set whatever pricing they wanted. Profit and loss was the decision of the retailer and the publishers and authors profited no matter what. Amazon usually made a profit on softcover-equivalent titles and a loss on new hardcovers.

Apples 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). That Apple deal gave publishers 70% of the sales price and the retailer (Apple and others) 30%. In most cases this results in a smaller commission to authors than they were getting through Amazons deal. And, ironically, Amazons profit margin on a per-sales basis improves substantially, though their share is compromised by Apple (though since the market is growing so rapidally the net result is still growth for everyone).

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. Before the Apple agreement it was extremely rare for the e-book not to be less expensive than the print book. After Apples agreement, it was commonplace for new mass market hardcover books.

So basically everything you wrote was the opposite of the facts. Nice work.

Whatever the outcome of the case, it is based on solid legal grounds and precedent. Apples deals with publishers has removed retail pricing competition from the marketplace. Thats the definition of marketplace collusion. Sure publishers dont 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 thats not okay. Similarly, there is already clear legal precedent that its not legal for publishers to enforce fixed retail pricing for books. If nothing else this case will answer the open question as to whether a different and lesser standard will apply to e-books or a similar standard. If the courts believe that e-books should have consumer protection of retail pricing competition then they will rule against Apple and the publishers. If they believe the conditions of the marketplace are unique and different and that retail pricing protection is not necessary or appropriate, they will rule in their favor. If they rule against Apple and the publishers, Apple will be required to re-negotiate deals to not enforce best pricing guarantees and publishers will have to re-negotiate deals with other retailers like Amazon to only enforce wholesale pricing and not retail pricing. Amazon, BN and others will all be able to set their own pricing again, profiting or losing as they see fit for their individual business models.



THIS. I'm appalled people here are purposely rewriting and in some cases obfuscating the facts just to create an account that fits into their own little fairy tale.
Reply
Reply
post #92 of 104
1/22/12 at 2:47pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

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.



You're 1/2 right. Subtle distinction. Very subtle.

Under the Colgate doctrine, YES, manufacturers can have their own resale price maintenance schemes. However, that right is quite limited. There's a fine line to walk where the manufacturer isn't allowed to form an agreement. The most the manufacturer can do is announce "suggested prices" and also affirm in the very beginning his right not to contract with anyone. It's for this reason Apple, Bose, and many companies who typically keep such a scheme up are constantly advised by their antitrust attorneys to assign someone to police the resale price scheme and to prevent any agreements from forming. This means the company can't be caught agreeing orally or by some signed agreement to sell only to those who maintain a specific price (Too lazy to look up the line of cases with this holding). Yes, vertical policies by default get laxer treatment than horizontal arrangements, but the one danger of RPM programs is they can still lead to retailers and wholesalers agreeing not to complete.


If that happens, and you're the manufacturer, prepare to be served with a shitstorm of summons papers. Even if you didn't encourage the wholesalers to agree with one another or the retailers to agree on a set price, if someone can trace the chain of liability back to you, you're on the hook.


And to everyone else out there bashing lawyers: We wouldn't need lawyers if everyone would get along. Everyone loves to bash on lawyers until they need them.
Reply
Reply
post #93 of 104
1/22/12 at 2:53pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

There's no doubt in my mind.


And you? How do we know you're not some Apple shill? If I say there's no doubt in my mind you are one, does that make me presumptively right?



Seriously, people. Leave the fanboy sentiments at home. If you want to get a reasoned discussions on topics like this, let's not all start going around and making stuff up. This isn't the Youtube comments section.
Reply
Reply
post #94 of 104
1/22/12 at 3:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack99 View Post

And you? How do we know you're not some Apple shill? If I say there's no doubt in my mind you are one, does that make me presumptively right?



Seriously, people. Leave the fanboy sentiments at home. If you want to get a reasoned discussions on topics like this, let's not all start going around and making stuff up. This isn't the Youtube comments section.

Well, as soon as you start talking about "fanboy sentiments", you've lost all credibility as a "reasonable" participant. The discussions here would be a lot more reasoned if it weren't for all people who come here for no reason but to disrupt threads, spread bullshit, and express their hate.

And, seriously, do you really think Apple needs to hire shills to come here and promote their products?
Reply
Reply
post #95 of 104
1/22/12 at 4:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Well, as soon as you start talking about "fanboy sentiments", you've lost all credibility as a "reasonable" participant. The discussions here would be a lot more reasoned if it weren't for all people who come here for no reason but to disrupt threads, spread bullshit, and express their hate.

I call them "fanboy sentiments" because that's what's clouding the judgment of a lot of posters. If you're going to describe your rendition of a series of facts and events, the burden of proof is upon you to ensure you don't engage in pure, shameless revisionism. Unfortunately, that's what I'm seeing happening from those seem unable to detach their Apple brand passions from actual comprehension of the issues.


And nice try at the deflection. You didn't properly answer the other person's question or mine. Notice how the shoe goes easily on the other foot. How do you know Gator is just posting anti-Apple propaganda? Don't you think you're going a bit too far and sensationalizing things? Are you aware that you might be discrediting yourself by making cheap appeals to yourself as a source? Careful with your argumentation style. You just shot yourself in the foot.


So all in all, you're completely wrong on that account. I'm just calling a spade a spade. If you're going to be just as bad as that other poster I quoted and start placing all the blame for this class action lawsuit on Amazon, then you need a reality check.

Quote:
And, seriously, do you really think Apple needs to hire shills to come here and promote their products?

Which was sort of my point. If people (not necessarily you) could just put aside the immature fanboy rants for a second, we can have a good discussion of the topics. Again, that requires avoiding the usual fare of "Apple could do no wrong, I don't know what the hell I'm talking about, so I'm just going to make stuff up and hope no one fact-checks my arguments!" spiel.



And again--try to argue without resorting to deflections. When I asked you how we know you're not some Apple shill, I was really demonstrating that finger-pointing gets you nowhere. Yes, I called someone out, but as I stated earlier, I was doing so on factual grounds. You can do the same, but first take some time to read someone's post and do the fact-checking, but don't accuse someone of spreading propaganda without at least citing sources and coming up with strong, structured counterarguments.
Reply
Reply
post #96 of 104
1/22/12 at 5:51pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack99 View Post

Blah, blah, blah... If you're going to be just as bad as that other poster I quoted and start placing all the blame for this class action lawsuit on Amazon, then you need a reality check.
... Blah, blah, blah.

Well, my instinct is that Amazon is involved in some way, and I don't need to cite sources to support my instinct. I think my instincts are pretty good.
Reply
Reply
post #97 of 104
1/22/12 at 5:52pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fake_William_Shatner View Post

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

I'm sure we are actually agreeing. My point was that the CEOs of the publishing companies would have to meet, discuss and possibly agree on a course of action. The only way Apple could be a party to this would be to host the discussion.

However, there is no way in hell that Apple or these guys ever got together in the first place.
Reply
Reply
post #98 of 104
1/22/12 at 6:13pm
Just reading through all the fanboy comments, me thinks:
Apple is always right like the big brother. They cant go wrong (left?). Congratulations! you have found (your) god.

Apart from that big statement;
If Apple sues others to protect its business/shareholder interests, they are right (absolutely). If others just license the IP to spread the innovation, they are economically weak with no other revenue option.

If Apple licenses their patents to some investment firm so that the latter can sue other companies to make and share some revenue, there is no Apple involvement. If customers sue Apple on class action, there is a conspiracy.

If Apple creates innovative products and sells them for profit (only), they are right. If others sell something at loss with a different revenue model, they are cheap.

If Apple asks for 30% cut by 'empowering' sellers to shoot the price (basically, ripoff the customers including the fanboys), they are right. If others follow some revenue model that helps customer as well as themselves to make some less money, they are monopoly. if someone relies on bulk business, that is considered dumping (really? what do you think of when you shop at Sams-Club or Costco? Are you being dumped?)

If someone sells through Apple, they ought to get 30% cut. If Apple sells through others (Target kiosk model), Apple (still) holds the right to negotiate.

Anyone using some tablet other than iPad is a cheap ba*t*rd.

I'm typing this on an MBP and while I like to appreciate the Apple products, I would never appreciate their 30% centric business model. Just see their quarterly statement and do a simple math of # of units sold vs the 'profit'.

At the same time, thank god they are not in same discount retailing business as others. That would have placed an Apple product in everyone's hands, literally destroying any sort of competition in the market, no matter how much inferior it would have been.
Reply
Reply
post #99 of 104
1/22/12 at 11:32pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Hey! Look! I guess it is physically possible for Amazon to release their sales numbers!

Wonder why they don't do it anymore maybe it has something to do with how terrible they are

Well, this chart looks like estimates (note the E next to the years), and it is not from Amazon.

But other than that, it is terribly reliable data.
Reply
Reply
post #100 of 104
1/22/12 at 11:38pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Hey! Look! I guess it is physically possible for Amazon to release their sales numbers!

Wonder why they don't do it anymore maybe it has something to do with how terrible they are

Well, this chart looks like estimates (note the E next to the years), and it is not from Amazon.

But other than that, it is terribly reliable data.
Reply
Reply
post #101 of 104
1/23/12 at 7:45am
Checkmate.
Reply
Reply
post #102 of 104
1/23/12 at 8:40am
Quote:
Originally Posted by holy_steven View Post

Checkmate.

For whom?
PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
post #103 of 104
1/23/12 at 11:46am
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinman0 View Post

I'm sure we are actually agreeing. My point was that the CEOs of the publishing companies would have to meet, discuss and possibly agree on a course of action. The only way Apple could be a party to this would be to host the discussion.

However, there is no way in hell that Apple or these guys ever got together in the first place.

According to some reports, Apple did host secret meetings in New York with several of the major publishers.
http://distorted-loop.com/2010/01/20...s-kindle-deal/

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply
post #104 of 104
1/23/12 at 2:12pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by citivas View Post

Amazon NEVER got a 70-30 split in its favor.

Engadget - May 2009 - Amazon takes 70 percent of Kindle newspaper revenues

NY Times - November 2009 - Amazon Increases Kindle Royalties to Publishers

"Amazon will increase the royalties to 70 percent beginning Dec. 1. Publishers previously received about 30 percent, though royalties varied by publisher. "

Engadget - Jan 2010 - Amazon to start paying 70 percent royalties on Kindle books that play by its rules

"On June 30, Amazon is launching a new option in its Digital Text Platform (DTP) publishing scheme that would give authors and publishers 70% of the revenue, with Amazon taking just 30% -- effectively flipping the ratio on its head."
Reply
Reply
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'