or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Judge denies Apple, publishers' motion to dismiss e-book civil suit
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Judge denies Apple, publishers' motion to dismiss e-book civil suit

post #1 of 54
Thread Starter 
A federal judge on Tuesday denied petitions by both Apple and a group of five major publishing houses to dismiss a class-action lawsuit accusing the companies of collusion in e-book price fixing.

Judge Denis Cote of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York handed down the e-book price-fixing suit's first substantive ruling since the case was filed in August 2011.

In the ruling, Judge Cote cites numerous examples of possible collusion between Apple and the publishers, concluding that the companies' alleged pricing scheme warrants further investigation.

?We thought that Judge Cote?s ruling was spot on, especially when she noted that we?ve gone above and beyond in illustrating the legitimacy of our case,? said Steve Berman, lead counsel and managing partner of Hagens Berman, the law firm handling the suit. ?We are eager to push forward with the case.?

The class-action suit claims that Apple, Hachette, Simon & Schuster, Macmillan, HarperCollins and Penguin conspired to raise the prices of e-books by using the so-called agency sales model rather than the predominant wholesale model used at the time.

Under the agency model, a publisher is free to set e-book prices and sell them directly to consumers through an "agent," which in this case is Apple and its iBookstore. In exchange for making the content available, Apple receives a percentage of every e-book sold. The opposing wholesale model used by market leader Amazon gives retailers the power to price e-books purchased from a publisher, allowing them to sell the content at below-cost prices to consolidate market share. According to the class-action suit, the publishers feared that Amazon's discounted prices would translate into an increase of cheap e-book adoption.

?Fortunately for the publishers, Apple was also terrified of Amazon?s pricing and the popularity of its Kindle device,? said Berman. ?Rather than compete on merit, price and convenience, we intend to prove that the cabal simply tried to game the system.?

Apple and the five publishing houses's sales strategy has been criticized as being anticompetitive due in part to a "most favored nations" clause which disallows publishers to sell their product through other retailers at lower prices.



In the ruling, Judge Cote notes that there is tangible evidence in inter-company correspondence that points to an exhibited willingness on the part of the publishers to "work together to effect market change, and specifically, to raise the prices of eBooks through collusion." Most notable are the "windowing" efforts used by the houses to stagger release dates of physical books and e-books in an attempt to up revenue. This strategy, used in 2009 before Apple entered the market, was ultimately unsuccessful.

Also cited was an excerpt from Steve Jobs' biography (emphasis highlighted in ruling):

Amazon screwed it up. It paid the wholesale price for some books, but started selling them below cost at $9.99. The publishers hated that -- they thought it would trash their ability to sell hard-cover books at $28. So before Apple even got on the scene, some booksellers were starting to withhold books from Amazon. So we told the publishers, ?We?ll go to the agency model, where you set the price, and we get our 30%, and

yes, the customer pays a little more, but that?s what you want anyway.? But we also asked for a guarantee that if anybody else is selling the books cheaper than we are, then we can sell them at the lower price too. So they went to Amazon and said, ?You?re going to sign an agency contract or we?re not going to give you the books.? . . . Given the situation that existed, what was best for us was to do this aikido move and end up with the agency model. And we pulled it off.
Tuesday's ruling allows the civil case, which seeks to "compensate e-book purchasers for losses incurred as a result of the alleged price-fixing scheme," to continue, though subsequent hearing dates have yet to be announced.

Earlier this month an amended complaint filed by 17 U.S. states revealed that Apple co-founder Steve Jobs pushed for the agency model. A congruent criminal case is being pursued by the U.S. Department of Justice, though in that instance three of the five publishers settled out of court. The issue is also being examined by the European Commission and is the target of a class-action suit in Canada.
post #2 of 54

This is proof that Apple colluded and should be punished.

 

Sorry. Zither's gone, so I figured I should step in. lol.gif

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #3 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

This is proof that Apple colluded and should be punished.

 

Sorry. Zither's gone, so I figured I should step in. lol.gif

I thought you said it was already established that they didnt. 

"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #4 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

I thought you said it was already established that they didnt. 

Tallest Skill is yanking people’s chain here.  He’s being sarcastic with his response.

post #5 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Zither's gone, so I figured I should step in. lol.gif

 

ZZZ's dead, baby.

 

ZZZ's dead.

 

7088071.jpg

"That’s brilliant. I can see this annoying some people, but what doesn’t these days?" - PMZ
Reply
"That’s brilliant. I can see this annoying some people, but what doesn’t these days?" - PMZ
Reply
post #6 of 54
I'll go out on a limb again -

This was just a preliminary hearing, so we don't know what's going to happen at the trial. However, if Apple loses, it WILL be reversed on appeal. Read the entire decision (you can find it on macsurfer.com). The judge has already convicted Apple and the publishers and hasn't even heard the evidence. He is clearly biased against them from the start.

And, just in case zzzz comes back (or any of his Apple-hating friends), the above is not evidence of collusion. Jobs simply stated the obvious - the publishers would like to see the prices higher. There's absolutely nothing wrong with suggesting to someone that they'd be happier if they got more money for their product. Contrary to popular belief, raising prices is not illegal. In fact, it is clear that Amazon was guilty of predatory pricing - so in that case, illegal activity kept the prices lower than they would have been in a competitive situation.
"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 #7 of 54

I can't believe that some people are so anxious to see Amazon re-emerge as a monopoly with full pricing power. 

post #8 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

This is proof that Apple colluded and should be punished.

 

Sorry. Zither's gone, so I figured I should step in. lol.gif

 

We didn't need Zither before and we certainly don't need anyone stepping in as Zither 2.0. 

 

That said, this really isn't proof of collusion. Apple wanted folks to sign with them, the model they wanted was the same one that Apple was offering for everything else and would have offered the publishers no matter what. It was the publishers choice to push for Amazon to go agency. And it wasn't really needed in order to fulfill the favored nation clause (which might actually be wrongdoing on Apple and Amazon's part). The publishers could have stayed with wholesale but with a condition that Amazon couldn't lower the price before X amount without permission from the publishers as to the price and the period of time they could have the item 'on sale'. Then every time Amazon wanted to put something up for $9.99 they could veto it. or it was for say the opening week they could do the same on the ibooks store as a release special. Heck for major authors Apple might have offered them prime marketing space as part of one of their special promos

 

Collusion is also hard to define in a category of items. With something like gasoline it is a very limited range of products and more clearly evident that something is up with the prices. With something as wide as books, music, movies it gets harder to work with. the DOJ making statements like consumers were over charged because they know the 'correct' price for ebooks is far fetched. Books are a value added type item. The price is based on the value the publishers think it has as much as the cost of producing the item. If the consumers agree with that value, they pay. If they don't, then they don't. It's not at all the same as a gallon of gas, or a pound of apples. 

 

The DOJ has shown proof of the publishers saying they need to band together and present a united front to change the way books, especially ebooks are handled. That reeks of collusion. But there's no proof that Apple was part of that game. It all started well before Apple got into the ebooks world. Perhaps it was inspired by the way that Apple handles other media but that doesn't mean that Apple was part of their collusion against Amazon. Who by the by got off with some schemes of their own with possible predatory pricing games and then there was all that 'we won't sell your stuff in any form if you try to push this' tactics. Where was the DOJ then. 

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #9 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by diddy View Post

Tallest Skill is yanking people’s chain here.  He’s being sarcastic with his response.

I know, and I was being equally sarcastic.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #10 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

 Jobs simply stated the obvious - the publishers would like to see the prices higher. 

 

It's also basically second time evidence. Steve likely wasn't telling it EXACTLY as it happened and exactly what was said. These comments from the biography will probably be shot down as heresay since there's no way to validate that it is a correct version of the events. After all no one was probably recording those meetings and phone calls and thus far no one has produced a letter or emails with those words. Just the one where Steve went to ONE publisher to make a second attempt at arguing why they should go with Apple and posed the notion that Amazon wouldn't change their methods or pricing etc. 

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #11 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by penchanted View Post

I can't believe that some people are so anxious to see Amazon re-emerge as a monopoly with full pricing power. 

Honestly most people don't care if there was a monopoly or not, nor are they aware of the wholesale vs agency models. People simply want to know why did the ebooks they used to pay $9.99 are now $12.99 since Apple came on the scene.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #12 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

I'll go out on a limb again -
This was just a preliminary hearing, so we don't know what's going to happen at the trial. However, if Apple loses, it WILL be reversed on appeal. Read the entire decision (you can find it on macsurfer.com). The judge has already convicted Apple and the publishers and hasn't even heard the evidence. He is clearly biased against them from the start.
And, just in case zzzz comes back (or any of his Apple-hating friends), the above is not evidence of collusion. Jobs simply stated the obvious - the publishers would like to see the prices higher. There's absolutely nothing wrong with suggesting to someone that they'd be happier if they got more money for their product. Contrary to popular belief, raising prices is not illegal. In fact, it is clear that Amazon was guilty of predatory pricing - so in that case, illegal activity kept the prices lower than they would have been in a competitive situation.

But they're not getting more money, the 30% increase is only gonna line the resellers pocket with cash not the publisher, and what do we get for an extra 30%? In Apple's case an inferior product. iBooks can only be read on iDevices whereas with the Kindle app a ebook can be read on multiple platforms and devices. We as consumers lose.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #13 of 54
I love denial. Not as much as fortune telling but the denial is cute.
post #14 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

I'll go out on a limb again -
This was just a preliminary hearing, so we don't know what's going to happen at the trial. However, if Apple loses, it WILL be reversed on appeal. Read the entire decision (you can find it on macsurfer.com). The judge has already convicted Apple and the publishers and hasn't even heard the evidence. He is clearly biased against them from the start.
And, just in case zzzz comes back (or any of his Apple-hating friends), the above is not evidence of collusion. Jobs simply stated the obvious - the publishers would like to see the prices higher. There's absolutely nothing wrong with suggesting to someone that they'd be happier if they got more money for their product. Contrary to popular belief, raising prices is not illegal. In fact, it is clear that Amazon was guilty of predatory pricing - so in that case, illegal activity kept the prices lower than they would have been in a competitive situation.

 

I’m sorry that I keep quoting you. You are not the only person to misapprehend the law, but you seem to make the tallest statements. Folks, this is a motion to dismiss. The judge must assume that the allegations set forth in the complaint are true. Then, she must decide whether these facts, so alleged, meet the elements or criteria of the legal causes of action. If so, no dismissal. In other words, it’s pretty difficult for a competent party to screw up the complaint such that it would be dismissed. But when you accuse a federal judge of being “clearly biased,” I’m sorry to say that you do the discussion no good.
post #15 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

But they're not getting more money, the 30% increase is only gonna line the resellers pocket with cash not the publisher, and what do we get for an extra 30%? In Apple's case an inferior product. iBooks can only be read on iDevices whereas with the Kindle app a ebook can be read on multiple platforms and devices. We as consumers lose.

First, Apple's 30% is lower than the typical distribution cost when there is a competitive market. Typically, booksellers get a 50% discount on the price. And when it comes to things like apps, Apple's 30% was considerably lower than the going rate. The problem is that you're comparing a market where a monopolist was subsidizing eBooks by overcharging for printed books where they had a strong pricing power. That distorted the market, so a return to free market pricing caused the price of the eBooks to go up in the short run. In the end, the competition is likely to be good for consumers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Honestly most people don't care if there was a monopoly or not, nor are they aware of the wholesale vs agency models. People simply want to know why did the ebooks they used to pay $9.99 are now $12.99 since Apple came on the scene.

That's what happens when you look at things with a narrow, short term focus.

It is true that prices went up after Apple entered the scene. But that's because Amazon was artificially depressing the prices to maintain their monopoly. After they had ensured that no one else could enter the market, they could have squeezed publishers to let Amazon control the market. Think about what happened to gasoline supplies in the 70s after the price was kept artificially low for a period of time.

Furthermore, Amazon was still profitable. So they were using physical book sales to subsidize their predatory pricing on eBooks. So the consumers should have been asking "why are we overpaying for physical books so that Amazon can monopolize the eBook market?"
"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 #16 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

First, Apple's 30% is lower than the typical distribution cost when there is a competitive market. Typically, booksellers get a 50% discount on the price. And when it comes to things like apps, Apple's 30% was considerably lower than the going rate. The problem is that you're comparing a market where a monopolist was subsidizing eBooks by overcharging for printed books where they had a strong pricing power. That distorted the market, so a return to free market pricing caused the price of the eBooks to go up in the short run. In the end, the competition is likely to be good for consumers.
That's what happens when you look at things with a narrow, short term focus.
It is true that prices went up after Apple entered the scene. But that's because Amazon was artificially depressing the prices to maintain their monopoly. After they had ensured that no one else could enter the market, they could have squeezed publishers to let Amazon control the market. Think about what happened to gasoline supplies in the 70s after the price was kept artificially low for a period of time.
Furthermore, Amazon was still profitable. So they were using physical book sales to subsidize their predatory pricing on eBooks. So the consumers should have been asking "why are we overpaying for physical books so that Amazon can monopolize the eBook market?"

What free market? Those most favored nations clauses will eliminate competitive pricing.
Unfortunately the vast majority of people in this country see things in a narrow short term way. Many will assume Apple is guilty because of the increase of price upon their arrival, simple case of cause and effect.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #17 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Honestly most people don't care if there was a monopoly or not, nor are they aware of the wholesale vs agency models. People simply want to know why did the ebooks they used to pay $9.99 are now $12.99 since Apple came on the scene.

Exactly. Here's a practical example:

This evening I looked up "How To Win Friends and Influence People" by Dale Carnegie on Amazon. I was considering buying the Kindle version to replace my paper copy.

The Kindle version is $12.99. That's a price set by Simon & Schuster.

The hard back version is $13.98.

The paperback version is $9.00.

This is for a product that is far cheaper per unit than printed books which cannot be sold by the buyer when they're done with it. What value is there in the electronic version that makes it worth 44% more than the paperback version? I don't see it.

If Amazon gave S&S $9.09 per electronic copy (70%, which is what they get from Apple), and Amazon turns around and sells it for $9.99, or $9.49, they can still make a profit, and S&S makes more than they obviously get for the more costly paper copies. But even if Amazon sells it for $7.99, who is S&S to say how much to charge? They're still getting their $9.09 per copy, which is clearly more profitable than for paper copies. They certainly don't tell resellers of paper copies what they have to sell them for.

Congratulations S&S. Because of your greed, you just earned $0 on that lost sale.
post #18 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

What free market? Those most favored nations clauses will eliminate competitive pricing.

You left off "black is white" and "war is peace".
"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 #19 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


First, Apple's 30% is lower than the typical distribution cost when there is a competitive market. Typically, booksellers get a 50% discount on the price. And when it comes to things like apps, Apple's 30% was considerably lower than the going rate. The problem is that you're comparing a market where a monopolist was subsidizing eBooks by overcharging for printed books where they had a strong pricing power. That distorted the market, so a return to free market pricing caused the price of the eBooks to go up in the short run. In the end, the competition is likely to be good for consumers.
That's what happens when you look at things with a narrow, short term focus.
It is true that prices went up after Apple entered the scene. But that's because Amazon was artificially depressing the prices to maintain their monopoly. After they had ensured that no one else could enter the market, they could have squeezed publishers to let Amazon control the market. Think about what happened to gasoline supplies in the 70s after the price was kept artificially low for a period of time.
Furthermore, Amazon was still profitable. So they were using physical book sales to subsidize their predatory pricing on eBooks. So the consumers should have been asking "why are we overpaying for physical books so that Amazon can monopolize the eBook market?"

 

uhhhh yeah. I remember seeing something about consumers picketing for HIGHER prices outside of Amazon headquarters lol.gif

post #20 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by sleepy3 View Post

uhhhh yeah. I remember seeing something about consumers picketing for HIGHER prices outside of Amazon headquarters lol.gif

Your inability to come up with a rational argument is noted.

No one ever denied that illegal predatory pricing resulted in lower prices to consumers FOR A SHORT TIME. In the long run, it is bad for consumers - which is why there are laws against it.
"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 #21 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Your inability to come up with a rational argument is noted.
No one ever denied that illegal predatory pricing resulted in lower prices to consumers FOR A SHORT TIME. In the long run, it is bad for consumers - which is why there are laws against it.

So to be clear, you are claiming Amazon was/is using the illegal practice of predatory pricing, since your reply was in regards to Amazon?

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #22 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

You left off "black is white" and "war is peace".

Have you looked in the mirror lately? A "Most Favored Nation" clause plus an agency pricing model means that no one can undercut another seller's prices. That's because in an agency model the amount the publisher gets is based on the selling price, not a negotiated wholesale cost.
post #23 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

No one ever denied that illegal predatory pricing resulted in lower prices to consumers FOR A SHORT TIME. In the long run, it is bad for consumers - which is why there are laws against it.

A) You're assuming predatory pricing.

B) Competition is why the free market works and centralized economies don't.
post #24 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by EWTHeckman View Post


A) You're assuming predatory pricing.
B) Competition is why the free market works and centralized economies don't.

ssshhhhhh.....don't let him know that. 

 

As far as he concerns if someone doesn't get a 30% margin on what they sell, they should be taken to court and forced to raise prices. 

post #25 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by EWTHeckman View Post

A) You're assuming predatory pricing.

I'm assuming no such thing. It is public knowledge that Amazon is selling books for below their cost and Amazon had an overwhelming market share in eBooks. No assumptions needed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EWTHeckman View Post

B) Competition is why the free market works and centralized economies don't.

True. Which is why Amazon should be severely punished for destroying competition via their predatory pricing.
"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 #26 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by EWTHeckman View Post

Have you looked in the mirror lately? A "Most Favored Nation" clause plus an agency pricing model means that no one can undercut another seller's prices. That's because in an agency model the amount the publisher gets is based on the selling price, not a negotiated wholesale cost.

So an agency pricing model is more disruptive to the market than Amazon's predatory pricing to keep competitors from getting established? you're really confused.

Furthermore, you're assuming that the only way to compete is on price. That is not the case.
"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 #27 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

I'm assuming no such thing. It is public knowledge that Amazon is selling books for below their cost and Amazon had an overwhelming market share in eBooks. No assumptions needed.

Selling some items below cost is not necessarily "predatory pricing". Predatory pricing is a SUBSET of below cost pricing, just like "jet" is a SUBSET of "aircraft". Retail stores—including grocery store, department stores, and brick and mortar bookstores—routinely sell some items below cost. That's known as a "loss leader" and no contents the practice is "predatory pricing".

To prove predatory pricing you must first know the cost of everything (or most things) in the category you're looking at. Second, you must show that a significant percentage of those items is priced below cost. You have done neither, merely assumed predatory pricing, but not proven or even shown that it's likely.
post #28 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Furthermore, you're assuming that the only way to compete is on price. That is not the case.

No, I'm not. Merely addressing the current point: price. Other attributes of competition (service, availability, convenience, etc.) do not affect price when an agency pricing model is in place.

In open competition in a free market, consumers are free to choose their preferred balance between the low price/low service and high price/high service ends of the marketplace.
post #29 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Your inability to come up with a rational argument is noted.
No one ever denied that illegal predatory pricing resulted in lower prices to consumers FOR A SHORT TIME. In the long run, it is bad for consumers - which is why there are laws against it.

Then where's the lawsuits against Amazon for their predatory pricing practices?
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #30 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

So an agency pricing model is more disruptive to the market than Amazon's predatory pricing to keep competitors from getting established? you're really confused.
Furthermore, you're assuming that the only way to compete is on price. That is not the case.

Apple can only compete on price against Amazon since iBooks is an inferior product. Wgt would I buy a ebook on iBooks when its limited to Apple's ecosystem. I'd much rather buy it from Amazon and have access to it across multiple platforms.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #31 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by EWTHeckman View Post

No, I'm not. Merely addressing the current point: price. Other attributes of competition (service, availability, convenience, etc.) do not affect price when an agency pricing model is in place.
In open competition in a free market, consumers are free to choose their preferred balance between the low price/low service and high price/high service ends of the marketplace.

This is a rare instance that Apple can't offer a higher service for a higher price.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #32 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Then where's the lawsuits against Amazon for their predatory pricing practices?

I love it. If Apple sues, all the trolls emerge from the woodwork whining about how Apple sues everyone in sight. If Apple DOESN'T sue, the same trolls emerge from the woodwork saying that Apple should have sued.
"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 #33 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


I love it. If Apple sues, all the trolls emerge from the woodwork whining about how Apple sues everyone in sight. If Apple DOESN'T sue, the same trolls emerge from the woodwork saying that Apple should have sued.

You really can't stand it when people have irrefutable arguments, hence the name-calling.

 

Apple sues right, left and center. If it missed a lawsuit, then there wasn't even a hint of reason for a lawsuit.

post #34 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio View Post

You really can't stand it when people have irrefutable arguments, hence the name-calling.

Apple sues right, left and center. If it missed a lawsuit, then there wasn't even a hint of reason for a lawsuit.

How is that an irrefutable argument? Apple didn't sue. We don't have any idea why and it's dopey to assume that Apple didn't care simply because they didn't file suit.

But, then, your entire life seems to revolve around pretending that Apple is guilty even without any evidence.


And my statement was 100% correct. People like you attack Apple if they sue and you also attack if they don't sue. In your view, nothing Apple does can ever be right.
"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 #35 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

I love it. If Apple sues, all the trolls emerge from the woodwork whining about how Apple sues everyone in sight. If Apple DOESN'T sue, the same trolls emerge from the woodwork saying that Apple should have sued.

Wrong. I wouldn't expect Apple to sue Amazon over predatory pricing practices, that'd be on the DOJ to pursue.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #36 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


How is that an irrefutable argument? Apple didn't sue. We don't have any idea why and it's dopey to assume that Apple didn't care simply because they didn't file suit.
But, then, your entire life seems to revolve around pretending that Apple is guilty even without any evidence.
And my statement was 100% correct. People like you attack Apple if they sue and you also attack if they don't sue. In your view, nothing Apple does can ever be right.

I applaud Apple for not filing a frivolous lawsuit against Amazon.

 

What's left of your straw-man argument now?

post #37 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


Wrong. I wouldn't expect Apple to sue Amazon over predatory pricing practices, that'd be on the DOJ to pursue.

Indeed, provided that there is a reason. Apparently there isn't.

post #38 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

This is a rare instance that Apple can't offer a higher service for a higher price.

Agreed. Which is why I've been buying ebooks on Kindle, not iBooks. That's also motive (though not proof) for Apple to convince publishers to switch to an agency pricing model.
post #39 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio View Post

I applaud Apple for not filing a frivolous lawsuit against Amazon.

What's left of your straw-man argument now?

It's not a straw-man argument when you keep flip-flopping all over the place.

You claimed that there must not be a case against Amazon because Apple didn't sue. The bogus logic in that statement is obvious to anyone who's not dopey.
"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 #40 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


It's not a straw-man argument when you keep flip-flopping all over the place.
You claimed that there must not be a case against Amazon because Apple didn't sue. The bogus logic in that statement is obvious to anyone who's not dopey.

 

Your straw-man argument, quoted again below for maximum clarity, was that people like me attack Apple when Apple doesn't sue, and that nothing Apple does can ever be right  for me. In fact, nobody attacked Apple for not suing, and I even applauded them for not suing, hence I thought Apple's actions in this regard were correct.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

...
And my statement was 100% correct. People like you attack Apple if they sue and you also attack if they don't sue. In your view, nothing Apple does can ever be right.

 

Do you ever get tired of making up lies? Do you ever feel embarrassed for being constantly wrong in public?

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Judge denies Apple, publishers' motion to dismiss e-book civil suit