or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple e-book price fixing trial set for 2013
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple e-book price fixing trial set for 2013

post #1 of 78
Thread Starter 
A U.S. judge on Friday said that Apple will go to trial in 2013 over alleged collusion with a number of major publishing houses to fix the price of e-books sold through the iBookstore.

U.S. District Court Judge Denise Cote of the Southern District of New York said that Apple and two publishers will face a United States antitrust lawsuit in a bench trial on June 3, 2013 that will decide whether the companies conspired to fix e-book prices before the iPad was launched in 2010, reports Reuters.

The U.S. government first leveled its antitrust suit against Apple and the two publishing houses in early April following a Department of Justice investigation into the matter. Apple denies the allegations and goes further, saying that it broke up Amazon's purported e-book monopoly. Amazon was, and still is, the predominant leader in the e-book market thanks in part to the company's Kindle line of eReaders.

Fighting alongside Apple are Macmillan, a unit of Verlagsgruppe Georg von Holtzbrinck GmbH, and the Pearson-owned Penguin Group. The original U.S. complaint named five publishers, but News Corp's HarperCollins Publishers Inc, CBS Corp's Simon & Schuster Inc and Lagardere SCA subsidiary Hachette Book Group all settled out of court.



At the heart of the trial is Apple's so-called "agency model" which allows publishers set e-book pricing under a "most favored nations" clause that disallows them to sell the content to other resellers at a cheaper price. The system is the polar opposite of Amazon's "wholesale model" which allows retailers to set below-cost prices in hopes of drumming up sales.

The agency model is more attractive to publishers that have been stung by the quick adoption of relatively inexpensive e-books, though some argue that the scheme is anticompetitive and harms consumers. A number of class-action lawsuits have sprung up regarding the matter in both the U.S. and Canada.

Noted in the government's filing was an email from Apple founder Steve Jobs which is being used, some say improperly, as evidence to Apple's collusion.

The iPad maker appears up to the challenge and sought out a trial itself shortly after the government filed the antitrust suit.

According to court documents the government is giving nine months for fact discovery with a deadline set for March 22, 2013, a period deemed fair for an antitrust case of this size.
post #2 of 78
Apple better have it's ducks in order and considering his track record, I don't think Mr Sewell is up to the task.

512
post #3 of 78

Good

Household: MacBook, iPad 16gb wifi, iPad 64gb wifi, iPad Mini 32gb, coming iPhone 5S, iPhone 4S 32gb, iPhone 32gb, iPod Touch 4th gen x1, iPod nano 16gb gen 5 x2, iPod nano gen 3 8gb, iPod classic...
Reply
Household: MacBook, iPad 16gb wifi, iPad 64gb wifi, iPad Mini 32gb, coming iPhone 5S, iPhone 4S 32gb, iPhone 32gb, iPod Touch 4th gen x1, iPod nano 16gb gen 5 x2, iPod nano gen 3 8gb, iPod classic...
Reply
post #4 of 78
Maybe the first thing they can discover is the net effect of Apple's entry into the eBook market.

Prices have either fallen, risen or remained the same.

The price of ALL eBooks should be included not just a few examples which may have had discounts applied in the past.

It is up to the free market to decide fair prices, not the government to dictate them.
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #5 of 78
It
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Maybe the first thing they can discover is the net effect of Apple's entry into the eBook market.
Prices have either fallen, risen or remained the same.
The price of ALL eBooks should be included not just a few examples which may have had discounts applied in the past.
It is up to the free market to decide fair prices, not the government to dictate them.

And is ok for Apple to set prices like when they set the price for songs?

The prices of ebooks have risen, fallen, and remained the same. That leads me to believe that Amazon was under-pricing some while over-pricing others. There's nothing wrong with the agency model but there's a problem when one agreement conflicts with another.
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #6 of 78
Please don't say "cheaper price"
A price doesn't cost anything.
A price is either "high" or "low", and therefore "higher" or "lower".
post #7 of 78

How can they possibly be accused of price fixing when Apple lets the publishers choose the price?

post #8 of 78

I think this will end as an embarrassment for the DoJ. Not reported here on AI, Barnes and Noble is officially contesting the settlement made with some publishers on the grounds that outlawing agency pricing effectively installs Amazon with a monopoly in e-books. It's likely that the DoJ will lose this trial and that the settlement will be thrown out.

post #9 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArchAngel21x View Post

How can they possibly be accused of price fixing when Apple lets the publishers choose the price?

 

My understanding of the whole thing may be a little off, but, basically, Apple's conversation with the major publishers went something like this:

 

 

"We're interested in entering the eBook market, but we don't want to have to compete with Amazon's and other retailers' prices. We hear you don't like how Amazon is charging low prices for your eBooks and that you want to make more money off of your books by making Amazon charge higher prices. We know that, traditionally, you sell your books to a retailer at your designated wholesale price and the retailer is free to set prices however they wish. We think we can help you change that.

 

We'll help you get all publishers to agree to impose fixed, higher prices on all of your books and force those new terms on Amazon and other retailers so that they can't lower prices on them to give consumers 'fair' prices for cheap-to-make digital goods! In addition, no retailer can undercut another retailer's price on one of your eBooks so we eliminate competition entirely!

 

As long as we still get our fat percentage on every sale, you get more money and we don't have to compete with Amazon's prices! Of course, higher prices means we get more money too! Its win-win for us sellers!"

 

 

In other words, the switch to the Agency model where publishers fix the the price on all eBooks was all Apple's doing just so that they wouldn't have to compete with other online retailers.

post #10 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

It
And is ok for Apple to set prices like when they set the price for songs?

Since Apple doesn't set the prices, that's a moot question.
"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 #11 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Inevitable View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by ArchAngel21x View Post

How can they possibly be accused of price fixing when Apple lets the publishers choose the price?

 

My understanding of the whole thing may be a little off, but, basically, Apple's conversation with the major publishers went something like this:

 

 

"We're interested in entering the eBook market, but we don't want to have to compete with Amazon's and other retailers' prices. We hear you don't like how Amazon is charging low prices for your eBooks and that you want to make more money off of your books by making Amazon charge higher prices. We know that, traditionally, you sell your books to a retailer at your designated wholesale price and the retailer is free to set prices however they wish. We think we can help you change that.

 

We'll help you get all publishers to agree to impose fixed, higher prices on all of your books and force those new terms on Amazon and other retailers so that they can't lower prices on them to give consumers 'fair' prices for cheap-to-make digital goods! In addition, no retailer can undercut another retailer's price on one of your eBooks so we eliminate competition entirely!

 

As long as we still get our fat percentage on every sale, you get more money and we don't have to compete with Amazon's prices! Of course, higher prices means we get more money too! Its win-win for us sellers!"

 

 

In other words, the switch to the Agency model where publishers fix the the price on all eBooks was all Apple's doing just so that they wouldn't have to compete with other online retailers.

 

This is a good summation. The only bit I would add to it that I have read on other sites, but not this site is apparently the deal with Apple and the publishers required that a certain number of  publishers quickly agree to it or else the deal would he withdrawn for all publishers. If that indeed in the case then no amount of lawyering in the should be able to help Apple as that is textbook collusion.


Edited by trumptman - 6/23/12 at 10:11am

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #12 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Since Apple doesn't set the prices, that's a moot question.

Then whose idea was it to sell sontgs for $.99?
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #13 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Inevitable View Post

My understanding of the whole thing may be a little off, but, basically, Apple's conversation with the major publishers went something like this:

That's what the DOJ wants folks to believe, but neither they nor has shown any proof of anything.

Apple offered the same terms they were and are using in their other stores.

If the DOJ wants to look at something they should take a heavy look at Amazons pre iBooks terms, predatory pricing etc
post #14 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

This is a good summation. The only bit I would add to it that I have read on other sites, but not this site is apparently the deal with Apple and the publishers required that a certain number of  publishers quickly agree to it or else the deal would he withdrawn for all publishers. If that indeed in the case then no amount of lawyering in the should be able to help Apple as that is textbook collusion.

Collusion is about fixing prices, not terms.

And so what if Apple pulled said deal. It doesn't mean they couldn't or wouldn't offer a different one. They only wanted to have one set of terms and if a majority didn't agree to the first deal, then they move to a different one. Like 'wholesale' but the publisher can still set the price sold, or some other scheme
post #15 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerrySwitched26 View Post

Read some of the older stories about the DOJ accusations and the comments made upon them.  Go to unbiased sources like the WSj and the NYT.


Edit:  The summary "conversation" above is not too bad of a summary.

The bottom line is that the DoJ's action if successful and allowed to stand will result in not only effectively legitimizing an Amazon monopoly in e-books, gained by leveraging their dominance in other markets, but also further consolidate that monopoly by dictating the terms under which publishers must sell books, solely to Aamazon's advantage.

In other words, the DoJ is effectively acting to clear the field of competition for Amazon, an outcome that only a fool could argue will not harm consumers and ultimately result in higher prices, and less choice, by increasing the ever widening scope of control Amazon has in the publishing industry. In the future, not only will Amazon dictate how much you pay for books, but also what books get published -- i.e., what you are able to read.
Edited by anonymouse - 6/23/12 at 3:34pm
post #16 of 78

And, in other news, the government is considering retrying Roger Clemens...

 

Frankly, I hope the government loses this one as it has many in the recent past. We sell books through Amazon and Apple, and Amazon has so many charges and rates that we never know what we're going to end up with. Basically, they do as they please. We have found Apple's rate is very easy to understand and fair.

post #17 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

This is a good summation. The only bit I would add to it that I have read on other sites, but not this site is apparently the deal with Apple and the publishers required that a certain number of  publishers quickly agree to it or else the deal would he withdrawn for all publishers. If that indeed in the case then no amount of lawyering in the should be able to help Apple as that is textbook collusion.

Collusion is about fixing prices, not terms.

And so what if Apple pulled said deal. It doesn't mean they couldn't or wouldn't offer a different one. They only wanted to have one set of terms and if a majority didn't agree to the first deal, then they move to a different one. Like 'wholesale' but the publisher can still set the price sold, or some other scheme

 

Terms can fix prices. It isn't just about a number. If my terms declare you have to raise your prices 30%, then I've dictated an aspect of the price to you. If my terms declare that no one else can be allowed to undercut the price at which I am selling something, I have fixed the prices there as well.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #18 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Inevitable View Post

 

My understanding of the whole thing may be a little off, but, basically, Apple's conversation with the major publishers went something like this:

 

blah blah blah

 

"Hey book guys, this is how we sell our music, movies, TV shows, newspapers, magazines and Apps.

 

Want to sell your eBooks the same way?"

A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #19 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Inevitable View Post

 

My understanding of the whole thing may be a little off, but, basically, Apple's conversation with the major publishers went something like this:

 

blah blah blah

 

"Hey book guys, this is how we sell our music, movies, TV shows, newspapers, magazines and Apps.

 

Want to sell your eBooks the same way?"

 

It is a lot more complicated than that. It goes more like this....

 

Apple - "Hey book guys, we realize we were just about the first or at least the biggest on the block when it came to selling music, movies, tv shows and apps. However there is already an "Apple" in this market and they even have pricing that undercuts our model of doing business. Normally being late, trailing edge and unable to match the current price model would be a problem, but we've got a solution to that!"

 

Book Publishers - "Innovation? You've got a backlit e-ink, e-reader that will be standardized around the world, that you can support and push out through your numerous well supported stores that will net you better profits through less expensive hardware, but a great network effect and better eco-system?" "Oh, maybe you've got an e-reader app that has features that no other reader will be able to match for years." "Oh, one more thing, maybe you've got some sort of bundling deal, possible via all your other prior deals where you could add the book to the movie, the soundtrack or maybe the audiobook. Maybe you've got a nice solution where someone buys a physical book and gets the e-book download for free via iTunes since you have amazing background in managing and protecting intellectual property."

 

Apple - "Hell's no to that bitches. We've got collusion baby. We need at least four out of the six of you to sign a deal with us that makes it impossible for someone to undercut our price and then you raise prices to match our need for 30%. We've got a similar e-reader app but it goes much fewer places and finally you'd better hurry up and sign or we aren't going to work with you and give you the best access to our 325 million devices, no pressure though. By best access we mean that our e-reader app is allowed to link to our store while everyone else's e-reader app isn't due to our terms and conditions. We aren't saying you have to sign up. We are just saying you all better line up and kiss the ring because we won't work with just one or two of you."

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #20 of 78

If Apple creates a contract that prevents a book publisher from selling his goods at a lower price elsewhere it is price fixing. The same goes in reverse. If Apple says they can't sell the same products at a higher price is also price fixing, though Apple would probably like that. The law is strange regarding price fixing because it doesn't apply to all industries. That is how government created some more jobs for attorneys. They get to argue about it in court.

 

Price fixing can relate to the selling and buying of items. It happens when people or businesses decide how to act together when buying or selling things.

post #21 of 78
The agencies still have to sell a book at a price that people are willing to pay or nobody makes money. If all resellers sell at the same price, then every reseller has to compete by offering a better experience (digital storefront, financial interactions, software, customer service, ebook format and quality, etc). If you think that Apple has magically eliminated competition just by normalizing prices across distributors, you're an idiot.
post #22 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

 

It is a lot more complicated than that. It goes more like this....

 

blah blah blah

 

Actually it isn't at all like that, it is as simple as I stated.

 

No collusion, no price fixing, no laws broken.

 

Just the DoJ catering to the lobbyists who give them money to help them get re-elected.

 

Too bad none of the other pigs at the trough will follow up the money trail or investigate the simple question "Who stands to gain the most out of this investigation?"

 

That's just politics, America has the best justice money can buy.

A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #23 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Then whose idea was it to sell sontgs for $.99?

Since we're talking about eBooks, that's irrelevant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Inevitable View Post

My understanding of the whole thing may be a little off, but, basically, Apple's conversation with the major publishers went something like this:


"We're interested in entering the eBook market, but we don't want to have to compete with Amazon's and other retailers' prices. We hear you don't like how Amazon is charging low prices for your eBooks and that you want to make more money off of your books by making Amazon charge higher prices. We know that, traditionally, you sell your books to a retailer at your designated wholesale price and the retailer is free to set prices however they wish. We think we can help you change that.

We'll help you get all publishers to agree to impose fixed, higher prices on all of your books and force those new terms on Amazon and other retailers so that they can't lower prices on them to give consumers 'fair' prices for cheap-to-make digital goods! In addition, no retailer can undercut another retailer's price on one of your eBooks so we eliminate competition entirely!

As long as we still get our fat percentage on every sale, you get more money and we don't have to compete with Amazon's prices! Of course, higher prices means we get more money too! Its win-win for us sellers!"


In other words, the switch to the Agency model where publishers fix the the price on all eBooks was all Apple's doing just so that they wouldn't have to compete with other online retailers.

Actually, there's no evidence of the bolded. Apple offered the booksellers a different scheme for selling their books. Period.
"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 #24 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Since we're talking about eBooks, that's irrelevant.
Actually, there's no evidence of the bolded. Apple offered the booksellers a different scheme for selling their books. Period.

 

 

You didn't read the complaint, eh?  The DOJ has specific dates and statements that show that Apple's message totthe publishers was  "We'll help you get all publishers to agree to impose fixed, higher prices on all of your books and force those new terms on Amazon and other retailers "

 

 

Look at the complaint.  If you're lazy, start at paragraph 55 or so.  Paragraph 65 has direct evidence.

post #25 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

 

It is a lot more complicated than that. It goes more like this....

 

blah blah blah

 

Actually it isn't at all like that, it is as simple as I stated.

 

No collusion, no price fixing, no laws broken.

 

Just the DoJ catering to the lobbyists who give them money to help them get re-elected.

 

Too bad none of the other pigs at the trough will follow up the money trail or investigate the simple question "Who stands to gain the most out of this investigation?"

 

That's just politics, America has the best justice money can buy.

 

Well I'm so glad that to support your view you've got the nice circular logic of you are right because you say you are right whereas I've got all the evidence the DOJ is presenting. There are a lot of areas where Apple is right. In this area, they are absolutely wrong and I'm worried about that because a good chunk of what makes Apple the company it is involves how the public perceives it. A very large and well publicized case where Apple is shown to be about raising prices and getting their 30% come hell or high water could be part of a tipping point where they enter as Apple the innovator and leave as Apple the company no different than Microsoft circa 1998-2010. You sticking your head in the sand and repeating yourself won't change that point.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #26 of 78

Apple will settle this one.  The last thing they need is for the consumer to realize that Apple colluded to raise prices.

 

This thing is just getting started.  It will snowball in the media if Apple doesn't settle soon.  

 

Maybe Apple will get together with the co-conspirators and devise an alternate scheme that accomplishes the same thing - Apple gets 30% of high prices and faces no price competition from anybody else.

 

But this time, they won't leave such an obvious trail of evidence.

post #27 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerrySwitched26 View Post


You didn't read the complaint, eh?  The DOJ has specific dates and statements that show that Apple's message totthe publishers was  "We'll help you get all publishers to agree to impose fixed, higher prices on all of your books and force those new terms on Amazon and other retailers
 "



Look at the complaint.  If you're lazy, start at paragraph 55 or so.  Paragraph 65 has direct evidence.

Sorry, but those are allegations until proven in court.

Furthermore, as has been pointed out repeatedly, the DOJ is grossly mis-interpreting what Jobs said.
"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 #28 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerrySwitched26 View Post


But then you will claim that the court is wrong and it will be overturned on appeal.  And then you will claim that the appeals court is wrong and that the Supreme Court will overturn it.  And then you will claim that the Supreme court is wrong.

First you claimed that there was no evidence.  As of now, you claim that the DOJ made fraudulant and false allegations, ones that could not be proven,  about the existence of the evidence in a high-profile case.  

You're hallucinating, again. I never even mentioned the Supreme Court, nor did I say that they were wrong.

I did, however, suggest that you were misapplying a Supreme Court decision - which amounts to an entirely different matter. After all, you are the one saying that since you don't have a law degree, your statements are worthless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerrySwitched26 View Post

Grasping at straws much?  Are you saying that each of the facts outlined below is a lie by the DOJ?  


62. Apple's Mr. Cue e-mailed each Publisher Defendant between January 4,2010,
and January 6, 2010 an outline ofwhat he tabbed "the best approach for e-books." He reassured
Penguin USACEO David Shanks and other Publisher Defendant CEOs that Apple adopted the
approach "[a]fter talking to all the other publishers." Mr. Cue sent substantively identical e-mail
messages and proposals to each Publisher Defendant.
63. The outlined proposal that Apple circulated after consulting with each Publisher
Defendant contained several key features. First, as Hachette and HarperCollins had initially
suggested to Apple, the publisher would be the principal and Apple would be the agent for ebook sales. Consumer pricing authority would be transferred from retailers to publishers.
Second, Apple's proposal mandated that every other retailer of each publisher's e-books -
Apple's direct competitors - be forced to accept the agency model as well. As Mr. Cue wrote,
"all resellers ofnew titles need to be in agency model." Third, Apple would receive a 30 percent
commission for each e-book sale. And fourth, each Publisher Defendant would have identical
pricing tiers for e-books sold through Apple's iBookstore.

What part of "innocent until proven guilty" do you not understand?
"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 #29 of 78

First there is substantial proof Apple colluded. Innocent until proven guilty has everything to do with a judge sentencing, fining or imposition a solution.

 

The real point is that if Apple let's it get to that, they've already lost in a half dozen ways. This isn't some highly technical matter that most people will be unable to understand. This isn't about Apple being an innovator and other companies copying what they are doing. This is Apple being late to the game, and colluding with publishers to raise prices to protect their 30% cut when being near last to enter the e-book market. This isn't some foreign competitor that is stealing American intellectual property. This is about Amazon which is another American company that loads of people do business with as well.

 

This issue has an easy to understand narrative and in the court of public opinion that will make Apple look very, very bad.

 

Another reason that this can hurt Apple so much is basically iBooks isn't a very good solution PERIOD. It isn't something lust worthy or industry leading. There is no sizzle to it nor any trade-offs that people can use to justify the Apple decisions there be they controversial or not. If people want to argue that the rMBP shouldn't have ram and storage that are not upgradeable you at least get to touch a blazing fast, super thin and amazingly powerful computer to shut up 95% of the detractors.

 

You open iBooks and it looks just like every other eBook app on the planet. You look at the injured party here, both the consumer and Amazon and you have a sympathetic figure. Amazon is clearly an innovator in eBook readers and have products across all manner of price points. The Kindle app runs on all platforms and even runs through your web browser. They are only guilty of trying to bring you cheap books and fighting the publishers for a lower price point.

 

There isn't a single scenario involving this where Apple comes out looking good. There aren't even trade-offs that people would want to argue for or recommend. There's no thin vs serviceable or quality vs cheap or anything like that. It is a straight up scenario of Apple collaborating with others to raise prices, to punish consumers and to shut down innovators. That will harm their image irreparably regardless of an actual case.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #30 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerrySwitched26 View Post

 

 

But then you will claim that the court is wrong and it will be overturned on appeal.  And then you will claim that the appeals court is wrong and that the Supreme Court will overturn it.  And then you will claim that the Supreme court is wrong.

 

First you claimed that there was no evidence.  As of now, you claim that the DOJ made fraudulant and false allegations, ones that could not be proven,  about the existence of the evidence in a high-profile case.  

 

Grasping at straws much?  Are you saying that each of the facts outlined below is a lie by the DOJ?  

 

 

62. Apple's Mr. Cue e-mailed each Publisher Defendant between January 4,2010,
and January 6, 2010 an outline ofwhat he tabbed "the best approach for e-books." He reassured
Penguin USACEO David Shanks and other Publisher Defendant CEOs that Apple adopted the
approach "[a]fter talking to all the other publishers." Mr. Cue sent substantively identical e-mail
messages and proposals to each Publisher Defendant.
63. The outlined proposal that Apple circulated after consulting with each Publisher
Defendant contained several key features. First, as Hachette and HarperCollins had initially
suggested to Apple, the publisher would be the principal and Apple would be the agent for ebook sales. Consumer pricing authority would be transferred from retailers to publishers.
Second, Apple's proposal mandated that every other retailer of each publisher's e-books -
Apple's direct competitors - be forced to accept the agency model as well. As Mr. Cue wrote,
"all resellers ofnew titles need to be in agency model." Third, Apple would receive a 30 percent
commission for each e-book sale. And fourth, each Publisher Defendant would have identical
pricing tiers for e-books sold through Apple's iBookstore.

 

So what.

 

A promotion of the existing iTunes model that had been around for ten years.

 

"This is our store, this is how it works, wanna join?"

 

NOTHING illegal, immoral or wrong with promoting legitimate business methods.

 

And NOT ONE SCRAP of evidence of what the effect on general eBook prices has been apart from a very few, specific examples, cherry picked because their prices increased.

A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #31 of 78
Quote:

Originally Posted by JerrySwitched26 View Post

 

Seemingly, you have warped that statement into something unrelated - yet another reason why I believe Posner when you claim he is incorrect.  

 

 

This is an example of what makes your arguments unconvincing, the irrational thought processes like the above.

 

As far as who is behind this, it's very clear that Amazon is the party who will benefit by having the government establish them in a monopoly. The DoJ may just be stupid* (after all, a lot of people working there these days were put in place by the previous administration not because of their legals skill but because of their political views), but it's naive to think there's no possibility of undue influence, especially in a case as absurd as this, where the effective goal is to eliminate competition and hand Amazon control of the entire publishing industry.

 

But, the bottom line is that, even accepting, for example, the things you've "quoted" (from the DoJ's allegations) as fact, they don't prove anything illegal, and they certainly don't establish an intent to raise prices, nor anything resembling harm to consumers. You're essentially overselling the Doj"s allegations, just as they have oversold the facts in making those allegations.

 

* Having a law degree is no guarantee that you aren't a fool when it comes to common sense or seeing the bigger picture. It also doesn't stop you from doing foolish things based on not understanding what's really going on, but only on a narrow view that may come from unreliable sources. And, like most lawyers, once you embark on a course of action, you aren't about to admit that you screwed up big time. No, you'll play it out to the bitter end rather than admit you were wrong. We see this sort of behavior from prosecutors all the time, even when it involves much more important issues like a person's life.


Edited by anonymouse - 6/24/12 at 11:28am
post #32 of 78

Apple will take this all the way first because they are innocent and secondly to protect the rights of all the other smaller, independent bookstores which have since adopted the agency model and are using it to break Amazon's attempt at a monopoly.

A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #33 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

 

So what.

 

A promotion of the existing iTunes model that had been around for ten years.

 

"This is our store, this is how it works, wanna join?"

 

NOTHING illegal, immoral or wrong with promoting legitimate business methods.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Did you miss this part?

 

Quote:

Second, Apple's proposal mandated that every other retailer of each publisher's e-books -

Apple's direct competitors - be forced to accept the agency model as well. As Mr. Cue wrote,
"all resellers ofnew titles need to be in agency model."
post #34 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

First there is substantial proof Apple colluded.
Make a case. I've seen absolutely no "evidence" that shows Apple secretly met with publishers with an agenda to raise prices. Everything I've seen merely gave publishers the option to simply set prices as they saw fit. The only questionable action which is in itself legal is that Apple required the favored nation clause.

And what about Amzon's dumping and limit pricing, and then there refusal to deal threats when Apple entered the market? What is the defense that those aren't anti-competitive practices pushed by Amazon?
Quote:
Another reason that this can hurt Apple so much is basically iBooks isn't a very good solution PERIOD. [...] You open iBooks and it looks just like every other eBook app on the planet.
Even if you ignore the features and usability iBook has over other apps the Kindle employees that created the digital layouts seems to not care about readability. iBooks does this quite well. So much so that I've removed DRM and converted all the Kindle books I could so that they would work in iBooks.
Edited by SolipsismX - 6/24/12 at 11:33am

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

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply

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

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply
post #35 of 78
Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

 

Another reason that this can hurt Apple so much is basically iBooks isn't a very good solution PERIOD.

 

Apple is not the one who will be hurt by the agency model being outlawed. The big loser will be Barnes & Noble, who doesn't have the deep pockets of either Amazon or Apple. The big winner, Amazon, as this allows them to consolidate their e-book monopoly and gain more control over the publishing industry. This doesn't have a big impact on Apple's bottom line, either way, but Apple does have a problem with stupidity, which is what this case is from beginning to end, unless the DoJ comes to their senses, swallows their pride, and drops it, which is unlikely, even if they do realize they fucked up.

post #36 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerrySwitched26 View Post

 

 

 

Did you miss this part?

 

 

The agency model is THE ONLY WAY TO SELL THROUGH iTunes, it has always been that way for everything it sells.

 

You want to sell something through iTunes those are the terms, no "forcing", "collusion", "price fixing" involved, at all, just legitimate business methods.

A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #37 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

So what.

 

A promotion of the existing iTunes model that had been around for ten years.

 

"This is our store, this is how it works, wanna join?"

 

NOTHING illegal, immoral or wrong with promoting legitimate business methods.

 

And NOT ONE SCRAP of evidence of what the effect on general eBook prices has been apart from a very few, specific examples, cherry picked because their prices increased.

 

That wasn't what was presented and basically since you used the same handle and the same rants at another website (I believe it was Gizmodo) in their discussion on this, you're trolling. Apple did not merely offer each publisher the right to use their store, set their prices, give Apple their 30% and be done with it. Likewise nothing about iTunes agreements in other content areas demands that the publisher withhold content from other providers if they offer said content for lower than Apple can offer due to their 30% profit margin. I regularly go buy $5 albums from Amazon and likewise buy music from the Play store when they have their crazy sales (whole albums for $.99-2.99 as examples). Per this agreement that cannot happen. If Amazon tried to sell me a $5 album of MP3's with this collusion publisher agreement, then Apple could demand the music company pull their rights to sell the album. That is what is wrong here. There is plenty of evidence because Apple along with certain publishers demanded that at least 4 of the publishers sign on or the deal was null and void.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Apple will take this all the way first because they are innocent and secondly to protect the rights of all the other smaller, independent bookstores which have since adopted the agency model and are using it to break Amazon's attempt at a monopoly.

Apple can take it all the way and they will have taken the first steps towards completely altering their public image toward that of a giant corporation that stays ahead by squashing competition when they are late to the market instead of innovating. They will become Microsoft and lose their cool factor. This case is the antithesis of what Apple used to be and do. I don't care if it came straight out of Jobs mouth himself, everyone loses their edge and forgets their roots at some point. Pixar hasn't released a movie in about three years that I want to see as an example. Apple can do wrong just like anyone else and this is WRONG. It is proven wrong. They have the evidence. Apple should settle and get back to innovating in the ebook area instead of leaving us all wondering why they can't update their product lines anymore.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

First there is substantial proof Apple colluded.
Make a case. I've seen absolutely no "evidence" that shows Apple secretly met with publishers with an agenda to raise prices. Everything I've seen merely gave publishers the option to simply set prices as they saw fit. The only questionable action which is in itself legal is that Apple required the favored nation clause.

And what about Amzon's dumping and limit pricing, and then there refusal to deal threats when Apple entered the market? What is the defense that those aren't anti-competitive practices pushed by Amazon?
Quote:
Another reason that this can hurt Apple so much is basically iBooks isn't a very good solution PERIOD. [...] You open iBooks and it looks just like every other eBook app on the planet.
Even if you ignore the features and usability iBook has over other apps the Kindle employees that created the digital layouts seems to not care about readability. iBooks does this quite well. So much so that I've removed DRM and converted all the Kindle books I could so that they would work in iBooks.

Then you didn't read the complaint. As for the features and usability of iBooks, you must be delusional. Just the fact that the title doesn't leave the top drives me nuts. Nothing about the display is any better than half a dozen other e-readers I have tried. My fav was Stanza which Amazon has bought and left on the vine so I assure you they aren't perfect in my mind either. The point is though that this is about collusion and Apple did in fact collude. Read the complaint and it is pretty clear what was going on. It is about an old industry wanting to hold onto their old model and when the hell did Apple become about that? When did Apple become the guys that say, we know your old model counted on bundling some hit singles with 7-8 crappy filler songs for $12.99 so let's help you sustain that instead of destroying it with $.99 singles and convenience?

Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by JerrySwitched26 View Post

 

 

 

Did you miss this part?

 

 

The agency model is THE ONLY WAY TO SELL THROUGH iTunes, it has always been that way for everything it sells.

 

You want to sell something through iTunes those are the terms, no "forcing", "collusion", "price fixing" involved, at all, just legitimate business methods.

You are wrong. Apple exclusively determined pricing on the iTunes store for the first several years. $.99 singles and $9.99 albums were the only way to get on the iTunes store. It is no different than what Amazon was doing for books. Apple finally allowed some bit of price variation when moving content to be free of DRM restrictions. Don't make shit up.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #38 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Read the complaint and it is pretty clear what was going on. ...

 

Because no prosecutor has ever overstated his case, so the allegations must be true? As an argument, your statement is ridiculously absurd.

post #39 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Read the complaint and it is pretty clear what was going on. ...

 

Because no prosecutor has ever overstated his case, so the allegations must be true? As an argument, your statement is ridiculously absurd.


Try logic. Your statement is a classic strawman. Of course there are prosecutors who have overstated or even lost their cases. No one ever claimed contrary. You would claim contrary because that is the point of a strawman. You set it up and knock it down and now pat yourself on the back believing some actual thinking has happened. It hasn't.

 

Please address this particular complaint and why you believe it overstates the case for Apple. I would say every major publisher invalidating all prior agreements with all prior e-book retailers and forcing the entire industry including the current market leader into a new and completely different type of model all at the same time certainly looks and sounds like collusion. The meetings, emails and other evidence show action was discussed and taken together for the express purpose of denying pricing competition and raising prices industry-wide.

 

If this were gas companies or any other field we would all be losing our minds. Why is it suddenly okay just because Apple is involved? If every music publisher somehow found a new partner and tried to force Apple to give up their current prices and instead move everyone to $20 albums, no singles, and no one else is allowed to offer a lower price, we would all be losing our minds and crying bloody murder.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #40 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post
 Apple exclusively determined pricing on the iTunes store for the first several years. $.99 singles and $9.99 albums were the only way to get on the iTunes store. It is no different than what Amazon was doing for books. Apple finally allowed some bit of price variation when moving content to be free of DRM restrictions. Don't make shit up.

Apple, using the leverage of iTunes already being on millions of devices and computers, forced the record labels to lower prices on which Apple made a small percentage for providing the platform. Amazon on the other hand is supposedly selling books and the reader at less than cost, so it does appear to be different. 

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple e-book price fixing trial set for 2013