or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple calls antitrust suit 'bizarre,' says DOJ 'reverse-engineered a conspiracy'
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple calls antitrust suit 'bizarre,' says DOJ 'reverse-engineered a conspiracy' - Page 3

post #81 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


.

Jobs said "will" denoting a conviction of what's to come whilst you used a bunch of "maybes".

 

I don't know what your original point was; his words aren't damning. They could either mean that he knew the prices were going up, or that the prices simply would be the same (MFN clause), either higher or lower.

post #82 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

They are selling at a loss to gain control of the publishing industry. They subsidize this with the gross profits from other categories of merchandise ebooks.

Not all ebooks were sold for a loss. The vast majority were sold for a profit, some were even overpriced which would explain the studies that show that prices went down.
"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 #83 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendergast View Post

You fixed it wrong.

Individually, a manufacturer has the right to set the price, and force the retailer to sell at that price.

Not illegal.

What can be illegal is collusion. The reason being is it can effectively create a monopolistic position, and cause just as much harm.

You are arguing semantics.

The WHOLE thing ALWAYS boils down to "restraint of trade", and is often caused by an abuse of market power. Individually, each publisher could not "restrain trade"; colluding together, they would be abusing their combined market power and thus would be restraining trade.

Please cite me the case where it says you can set retailer price when it is not your subsidiary. As fas as I know if you fix you are dead. If you set min or max, you get RoR but still dead in this Apple case.

No. Becasue market/monopoly power is different from monopolistic position.

Sheer size of marketshare does not mean market power to set prices above costs.

Either way, I see what you were trying to say. Sorry if I were reading into it a bit.
Edited by Loptimist - 6/4/13 at 2:01pm
post #84 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loptimist View Post


Please cite me the case where it says you can set retailer price when it is not your subsidiary.

No. Becasue market/monopoly power is different from monopolistic position.

Sheer size of marketshare does not mean market power to set prices above costs.

Either way, I see what you were trying to say. Sorry if I were reading into it a bit.

http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2003767332_retail29.html

post #85 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendergast View Post

I don't know what your original point was; his words aren't damning. They could either mean that he knew the prices were going up, or that the prices simply would be the same (MFN clause), either higher or lower.

My point was how did he know what Amazon and the publishers were going to do price wise? Unfortunately Jobs is no longer with us and can't say what he meant by that, so it's left to one's own interpretation. Even one of the CEOs said it was a dumb thing to say.
"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 #86 of 111

Leegin is minimum price fixing to control intrabrand competition to foster interbrand competition. Not applicable to Apple. Apple allegedly controlled interbrands to set a min price at its price.
post #87 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


My point was how did he know what Amazon and the publishers were going to do price wise? Unfortunately Jobs is no longer with us and can't say what he meant by that, so it's left to one's own interpretation. Even one of the CEOs said it was a dumb thing to say.

 

He could have known about the MFN clause, which would mean Apple's price couldn't be higher than anyone else's, without knowing specifics.

 

It's not like he said, "Amazon's will also be $14.99".

post #88 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loptimist View Post


Leegin is minimum price fixing to control intrabrand competition to foster interbrand competition. Not applicable to Apple.

 

Interesting, but I would say it is applicable in that RPM is no longer always illegal, and the principles apply in this case, since the publishers are essentially manufacturers.

 

EDIT: Also, none of this needs to be applicable to Apple; it is applicable to the publishers. Apple is being accused of aiding the conspiracy of the publishers, being involved. 

 

 

"The Court gave examples of situations where such pricing agreements will be particularly treacherous. Specifically, when a significant number of manufacturers in a given industry decide to use this practice, when there is evidence that pressure from the resellers was the impetus for the price minimums, or when the manufacturer implementing such an agreement is dominant, the Supreme Court warned that setting resale price floors is particularly dangerous.3"

 

 

This is exactly my point. Had Apple negotiated with ONE publisher, there would likely be no issue. However, there is a case to be made, since multiple "manufacturers" were involved.

post #89 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendergast View Post

Interesting, but I would say it is applicable in that RPM is no longer always illegal, and the principles apply in this case, since the publishers are essentially manufacturers.

EDIT: Also, none of this needs to be applicable to Apple; it is applicable to the publishers. Apple is being accused of aiding the conspiracy of the publishers, being involved. 


"The Court gave examples of situations where such pricing agreements will be particularly treacherous. Specifically, when a significant number of manufacturers in a given industry decide to use this practice, when there is evidence that pressure from the resellers was the impetus for the price minimums, or when the manufacturer implementing such an agreement is dominant, the Supreme Court warned that setting resale price floors is particularly dangerous.
3"



This is exactly my point. Had Apple negotiated with ONE publisher, there would likely be no issue. However, there is a case to be made, since multiple "manufacturers" were involved.

Agreeing with one would have been fine because it does not unreasonably restraint the trade. Nothing to do with Leegin. Leegin is more of an exception to price fixing per se analysis because there are good procompetitive reasons for RPM. But what Apple did is not even remotely close to Leegin. Also Leegin does not say you get a pass. All it does is they no longer apply per se rule and apply RoR for even certain price fixing cases.

If you truly think Leegin helps Apple here, you are wrong.
post #90 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Victory2013 View Post

Imagine you own a store and you buy a widget from XYB company, they sell you the widget for 7.50 each, you decided that you will charge 8.25 each in your store. But wait the company also sells the same widget to Apple and in their Apple contract they set the price at 12.50 each and stipulate that no one else can sell the same widget for less than 12.50.

 

 

Apple didn't do that.

 

Try and get it right.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #91 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loptimist View Post


Agreeing with one would have been fine because it does not unreasonably restraint the trade. Nothing to do with Leegin. Leegin is more of an exception to price fixing per se analysis because there are good procompetitive reasons for RPM. But what Apple did is not even remotely close to Leegin. Also Leegin does not say you get a pass. All it does is they no longer apply per se rule and apply RoR for even certain price fixing cases.

If you truly think Leegin helps Apple here, you are wrong.

 

None of this applies to Apple, it applies to the PUBLISHER(S).

 

Apple is being accused of being part of the publishers alleged conspiracy. 

 

The principles of Leegin would apply to the publishers, as the agency model is in essence price fixing — i.e. the manufacturer sets the price, and the retailer has to comply. 

 

I referenced it, because everyone keeps yelling PRICE FIXING!!! when that's not the issue. The issue is, and has always been, alleged collusion between the major publishers, with Apple allegedly being involved, if not the ring leader.

post #92 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendergast View Post

None of this applies to Apple, it applies to the PUBLISHER(S).

Apple is being accused of being part of the publishers alleged conspiracy. 

The principles of Leegin would apply to the publishers, as the agency model is in essence price fixing — i.e. the manufacturer sets the price, and the retailer has to comply. 

I referenced it, because everyone keeps yelling PRICE FIXING!!! when that's not the issue. The issue is, and has always been, alleged collusion between the major publishers, with Apple allegedly being involved, if not the ring leader.

I give up.
post #93 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendergast View Post

None of this applies to Apple, it applies to the PUBLISHER(S).

Apple is being accused of being part of the publishers alleged conspiracy. 

The principles of Leegin would apply to the publishers, as the agency model is in essence price fixing — i.e. the manufacturer sets the price, and the retailer has to comply. 

I referenced it, because everyone keeps yelling PRICE FIXING!!! when that's not the issue. The issue is, and has always been, alleged collusion between the major publishers, with Apple allegedly being involved, if not the ring leader.

I give up.
post #94 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loptimist View Post


I give up.

 

Fine.

 

You keep saying Leegin doesn't help Apple. I never said that it did. 

 

The reason I referenced it is because since this case began, several people keep saying that Apple is guilty of price fixing. Which is not what they are being , mind you, and even then, "price fixing" is not necessarily illegal. Since price fixing used to ALWAYS be illegal, Leegin is an important reference. 

 

I'm saying it has a bearing on the discussion not the case itself, since Apple is not being accused of price fixing.

 

The issue is collusion which is what I keep saying.

 

Ugh.

post #95 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by sac2dude View Post
...but again that could just be me.

 

Yup, you have one thing right....

post #96 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendergast View Post

He could have known about the MFN clause, which would mean Apple's price couldn't be higher than anyone else's, without knowing specifics.

It's not like he said, "Amazon's will also be $14.99".

I agree with you and that's most likely what Jobs meant but the keywords are 'could have' and I can come up with some 'could haves' of my own and therein lies a big problem.
"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 #97 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

I've not read or found the case you appear to mention and I'd be happy to read it so please post it. Post something to support this claim, and the claim isn't opinion it is about numbers, that Amazon is losing money on their ebook sales in order to buy marketshare.

That claim isn't like vanilla is the best ice cream. It is supportable by facts. Please post them.

FFS!

File source: http://ohinternet.com/File:JeanLucPicardFacepalm.jpg

 

Certainly you can do better than that.

 

Here is the reasoning often presented here. You've presented it as well.

 

Apple colluded with publishers to force Amazon and the rest of the industry to adopt the agency model.

 

Retorts include......

 

Amazon was going to control everything.

Amazon is selling all their books at a loss and acting in a monopoly fashion.

Amazon wasn't playing fair because they are forgoing present profits for future monopoly status.

 

Provide some proof for those points. They are more than your opinions. They are allegations to excuse the wrong that Apple has done. Aside from the fact that two wrongs don't make a right, you refuse to even prove the wrong that you use to excuse the second wrong by Apple.

"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 #98 of 111
Agreement is one element.

The other element is to do what? And if it were a price fixing then per se or RoR if Leegin applies.


Both are issues. APPLE does not raises issues with the second element because it is done deal as publishers already settled. The question is as I already previously said and which you also agree whether Apple was involved.

APPLE being mastermind or not whether it actually established the monopolistic position with publishers are not elements for section 1 violation while you seem to emphasize in your previous posts.

Cartel as dangerous as Monopoly is just the rationale not the requirement to prove violation. The question is whether Apple possessed power to set prices above costs and abused it.

IT was def. Not a productive day for me.
post #99 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


.

Jobs said "will" denoting a conviction of what's to come whilst you used a bunch of "maybes".

 

The price of eBooks went from $7.97 on average to $7.34, since Apple introduced iBooks.

 

I guess Jobs was wrong.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #100 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

 

Certainly you can do better than that.

 

Here is the reasoning often presented here. You've presented it as well.

 

Apple colluded with publishers to force Amazon and the rest of the industry to adopt the agency model.

 

Retorts include......

 

Amazon was going to control everything.

Amazon is selling all their books at a loss and acting in a monopoly fashion.

Amazon wasn't playing fair because they are forgoing present profits for future monopoly status.

 

Provide some proof for those points. They are more than your opinions. They are allegations to excuse the wrong that Apple has done. Aside from the fact that two wrongs don't make a right, you refuse to even prove the wrong that you use to excuse the second wrong by Apple.

 

The price of eBooks went from $7.97 on average to $7.34 since the introduction of iBooks.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #101 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

The price of eBooks went from $7.97 on average to $7.34, since Apple introduced iBooks.


I guess Jobs was wrong.

And I guess that you didn't read what I wrote in post #82.
Quote:
Not all ebooks were sold for a loss. The vast majority were sold for a profit, some were even overpriced which would explain the studies that show that prices went down.
"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 #102 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

And I guess that you didn't read what I wrote in post #82.

Prices went down, consumers have more choice.

WTF is the f*cking issue then?

A microscope should be applied to the DoJ to find out exactly why they are wasting taxpayer money on this farce.

Who are the instigators, pulling the strings?

Quote:
Not all ebooks were sold for a loss. The vast majority were sold for a profit, some were even overpriced which would explain the studies that show that prices went down.
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #103 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Prices went down, consumers have more choice.

WTF is the f*cking issue then?

A microscope should be applied to the DoJ to find out exactly why they are wasting taxpayer money on this farce.

Who are the instigators, pulling the strings?

The issue is that the prices of the most desirable of eBooks (bestsellers) went up across the board in one fell swoop, and someone with political power took offense to that. You pose a great question. Was it Amazon who instigated it or some well connected people?
"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 #104 of 111

I missed the part where they jailed the bankers for nuking the economy before worrying about e-book pricing.

post #105 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by studentx View Post

I missed the part where they jailed the bankers for nuking the economy before worrying about e-book pricing.

Jail "the bankers" for what? For being forced by our wonderful political leaders to make home loans to people with lousy credit?

And it wasn't "the bankers" who bailed out themselves out, it was Washington again. Politics is corrosive to basic fairness.
Edited by SpamSandwich - 6/5/13 at 12:50pm

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #106 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabbelen View Post

The qualification is in the word "trying". The govt. is "trying" to do so. That their attempt won't be successful is not for lack of "trying", but because there isn't a conspiracy to reverse-engineer. Saying that the govt is evidently trying to do this and fit Apple up (the govt having used terms like "collude" that necessarily imply a "conspiracy")  does not admit that there is a conspiracy.

The qualification doesn't change the fact that "reverse engineering" is being misused in this context.

post #107 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

 

Certainly you can do better than that.

 

Here is the reasoning often presented here. You've presented it as well.

 

Apple colluded with publishers to force Amazon and the rest of the industry to adopt the agency model.

 

Retorts include......

 

Amazon was going to control everything.

Amazon is selling all their books at a loss and acting in a monopoly fashion.

Amazon wasn't playing fair because they are forgoing present profits for future monopoly status.

 

Provide some proof for those points. They are more than your opinions. They are allegations to excuse the wrong that Apple has done. Aside from the fact that two wrongs don't make a right, you refuse to even prove the wrong that you use to excuse the second wrong by Apple.

 

The price of eBooks went from $7.97 on average to $7.34 since the introduction of iBooks.

 

This statement in no form or fashion supports the contention that Amazon was selling their e-books at a loss. If the prices were higher before the agreements with Apple then that would mean they were selling them for more profit, not at a loss.

"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 #108 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

The qualification doesn't change the fact that "reverse engineering" is being misused in this context.

 

How about... the government is attempting to change the facts to fit their case?

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #109 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

How about... the government is attempting to change the facts to fit their case?

Doesn't everybody?
"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 #110 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


Doesn't everybody?

 

And how do you feel about that response against the backdrop of today's multiple bombshell reports from the Guardian and the Washington Post?

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #111 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

And how do you feel about that response against the backdrop of today's multiple bombshell reports from the Guardian and the Washington Post?

That's pretty disgusting but I'm not surprised. Everyone bowed down to fear tactics and agreed to the Patriot Act.
"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
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple calls antitrust suit 'bizarre,' says DOJ 'reverse-engineered a conspiracy'