or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › US court finds Apple guilty of conspiring to raise e-book prices
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

US court finds Apple guilty of conspiring to raise e-book prices - Page 3

post #81 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post


Maybe if Apple undercuts Amazon, Amazon will cry to the judge to make it stop. It's unfair to sell at a greater loss.

 

But then Apple can cite the Constitution's equal protection clause. If the DOJ didn't go after Amazon when it was under-pricing its books, it shouldn't be able to go after Apple now to protect Amazon. 

post #82 of 131
The question I have is what does this mean going forward? Other than the obvious appeals.... What happens next?

Apple will get a fine. Maybe some restrictions like eliminating the favored nation clauses. But they'll still be able to sell books. They'll either stick with the agency plan or switch to the wholesale model. There will be some price war going on or maybe not. Apple might just be apple and set their prices where they want them knowing a lot of people on I devices will just buy through iBooks.

What am I missing?
post #83 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evilution View Post

I don't get it.
Apple offered book publishers the option to use the agency model for selling their books, a model that is totally legal and used in other areas.
Amazon and other companies that don't use the agency model didn't HAVE to change, they were not forced. However, the prices for ebooks have gone up so why are they not investigating the price hike by Amazon?

Yes Amazon was absolutely forced.

http://www.internetnews.com/ec-news/article.php/3862016/Amazon+Yields+to+Macmillan+in+Kindle+Standoff.htm

http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/01/amazon-agrees-to-agency-pricing-model-with-two-more-publishers/
post #84 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

All I can say is this judge knows nothing about the book industry.  The Agency model has been king forever, and the way the book industry works is that prices have *always* been set artificially by collusion among publishers.  

Anyone who has ever owned a bookstore can tell you this.  You are told what the prices are, what the discounts are and how high or low you can sell them.  It's almost always been this way and the so-called "free market" rules don't apply and never have.  

The agency model has not been found to be illegal, what was illegal was the conspiracy among publishers to jointly decide to use the agency model for distribution was illegal. The main question to be decided was whether Apple was part of that conspiracy.
post #85 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessi View Post

 

First off, you're right that the law is a bogus law.  It's a law written by communists (literally, back when communism was an up and coming thing) to punish people for "competing". 

 

Some of these laws predate Communism, actually.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessi View Post

 

Your presumption that only lawyers can have an opinions is silly.  The law is not complicated.  In fact, the highest law, the one under which Apple is absolutely innocent, is the constitution.  The constitution does not give the federal government the power to persecute Apple in this way.  That document was written so that everyone could read it.  All laws in violation of it (which anti-trust are) are null and void. 

 

 

These laws do not violate the Constitution.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jessi View Post

 

However, given the weakness of the case, the judge is to blame, always.  Whenever the law is bad, it is the judge's job to set aside the law and rule in the moral way.

 

Judges do not have that ability.  Under English common law, only juries are able to not apply the law in their verdict.

post #86 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjtomlin View Post

The funny thing about all of this... Apple has the ability (money) to undercut pricing that Amazon couldn't match and take a large chunk of their market share from them... but I bet Apple would've been sued by the DOJ for anti-trust there too. LOL

 

Apple would be wrong to do so in that case, and Amazon would be correct to pursue legal remedies.

post #87 of 131

 

Interesting article...and it pretty much means the industry will continue it's shift to Agency.  The ruling today against Apple won't likely prevent that and even if there is a problem with the Favorite Nation clauses, the publishers will be giving all major outlets the same pricing.

 

So, if they lose on appeal, Apple pays a fine and moves on. But they will be competing with Amazon "Apples to Apples" so to speak.

 

Book sellers win, Apple wins, Amazon wins/loses (money per book/competitiveness), Consumer loses.

post #88 of 131

 

 

Just realized these were old articles. Does anyone now if the DOJ settlements with the booksellers affected the Agency model or were they just fines?

post #89 of 131
I wish Sammy would stop paying trolls to come on this site.

In hindsight, perhaps Apple should have staggers the agreements with publishers.
post #90 of 131

My, aren't the iPhones and iPads being hurled from the pram with vigor today.

 

Can't have helped Apple's case that the publishers all caved.

post #91 of 131
I would be willing to sign a a petition to the White House requesting that the DOJ open an investigation of abuse of monopoly by Amazon. A Barnes & Noble rep testified in the trial they couldn't compete with Amazon because Amazon was basically dumping e-books at or below cost. We penalize other countries when they do this to us by taking it to the WTO. Amazon should not get away with this. This is concerning the time frame before Apple entered the market and the had 80 - 90% of the e-book market.

It shouldn't be too hard to get 100,000 signatures.


P.S. This whole thing came about because Amazon went crying to the DOJ.
Edited by muaddib - 7/10/13 at 11:23am
post #92 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessi View Post

 

First off, you're right that the law is a bogus law.  It's a law written by communists (literally, back when communism was an up and coming thing) to punish people for "competing". 

 

Your presumption that only lawyers can have an opinions is silly.  The law is not complicated.  In fact, the highest law, the one under which Apple is absolutely innocent, is the constitution.  The constitution does not give the federal government the power to persecute Apple in this way.  That document was written so that everyone could read it.  All laws in violation of it (which anti-trust are) are null and void. 

 

However, given the weakness of the case, the judge is to blame, always.  Whenever the law is bad, it is the judge's job to set aside the law and rule in the moral way.

 

The judge here has committed a profound crime-- has betrayed any oath or claim of fealty to justice. 

 

The only possible service to the people she's done here is to show that government justice is justice denied.

 

She's shown that the "justice" system has been corrupted into a partisan persecution organization. 

 

She's shown that the US government is nothing more than a bunch of mafia-like thugs.

Thank god we have laws to protect us all from companies like Apple. Talk about mafia like thugs that describes Apple to a "T" these days.

post #93 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post

My, aren't the iPhones and iPads being hurled from the pram with vigor today.

 

Can't have helped Apple's case that the publishers all caved.

 

It is nice to see a level headed person on these forums for a change instead of the Apple can do no wrong that is always posted.

post #94 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by harharhar View Post

I have never before seen a collection this large of complete and utter morons.

 

I understand that you like Apple. Hell, I understand that you may even worship them.

 

But they broke the law. You keep referring to Amazon doing it, which just proves how little you know about anything at all.

 

But you have to admit that you can come here and get a lot of laughs from the fanbois.

post #95 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by CustomTB View Post


Just realized these were old articles. Does anyone now if the DOJ settlements with the booksellers affected the Agency model or were they just fines?

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2013/February/13-at-171.html
post #96 of 131
I'm not siding with Apple for the sake of siding with Apple. But if what they did was in violation of an antitrust law, I just think it's a stupid law! It's only logical for a retailer to bargain with suppliers for the lowest possible price.

To my knowledge, the only stipulations made by apple were that publishers offer them the lowest available price for their ebooks and that apple collect a 30% retailers fee. How is this illegal? Regardless of emails Steve Jobs may or may not have sent- these terms were not dictated in the deals that were signed by the publishing companies. They were just thoughts being communicated. How long does the arm of the government extend? Has it become illegal for corporate leaders to casually share ideas with each other leading up to a business partnership? This, to me sounds ridiculous! If this is the law, it needs to be changed.
post #97 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

That didn't happen, either. Amazon didn't dictate $9.99 pricing caps. Rather, they sold the books at $9.99 and paid the correct price to the publisher - eating a loss on many books in order to gain market share.

Please stick to the facts.

Yes, you are right about that detail. I stand corrected.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #98 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Victory2013 View Post

But you have to admit that you can come here and get a lot of laughs from the fanbois.

And that explains your presence?

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #99 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by harharhar View Post

I have never before seen a collection this large of complete and utter morons.

Thanks for calling people "utter morons." You set an example of forum behavior that I fear I can never reach.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #100 of 131

Thankfully none of the pro-Apple people actually practice law, they don't even know what basic Antitrust laws are about.

 

 

Everything below was copied from the FTC's website.

The words in CAPS are for emphasis.

 

The Antitrust Laws

 

"Congress passed the first antitrust law, the Sherman Act, in 1890 as a "comprehensive charter of economic liberty aimed at preserving free and UNFETTERED COMPETITION as the rule of trade."

 

"...Yet for over 100 years, the antitrust laws have had the same basic objective: to protect the process of competition for the BENEFIT OF CONSUMERS, making sure there are strong incentives for businesses to operate efficiently, KEEP PRICES DOWN,..."

 

"...an agreement between two individuals to form a partnership restrains trade, but may not do so unreasonably, and thus may be lawful under the antitrust laws. On the other hand, certain acts are considered so harmful to competition that they are almost always illegal. These include plain ARRANGEMENTS AMONG COMPETING INDIVIDUALS OR BUSINESSES TO FIX PRICES...

 

These acts are "per se" violations of the Sherman Act; in other words, NO DEFENSE OR JUSTIFICATION IS ALLOWED."

 

ftc.gov/bc/antitrust/antitrust_laws.shtm

 

 

 

I can't wait for apple to lose the No Poach Agreement lawsuit.

No matter what type of media...movies, music, books, photos and web pages

look better and sound better on the Kindle Fire HD than any iPad

Reply

No matter what type of media...movies, music, books, photos and web pages

look better and sound better on the Kindle Fire HD than any iPad

Reply
post #101 of 131

Can people with no knowledge of US Constitutional Law please stop interjecting Communism into the conversation? Go buy a copy of Black's Law. Read it. Then do some research on contract law and more. Read Supreme Court precedence on such laws and then perhaps you'll understand that Communism doesn't predate the US and it's 220+ years of creating laws, never mind the thousands of years of law previously that that Founders drew upon.

post #102 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

All I can say is this judge knows nothing about the book industry.  The Agency model has been king forever, and the way the book industry works is that prices have *always* been set artificially by collusion among publishers.  

 

Anyone who has ever owned a bookstore can tell you this.  You are told what the prices are, what the discounts are and how high or low you can sell them.  It's almost always been this way and the so-called "free market" rules don't apply and never have.  

 

 

What sources do you have to back up your claim "the Agency model has been king forever" ?

 

This article back in 2010 http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/04/26/100426fa_fact_auletta contradicts your claim

 

---

 

"Traditionally, publishers have sold books to stores, with the wholesale price for hardcovers set at fifty per cent of the cover price . . . Though this situation is less than ideal, it has persisted, more or less unchanged, for decades."

 
---
 

The wholesale model has been the traditional agreement between publisher and retailers of physical books.  Under the wholesale model, the publisher sets the cover price and sells the books to the retailers for about half the cover price.  The retailer, in turn, is free to sell the book at whatever price they choose to the consumer.  The wholesale model existed before eBook and Amazon.

post #103 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russell View Post

I can't wait for apple to lose the No Poach Agreement lawsuit.

Why wait to gloat? No better time than the present.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #104 of 131

Pricing model has nothing to do with this case. Amazon has nothing to do with this case.

 

It was about illegally agreeing to fix prices together as a group (i.e. cartel) and was Apple part of it.

Publishers are not denying this (settlements), so it is clear they were involved.

post #105 of 131

This DOJ decision is a farce because it props up a business model that is well past its use by date, whereby product distributors (e.g., Amazon) can fix prices of some products to promote the sale of other products, (e.g., lowering the prices of eBooks to sell more Kindles). This is just another example of the objectionable business practice whereby printer manufacturers sell printers for way under their cost to manufacture, and consumables like printer ink at way over the cost of manufacture. This sort of practice leads to huge price distortions and subsequent exploitation of markets by powerful companies.

 

The agency model is far better in this day and age because author/publishers can set the price they think the product is worth, and product distributors (e.g., Apple) take a fixed percentage of that price as commission for facilitating its electronic distribution and payment to the author/publisher. If the author/publisher sets the price too high, then few customers will buy it. The distributor cannot play games with the product price to achieve benefits for parties other than the author/publisher.

 

Does this ruling mean that the agency model cannot be used to compete with electronic product distributors like Amazon that manipulate market prices to suit their own needs? If that is so, can we expect the DoJ to mount a challenge to the AppStore which is also based on the agency model and has definitely put Apple software distributors right out of business and achieved huge benefits for both developers and customers? And if they refuse to challenge the legitimacy of the AppStore, why should we not assume that the DoJ has been hired by Amazon to defend their highly profitable and basically 'rotten-to-the-core' business model relating to just eBooks and Kindles?

post #106 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessi View Post

 

There are countries that respect rights and are much more capitalist than the USA, and also going in the right direction...

 

Many countries are more free and safer than America. 

Got a list of those?  I have my bags packed... seriously, I need a list so I can do some homework.

 

No, I'm serious!!

 

Of course it would help if English was at least a secondary language taught in their schools...

OMG here we go again...
Reply
OMG here we go again...
Reply
post #107 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by pauldfullerton View Post

If the author/publisher sets the price too high, then few customers will buy it. The distributor cannot play games with the product price to achieve benefits for parties other than the author/publisher.

The problem with that is if a equally priced product is selling well at one retailer and not at another. The publisher would in no way lower the price in one store because it would have to lower the price in the store that their product is selling well in. The destiny of the reseller is in the hands of the publisher.
post #108 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soloman View Post


The problem with that is if a equally priced product is selling well at one retailer and not at another. The publisher would in no way lower the price in one store because it would have to lower the price in the store that their product is selling well in. The destiny of the reseller is in the hands of the publisher.

But publishers distributing through Apple stores are dealing with (an approximation of) a global market, not just a couple of 'bricks and mortar' stores. Ideally, the author/publisher sets the global price for the global market place and doesn't have to worry about setting separate prices for each physical store based on local demand. Until we can get companies like Amazon out of the ebook distribution business, there will always be significant barriers erected between author and reader which syphon off money into big and powerful businesses like Amazon and traditional book publishers.

post #109 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by pauldfullerton View Post

But publishers distributing through Apple stores are dealing with (an approximation of) a global market, not just a couple of 'bricks and mortar' stores. Ideally, the author/publisher sets the global price for the global market place and doesn't have to worry about setting separate prices for each physical store based on local demand. Until we can get companies like Amazon out of the ebook distribution business, there will always be significant barriers erected between author and reader which syphon off money into big and powerful businesses like Amazon and traditional book publishers.

Even in a global market it would hurt someone like Barnes & Noble who may not have the global presence of a Apple or Amazon. Of course I don't like what Amazon was doing but forcing the same price across all vendors isn't good either. I would put a little leeway in the MFN clause, if a competitor's price is over one dollar less then I must be allowed to price match.
Edited by Soloman - 7/10/13 at 6:23pm
post #110 of 131

Even though Apple let the publishers set their own prices, the agreements they had to sign forbade publishers from selling the same product elsewhere or allowing their other outlets, such as Amazon, to sell their products for less money. That is price fixing. If Apple even hinted at prices they hoped the sellers would select, that would mean they were colluding with the others to set a price at a certain level.

post #111 of 131

When information about this surfaced, I was 98% sure the conviction was in the bag. It's almost a case study in price collusion. Embarrassingly so. The US GOVT would have to come out as clowns on a unicycle yelling 'JK!' for any other verdict to come out of this. 

 

As much as I enjoy Apple products, I enjoy freedom and price competition in the media I consume. This is a win for me as a consumer, regardless if it negatively effects a company who's products I enjoy. 

post #112 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by BuzDots View Post

Got a list of those?  I have my bags packed... seriously, I need a list so I can do some homework.

No, I'm serious!!

Of course it would help if English was at least a secondary language taught in their schools...

Australia
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 #113 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by themouse View Post

I'm the biggest Apple fanboy there is. I had an Apple II in the 80's and the first Macintosh II. I own stock and every single iThing. When e-books started appearing on Amazon, I bought them to read on the Kindle app on the iPad. Since it was no physical item, the prices were amazing compared to the real book. Then Apple added books to it's online store. Then the Amazon prices went up! I'm just saying.

 

This is one of the many damn misconceptions with this case. Apple coming into the picture to compete and offer alternative pricing to Amazon...prices for ebooks went up because publishers now sets the prices via agency model. So what is the problem? Are you insisting publishers can't set their own price but it's okay for Amazon to sell at a lose or little gain? I sense this judge don't have a clue of where the technology is heading regarding e-commerce.

 

Let's pretend ebooks are groceries for a second, anyone have a problem with one store selling same goods at higher price than another? What about another store 2 miles out matching the same price? or a higher in the middle of nowhere selling at prices much higher than within a crowded town? Ever go on a vacation or tourist trap towns and paid a few dollars more for same bottle of water that you would otherwise get for much less??? Should we start suing everyone and say there is collusion?

 

IMHO, this judge failed in an epic way to put everything into context. All she did is blame Apple for providing an e-commerce environment for publishers to "collude". So why don't we find gun manufacturers guilty for gun and war crimes? or alcohol manufacturer for DUI? or soft drinks and snack manufacturers for obesity and health issues?

post #114 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

Scalia and Alito have no respect for the law or the government, or anything but their own radical opinions and have brought more shame to the body in the last five years than any other judge has for a century.  

 

BS.  Talk to someone trained in ConLaw and ask them about about of the major recent cases and which opinions are the most radical in terms of creating new legal principles out of thin air to support their side.  I'll give you a hint: Scalia will be a dissenter in most of those cases.  It's the newer liberal judges who should be ashamed of their legislating from the bench philosophy.

post #115 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smallwheels View Post

Even though Apple let the publishers set their own prices, the agreements they had to sign forbade publishers from selling the same product elsewhere or allowing their other outlets, such as Amazon, to sell their products for less money. That is price fixing. If Apple even hinted at prices they hoped the sellers would select, that would mean they were colluding with the others to set a price at a certain level.

 

Wrong.  Please go read up on the most-favored-nation clause.

 

"If I'm going to do business with you, you have to agree to give me the same deals you give someone else" is not the same as "You are not allowed to give deals to anyone else."  That's the simple version.

post #116 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post


Australia

I completely forgot about them...  aren't they taxed out the wazoo though?

OMG here we go again...
Reply
OMG here we go again...
Reply
post #117 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Techboy View Post

 

This is one of the many damn misconceptions with this case. Apple coming into the picture to compete and offer alternative pricing to Amazon...prices for ebooks went up because publishers now sets the prices via agency model. So what is the problem? Are you insisting publishers can't set their own price but it's okay for Amazon to sell at a lose or little gain? I sense this judge don't have a clue of where the technology is heading regarding e-commerce.

 

Let's pretend ebooks are groceries for a second, anyone have a problem with one store selling same goods at higher price than another? What about another store 2 miles out matching the same price? or a higher in the middle of nowhere selling at prices much higher than within a crowded town? Ever go on a vacation or tourist trap towns and paid a few dollars more for same bottle of water that you would otherwise get for much less??? Should we start suing everyone and say there is collusion?

 

IMHO, this judge failed in an epic way to put everything into context. All she did is blame Apple for providing an e-commerce environment for publishers to "collude". So why don't we find gun manufacturers guilty for gun and war crimes? or alcohol manufacturer for DUI? or soft drinks and snack manufacturers for obesity and health issues?

 

Here, let's make your analogy relevant to this case, because what you wrote is complete irrelevant.... Now let's say that tourist trap selling water at higher prices than elsewhere worked with all of the bottled water suppliers and convinced them to change their relationship with the other stores and force them to sell water at the same higher price as the tourist trap shop.

I'm not saying that's what Apple did. I'm saying that's what Apple is accused of doing. I don't know enough of the gory details of the case to have a strong opinion. But your example suggesting that it was a simple matter of market competition is not an accurate representation of the case.
post #118 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by malax View Post

 

Wrong.  Please go read up on the most-favored-nation clause.

 

"If I'm going to do business with you, you have to agree to give me the same deals you give someone else" is not the same as "You are not allowed to give deals to anyone else."  That's the simple version.

 

Everybody likes to point to MFN clauses as some holy grail that justifies, even enables, cerrtain business practicies. But MFN is a bit like monopolies in that they can be totally benign or they can be tools for anticompetitive practices. Monopolies are not automatically illegal. It's what you do with them that gets you into trouble.

Also, it appears from my limited reading that historically MFN clauses are used to dictate the prices the supplier (publishers) charges the retailer (Apple, Amazon) and NOT the prices the retailer is allowed to charge the consumer. If Apple required MFN clauses to state that the price the publisher charges Apple for their product can't be more than the publisher charges Amazon, no problem. Both Apple and Amazon are then free to run their businesses, and set their retail prices, as they see fit. But then Apple wouldn't be able to compete with Amazon on price and still get their 30% cut of the retail price because Amazon was willing to take a smaller cut of the price charged to consumers (whether Amazon was doing anything illegal with their pricing is completely irrelevant to the case against Apple).

So if Apple wanted 30% on top of what they pay the publishers and still be able to compete with Amazon on retail price, the options were to either pay the publishes less or get Amazon to increase their prices. So the question is did they do anything considered to be illegal/anticompetitive in order to achieve their goal. Pointing to MFNs or to Amazon's "monopology" as a justificiation for what Apple is accused of doing (I don't have a firm opinion if they should have been found guilty or not) does not prove your case. Guns (in the US) are legal...but you can use them to do illegal things.

Edit: One referenc I found stated that if all the major players in an industry adopt similar MFNs that it may be evidience of anticompetitive practices:

"The antitrust enforcement agencies and courts are more likely to allege collusion if a large percentage of the relevant competitors, either buyers or sellers, adopt similar MFNs. For example, in Starr v. Sony BMG, the court found the adoption of similar MFNs by record labels representing more than 80% of the sales of music on the internet as evidence useful to support a Section 1 claim (592 F.3d 314, 323 (2d Cir. 2010))."
Edited by Wiggin - 7/11/13 at 8:18am
post #119 of 131
This is the entire case in a nutshell:

"Apple led the charge in convincing publishers to switch to a so-called "agency" pricing model. That prevented content owners from being able to sell the same titles at a lower price elsewhere, without offering the same price on Apple's iBooks platform.

In contrast, the e-book industry prior to the launch of the first iPad was under the "wholesale model" preferred by market leader Amazon. In that model, resellers such as Amazon had the power to set prices, selling titles at or below cost if they chose to do so."


For me, the question that matters here (and that was apparently overlooked by the court) is the one that comes from that last part regarding Amazon's 'powers': Did Apple's actions PREVENT Amazon from setting their own RETAIL prices at or below cost if they chose to do so? Apple didn't remove the "wholesale model" from Amazon, did they? They simply said to publishers, "if you sell to Amazon (or others) for a lower price, you have to give us that price too. And to the publishers they said, on OUR store YOU set the prices, not us.

Where is there "price fixing" or "conspiring" to raise prices? I just don't see it%u2026
post #120 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soloman View Post


Even in a global market it would hurt someone like Barnes & Noble who may not have the global presence of a Apple or Amazon. Of course I don't like what Amazon was doing but forcing the same price across all vendors isn't good either. I would put a little leeway in the MFN clause, if a competitor's price is over one dollar less then I must be allowed to price match.

But you are missing the point here. The price you pay for an eBook has at least 2 components: the cost that is paid to the author/publisher, and the cost that is 'siphoned off' by the distributor. The price matching you are talking about is all about price competition among distributors who are competing for your business, not price competition driven by authors or even the publishers. The distributors add no value to the product itself other than providing authors with access to buyers. And in the case of electronic products, like eBooks and software, Apple's stores offer by far the most efficient way of distributing electronic products to a global market. B&N and Amazon just can't compete with the distribution model created by Apple. Their outdated business model, involving price competition on distribution only, should not be protected by the DoJ.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › US court finds Apple guilty of conspiring to raise e-book prices