or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Book publishers challenge DOJ e-book penalties against Apple
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Book publishers challenge DOJ e-book penalties against Apple

post #1 of 82
Thread Starter 
In a court filing on Wednesday, five major U.S. book publishers objected to the penalties proposed by the Department of Justice against Apple's e-book business, saying the program would change the terms of their respective settlements with the government.

Summation
Apple's closing slide in its e-book antitrust case. | Source: U.S. District Court


The publishing houses argue that the DOJ's proposed five-year ban on Apple's so-called "agency model" deals would negatively impact defendants which settled the e-book antitrust case, reports The Wall Street Journal. HarperCollins, Hachette, Simon & Schuster, Penguin Group and Macmillan all settled prior to the Justice Department's trial.

"The provisions do not impose any limitation on Apple's pricing behavior at all; rather, under the guise of punishing Apple, they effectively punish the settling defendants by prohibiting agreements with Apple using an agency model," the documents read.

Apple was found guilty of e-book price fixing in July, with the U.S. government saying the company colluded with book publishers to falsely inflate the price of content sold through the iBookstore. Most of the trial centered around agency model pricing, which allows book publishers to set their own prices under a most-favored nations clause that precludes them from selling the same content elsewhere for less.

Under the terms of a proposed settlement from the DOJ, Apple would not be allowed to enter into agency model agreements for five years. This, the book publishers say, hurts Apple less than it does the parties that settled.

For its part, Apple called the proposal a "draconian and punitive intrusion" on its iBookstore business and plans to appeal the ruling.

Confusing the situation further, the proposed settlement also suggests that Apple be prohibited from entering similar agreements with sellers of "music, movies, television shows or other content that are likely to increase the prices at which Apple's competitors may sell that content." This would extend the proposal's scope far beyond the iBookstore.

post #2 of 82

ah ha... the plot thicken here... you can kind of read between the lines of what the publishers agreed to.  

 

It appears existing wholesale contract with Amazon has been placed on the clock and there is a limit that expires sometime in the near future. 

 

give it to em boys.

 

the Amazon influencing media in DC (literally buying the Washington Post) is sickening too.


Edited by snova - 8/7/13 at 5:30pm
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
post #3 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post

 

the Amazon purchasing media in DC (literally buying the Washington Post) is sickening too.

Why is it sickening? Amazon did not purchase Washington Post.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #4 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Why is it sickening? Amazon did not purchase Washington Post.

whatever.  if you wanna do this do this hair splitting BS, its really up to you.   The fact of the matter is connected to politics in DC and the DoJ actions.  dodge it if you want...  its clear that Amazon is using politics to their advantage of Apple.

"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
post #5 of 82
If the case is thrown out on appeal ... well, that will be the end of that.
post #6 of 82
I still don't understand how Apple can be accused of "price fixing" when they don't even set prices to begin with... the publishers set the prices in that agency model.

And I also don't understand how this helps anyone except Amazon who was artificially steering prices lower to prevent fair competition.

I hope the DOJ gets a scolding from the President like the ITC recently did. It is certainly deserved.
post #7 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by tribalogical View Post

I still don't understand how Apple can be accused of "price fixing" when they don't set prices (the publishers do).

Because Apple is not playing ball in Washington.. that's why. Its a shake down.

"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
post #8 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Why is it sickening? Amazon did not purchase Washington Post.

whatever.  you gonna do this hair splitting BS? 

Bezos is investing in various things such as his foundation for K-12 and space vehicles, museums, clocks, 20 or so start up companies, Business Insider magazine. There is no reason to tie eBook publishing to the Washington Post sale.

 

He is a billionaire, he does whatever he wants with his own money.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #9 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by tribalogical View Post

I hope the DOJ gets a scolding from the President like the ITC recently did. It is certainly deserved.

Dont get your hopes up.  President and Amazon are having a love feast.   No offense, but you you obviously have not been watching the news about Obama praising Amazon in his recent tour of Amazon facilities.  

 

again. no offense intended. just surprised you missed this news.

"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
post #10 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Bezos is investing in various things.... There is no reason to tie eBook publishing to the Washington Post sale.

 

 

Right.. sure.. do you know how many newspapers are up for sale? pretty much everyone.. he is based in Seattle has to pick the one in Washington DC.  right.. no connection. 

"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
post #11 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Bezos is investing in various things.... There is no reason to tie eBook publishing to the Washington Post sale.

 

 

Right.. sure.. do you know how many newspapers are up for sale? pretty much everyone.. he is based in Seattle has to pick the one in Washington DC.  right.. no connection. 

Tin foil much?

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #12 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Tin foil much?

use your brain much?  its not even good business.

 

 Amazon distributes other newspapers in electronic form. Why favor one of your content providers (by buying it)  while you distribute its competitors content also...  Its like Amazon buy a book publisher.  Or Apple buying a music publisher..

 

I'm done.... go ahead and be ignorant of obvious facts. your choice. tin foil my ass.

"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
post #13 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Tin foil much?

Naive much?
post #14 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post

use your brain much?  its not even good business.

 

 Amazon distributes other newspapers in electronic form. Why favor one of your content providers (by buying it)  while you distribute its competitors content also...  Its like Amazon buy a book publisher.  Or Apple buying a music publisher..

 

I'm done.... go ahead and be ignorant of obvious facts. your choice. tin foil my ass.

 

Dude, Bezos != Amazon. He is using his own money not Amazon's. You'll need to find some law that he is breaking in buying Washington Post. He can buy whatever he wants as a private citizen.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #15 of 82
The publishers -- even though they were threatened into submission -- are a little late to the party. They'll have to live with the consequences of their lack of backbone and hanging Apple out to dry.
post #16 of 82

The interesing part to me is what kind of financial damage can the DoJ assign to Apple for not allowing Amazon to sell books at a loss??

 

I have not heard of any financial damages at all.   Would they pull a number out of a dark place, and how would they defend this number for not allowing Amazon to sell at a loss? think about it. 

 

Apple was not even using the same business model as Amazon. They have NEVER used wholesale money. Its always been agency. The DoJ as said there is nothing illegal about agency model. Apple has being doing it for years with the pricing of their own products (Macs, iPad, iPhones, Music etc).  How come DoJ does not come after Amazon AND Apple for setting their own price on their own products which are sold at retail at Amazon for the same price they sell at the Apple store?  Price fixing right? Hypocrites..

How come Amazon sells music downloads at about he same price as Google and Apple? price fixing too, right? Someone call the DoJ!! Get the net.  Amazon, Google, and Apple must be all price fixing music download via Agency model!!!    $1.29 song everywhere. This is why music prices have skyrocketed!!!  oh wait.. they have gone down you say? hmmm..

 

Hypocrites!!! @#$^@$%

 

this whole thing stink of conspiracy and abuse of our legal system by Amazon and politicians in Washington. These are they guys who should be put on trial for messing with the free market when they have a monopoly and its to their advantage to call in DoJ when their monopoly is threatened and Apple is not taxed at the full tax rate that Amazon is taxed at.  

scratch that.. they would have to make an actually profit for taxes to come into play. 

 

someone needs to go to jail and I think its someone in Washington, DoJ, Justice System and at Amazon for bribery and corruption. 

 

ok.. time to take my chill pill now. 1smoking.gif ahh... its all good.


Edited by snova - 8/7/13 at 6:41pm
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
post #17 of 82

AmazonWashingtonPost needs to get it's well-deserved comeuppance. 

post #18 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post

The interesing part to me is what kind of financial damage can the DoJ assign to Apple for not allowing Amazon to sell books at a loss??

I have not heard of any financial damages at all.   Would they pull a number out of a dark place, and how would they defend this number for not allowing Amazon to sell at a loss? think about it. 

Apple was not even using the same business model as Amazon. They have NEVER used wholesale money. Its always been agency. The DoJ as said there is nothing illegal about agency model. Apple has being doing it for years with the pricing of their own products (Macs, iPad, iPhones, Music etc).  How come DoJ does not come after Amazon AND Apple for setting their own price on their own products which are sold at retail at Amazon for the same price they sell at the Apple store?  Price fixing right? Hypocrites..
How come Amazon sells music downloads at about he same price as Google and Apple? price fixing too, right? Someone call the DoJ!! Get the net.  Amazon, Google, and Apple must be all price fixing music download via Agency model!!!    $1.29 song everywhere. This is why music prices have skyrocketed!!!  oh wait.. they have gone down you say? hmmm..

Hypocrites!!! @#$^@$%

this whole thing stink of conspiracy and abuse of our legal system by Amazon and politicians in Washington. These are they guys who should be put on trial for messing with the free market when they have a monopoly and its to their advantage to call in DoJ when their monopoly is threatened and Apple is not taxed at the full tax rate that Amazon is taxed at.  
scratch that.. they would have to make an actually profit for taxes to come into play. 

someone needs to go to jail and I think its someone in Washington, DoJ, Justice System and at Amazon for bribery and corruption. 

ok.. time to take my chill pill now. 1smoking.gif  ahh... its all good.

Amazon wasn't suing Apple so why would there be damages?

I don't agree with this at all. I think each company should run their business accordingly, and contrary to popular belief Amazon is restricted from doing what they were doing before.

Btw I believe Apple uses the wholesale model for TV shows/movies.
Edited by dasanman69 - 8/7/13 at 7:07pm
"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 #19 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Why is it sickening? Amazon did not purchase Washington Post.

Transitive property of politics: If Amazon=Bezos and Bezos=Washington Post then Washington Post=Amazon
post #20 of 82

The judge is the problem. How she interpreted Apple was at fault for providing a platform for publishers to collude still makes my head spin. Judge that do not understand tech and business has no place being there in the first place. This is only interesting because publishers settled for two-year ban from agency model...and by forcing Apple to a 5-yrs ban...well, where do publishers go besides Amazon for the next 5-yrs? DOJ is screwing everyone but Amazon!

 

I said this many times before, if Apple can get out of consumer ebooks completely for the next 5-yrs now, they should, just to prove two points: 1) DOJ is dumb! 2) neither Amazon nor ebook readers are victims here! Publishers are making money, Apples gets their 30%, readers still paying less than print version! WTF, why is there always victims in this kind of bs? The saddest part, the judge is clueless at cutting through the phony shit DOJ came up with.

 

Get out now Apple! Allocate resources to something else thing better, like Apple iTV! Wait a few years and let those publishers come begging for agency model again!

post #21 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post


It appears existing wholesale contract with Amazon has been placed on the clock and there is a limit that expires sometime in the near future. 

What wholesale contracts? The publishers already switched those to agency. That was part of the alleged collusion. Took away retailer pricing control.

If they really wanted to restrict pricing control by the publishers the DOJ could have done things like restrict MFN clauses to items only in the first year, allow retailers to drop prices exclusively but only for say 8 weeks total in that year and only two weeks at a time. Perhaps add rules like if the publisher doesn't agree to the proposed sale discount the retailer can only do it if willing to pay the 30% of the publisher price (ie, taking the profit loss themselves completely), upper limits on pricing based on category of book like how Apple did it but perhaps with lower limits, particularly after 6-12 months (when print goes to paperback).

And as this trial was about books all other Apple Stores should not be included.
post #22 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


Btw I believe Apple uses the wholesale model for TV shows/movies.

thanks for the correction.

"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
post #23 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Techboy View Post

The judge is the problem. How she interpreted Apple was at fault for providing a platform for publishers to collude still makes my head spin. Judge that do not understand tech and business has no place being there in the first place. This is only interesting because publishers settled for two-year ban from agency model...and by forcing Apple to a 5-yrs ban...well, where do publishers go besides Amazon for the next 5-yrs? DOJ is screwing everyone but Amazon!

The judge's errors go well beyond that. The fact that she said that the DOJ was going to win the case before the case even started indicates that she was in way over her head or was biased from the start.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Techboy View Post

I said this many times before, if Apple can get out of consumer ebooks completely for the next 5-yrs now, they should, just to prove two points: 1) DOJ is dumb! 2) neither Amazon nor ebook readers are victims here! Publishers are making money, Apples gets their 30%, readers still paying less than print version! WTF, why is there always victims in this kind of bs? The saddest part, the judge is clueless at cutting through the phony shit DOJ came up with.

Get out now Apple! Allocate resources to something else thing better, like Apple iTV! Wait a few years and let those publishers come begging for agency model again!

That would be absurd. Apple has a chance to gain a place in the eBooks market. If they put it off 5 years, they'd have very little chance of EVER playing a significant role.
"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 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post


What wholesale contracts? The publishers already switched those to agency. That was part of the alleged collusion. Took away retailer pricing control.
 

its my understand that the DoJ settlement forced publishers back to wholesale with Amazon.   However,  publishers are still using agency model with Apple. See the response above from Techboy above who believes the DoJ settlement agreement with publishers was to ban agency model for 2 years with Amazon.  tick tick.

 

the fact the publishers have not broken agency deal with Apple, and are opposing DoJ breaking contract between Apple and publishers, and placing a 5 year ban on Apple using agency tells me Amazon's monopoly on the eBook is over come expiration of the 2 year ban with Amazon anyways.

 

Also important to note that Apple iBook sales are going very well... regardless of Amazon selling books for a loss (aka lower price than Apple).  DoJ needs to go pound sand.  Apple is selling books at higher prices than Amazon already. Apple is making their 30%.. Publishers are charging what they want. Consumers are still buying even though you can run Kindle app on iPad.

Let the market decide. Don't be forcing Apple to be breaking existing contracts with publishers.  That just wrong. 

 

you are not going to stop the publishers from doing whatever they want. Agency model is not illegal. If publishers want to stop wholesale model when the two years are up with Amazon, that is up to them. Its a slap on the wrist and they will wait it out. Genie is out of the bottle now that there is viable competitor to Amazon.  No doubt the DoJ/Apple thing will be stuck in Appeals beyond the expiration of the two year ban settlement.

 

Come to think of it,  offering Kindle App on iOS seemed like a good idea at the time, but now I think it was boneheaded move.   Buy Kindle books today, you can still read on iPad two years from now.  Amazon has lost their leverage and monopoly. they are done for.


Edited by snova - 8/7/13 at 8:14pm
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
post #25 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post

. tin foil my ass.

 

at least it will match your hat

post #26 of 82

What confuses me about this last bit...

Basically they're saying that if Apple didn't settle, they want to shut down the entire iTunes Store.  That's BS.

 

However, I'm not sure but I don't think Apple applies the "Agency Model" to any other part of the iTunes Products.

 

Music: price set by Apple and approved by Industry.

Movies/TV: same as music

Apps: Price set by Dev's

Magazines: not sure.

 

So really, what I'm confused about is why would the DoJ impose this later clause at all?  Apple appears to have done nothing wrong, in the iBookstore or any other division of the iTunes Store.  So why add this clause?

 

I think really the DoJ was trying for force a settlement, and Apple wouldn't budge because they've really done nothing wrong and refused to admit false guilt...so the DoJ stuck it out and forced the guilty verdict.

 

Sounds like first class horse-shit to me.

 

EDIT:  Also, if i'm quite certain, some products that iTunes sell has no competition.  There is no other place to download apps for your iDevices...sure if you jailbreak, yes.  What about eBooks?  Can you access eBooks in the iBooks App when purchased from Amazon or any other source other than the iBookstore?  I'm not that clear about this all since I don't read a lot of books on my iPad.

post #27 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by antkm1 View Post

I think really the DoJ was trying for force a settlement, and Apple wouldn't budge because they've really done nothing wrong and refused to admit false guilt...so the DoJ stuck it out and forced the guilty verdict.

 

Sounds like first class horse-shit to me.

careful mstone is stock piling aluminum foil bought with free shipping from Amazon and has a hat waiting for you. Frood is helping him use up the foil by making underwear. 

"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
post #28 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by antkm1 View Post

 

EDIT:  Also, if i'm quite certain, some products that iTunes sell has no competition.  There is no other place to download apps for your iDevices...sure if you jailbreak, yes.  What about eBooks?  Can you access eBooks in the iBooks App when purchased from Amazon or any other source other than the iBookstore?  I'm not that clear about this all since I don't read a lot of books on my iPad.

You can read Kindle books on the Kindle iOS App.  You can Read B&N Books on the B&N iOS App.   Likely you can do the same with Google books too.

 

However, you can not read Google, B&N books or Apple books on Kindle .  Simliarly, no Kindle Books, Google, Apple books on B&N Nook.  Seem to me all roads lead to iPad. Damage has already been done. Apple and publishers can wait out this agency model ban. Apple has no reason to get out of eBook market. it will only grow for them an they are already making a 30% profit while Amazon is messing around with selling below cost trying to knock out competitors. They are not gonna knock out Apple no matter how much they cut the price. Eventually the bans will expire and people will continue to happily read on iPad. No matter where they bought the books from.

 

you can be sure the publishers are gonna go back to Agency when the bans expire. How is Amazon gonna compete after that is anyone's guess.  Free Kindles?


Edited by snova - 8/7/13 at 8:36pm
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
post #29 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

"The provisions do not impose any limitation on Apple's pricing behavior at all; rather, under the guise of punishing Apple, they effectively punish the settling defendants by prohibiting agreements with Apple using an agency model," the documents read.
Acording the article below, it would prevent ANY e-book contracts for 5 years, not only agency model pricing.
From this -> DOJ settlement would require Apple to allow links to Amazon, Barnes & Noble e-book stores
"The proposed DOJ settlement would also require Apple to terminate its existing e-book agreements with the five major publishers it was found to have conspired with to fix prices. Those publishers are Hachette Book Group, HarperCollins Publishers, Macmillan, Penguin Group, and Simon & Schuster.
In addition, Apple would be prevented from entering new e-book distribution contracts with those publishers for five years, constraining the company from competing on price."

(after bit of looking, this is only a proposed settlement by DOJ, not a ruling)
post #30 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_CA View Post


Acording the article below, it would prevent ANY e-book contracts for 5 years, not only agency model pricing.
From this -> DOJ settlement would require Apple to allow links to Amazon, Barnes & Noble e-book stores
"The proposed DOJ settlement would also require Apple to terminate its existing e-book agreements with the five major publishers it was found to have conspired with to fix prices. Those publishers are Hachette Book Group, HarperCollins Publishers, Macmillan, Penguin Group, and Simon & Schuster.
In addition, Apple would be prevented from entering new e-book distribution contracts with those publishers for five years, constraining the company from competing on price."

(after bit of looking, this is only a proposed settlement by DOJ, not a ruling)

and this is going to help improve free market competition how? lol   Are they trying to build a healthy competitive market or just a healthy Amazon monopoly?

"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
post #31 of 82

The penalties were written by Amazon.  I guess they messed up.

 

The DOJ forgot to tell Amazon that they made those deals with the publishers.

 

The DOJ and Amazon should be investigated.

post #32 of 82
Judge Coyote got paid off before the trial began. So the publishers objection will go unheard by this so called judge. We need to get to the appeals court with a new judge who hopefully isn't paid off by the DOJ or Amazon for that matter. This whole case reeks with a bad smell of political crap going on.
As for the DOJ's proposal it is exactly what Apple said it is. Especially when they try and reach for Apple's other business, music, movies, and Apps which has nothing to do with this case what so ever. Apple was supposedly guilty of something to do with books, not music, not movies, not Apps. Therefore the DOJ should have no legal right to go there period.
post #33 of 82
It is not absurd for Apple to get out of consumer ebooks. Statistically, iPad is being used more in other forms of entertainment, reading is just small part of its capability that won't need to go away. If anything reading on iPad and mini can only improve in the next 5 yrs. Why not take the high road and show why DOJ is wrong by getting out of it? I would, to prove a point. No better way than to see publishers succumb to Amazon and then we can call DOJ for sticking their nose into things they do not understand.
post #34 of 82

The DOJ is trying to build a monopoly to reward companies that paid them off.  This is a load of shit. I'm ashamed to live in this once-great country (I bet that set off the NSA). My only hope is that Apple will appeal this straight to the top and the DOJ and Amazon will be held liable for corruption of our judicial system for corporate gain.

post #35 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_CA View Post


Acording the article below, it would prevent ANY e-book contracts for 5 years, not only agency model pricing.
From this -> DOJ settlement would require Apple to allow links to Amazon, Barnes & Noble e-book stores
"The proposed DOJ settlement would also require Apple to terminate its existing e-book agreements with the five major publishers it was found to have conspired with to fix prices. Those publishers are Hachette Book Group, HarperCollins Publishers, Macmillan, Penguin Group, and Simon & Schuster.
In addition, Apple would be prevented from entering new e-book distribution contracts with those publishers for five years, constraining the company from competing on price."

(after bit of looking, this is only a proposed settlement by DOJ, not a ruling)

seems like an easy fix for Apple even with this crazy DoJ terms getting handed down.   Apply buy's Barnes and Noble e-book stores as a whole-owned subsidiary for song.

 

Or even better, Apple acquires all of B&N including brick and mortar stores in the deal. Apple then sets up a good sized Apple Store inside B&N. Offers free Wifi and eBook reading on iPad devices while in the store. This will attract people who have taste and miss book stores. While they are hanging out at the store, they can browse the Apple products.   Switch B&N to all printed and ebooks sold using agency model.  Publishers will cut all wholesale contracts with Amazon anyways.. the writing is on the wall.  Local books stores return to our society which can actually make a profit and survive. One can dream, right? 

 

B&N got out making and selling their own eBook reader anyways.. seems like and win win deal to  me. B&N is not long from certain death without this type of deal. 


Edited by snova - 8/7/13 at 9:52pm
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
post #36 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleSauce007 View Post

The penalties were written by Amazon.  I guess they messed up.

 

The DOJ forgot to tell Amazon that they made those deals with the publishers.

 

The DOJ and Amazon should be investigated.

Well it certainly was not written to benefit Barnes & Noble who if you recall was defending Apple in the case and was already pursuing an agency model with the publishers independent of Apple.   Saying that they should advertise B&N is disrespectful slap in the face to B&N; for who this will not help at all.  Not fooling anyone here DoJ. Its all about Amazon.


Edited by snova - 8/7/13 at 10:03pm
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
post #37 of 82
Excellent! Bwahahahaha!

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #38 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Tin foil much?

use your brain much?  its not even good business.

 

 Amazon distributes other newspapers in electronic form. Why favor one of your content providers (by buying it)  while you distribute its competitors content also...  Its like Amazon buy a book publisher.  Or Apple buying a music publisher..

 

I'm done.... go ahead and be ignorant of obvious facts. your choice. tin foil my ass.

 

Amazon didn't buy the Post, Bezos did. I do agree that it was likely in some amount due to its influence in DC. However, it is a national brand as well. So buying the Post has many benefits over other struggling papers. With its brand, he can try to push it digitally to a much larger audience. I am interested to see what he can do with it. He has to keep it at arms length or there will be all sorts of issues. Not sure how he will do that in some instances.

post #39 of 82
What is baffling is that i live in a country where agency model is mandated by law on books (this was done to put big & small retaillers on equal footing and forbid the big ones to use predatory pricing like amazon or our wallmarts equivalents). Book prices here are lower than in all surrounding EU countries. Publishers are free to set the price, but it is the same for everyone everywhere, including amazon.

Note also that prices are set for the life of the book publication, no higher prices at launch for example. Price changes are made only when new editions (eg paperback) come.

So agency model per se is not bad, and nothing presented was convincing of a conspiracy.
post #40 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by lukefrench View Post

What is baffling is that i live in a country where agency model is mandated by law on books (this was done to put big & small retaillers on equal footing and forbid the big ones to use predatory pricing like amazon or our wallmarts equivalents). Book prices here are lower than in all surrounding EU countries. Publishers are free to set the price, but it is the same for everyone everywhere, including amazon.

Note also that prices are set for the life of the book publication, no higher prices at launch for example. Price changes are made only when new editions (eg paperback) come.

So agency model per se is not bad, and nothing presented was convincing of a conspiracy.

How do you decide where to shop for your books? How do book sellers gain your business?

Is agency also used for ebooks or just printed?

"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Book publishers challenge DOJ e-book penalties against Apple