or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple continues fight to have antitrust monitor reined in, judges appear skeptical
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple continues fight to have antitrust monitor reined in, judges appear skeptical - Page 2

post #41 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post
 


What Apple did was to sit in the middle of all of the publishers and offer them a platform that would comply with their demands. Before Apple's involvement the publishers did want to conspire regardless, but they had no way to fight with Amazon. It was unpalatable to them to lose so many sales in order to try and move prices up.

 

Apple provided the iPad, which would comply with their demands and undoubtedly be incredibly popular. They did this knowing full well that it would eliminate retail price competition and so put their platform in a perfect place to sell to their users. Why would anyone install a Kindle app if the prices were exactly the same?

 

This is what Apple did that was illegal, they were involved in orchestrating a conspiracy to eliminate price competition which would directly benefit them. It's a long read, but http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f299200/299275.pdf summarises it pretty well.


Are you writing this in your imagination?  Kindle app opens the books bought from Amazon. How could the prices be exactly the same as from the iBook store? 

post #42 of 89

Here's a statement Apple should release: "Due to the Government allowing Amazon to keep it's Monopoly over e-books and their pricing, we are withdrawing from that market - thus closing purchases of electronic books from iBooks immediately. Well be paying no fines for price-fixing since Apple was only allowing another venue for Publishers to sell in with their own pricing. Our Court Appointed Monitor is hereby barred from all Apple Facilities and Stores."

post #43 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by tzeshan View Post
 


Are you writing this in your imagination?  Kindle app opens the books bought from Amazon. How could the prices be exactly the same as from the iBook store? 

 

The prices were exactly the same because that is the nature of the agreement Apple signed. As soon as they had Apple onboard, the publishers all went to Amazon to change their deal. Therefore if Amazon chose to sell a book for $9.99 in future, Apple would also be able to match that, but the publishers could then cancel their deals with Amazon, withdraw their books and Apple would dominate the market.

 

By this method the publishers could eliminate any sellers offering books for $9.99 which was considered too cheap to them. This resulted in an immediate price raise, which is obviously bad for the consumer. It also resulted in a reduction of sales to those publishers, showing the harm done quite clearly.

post #44 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by walletinspector View Post
 

Here's a statement Apple should release: "Due to the Government allowing Amazon to keep it's Monopoly over e-books and their pricing, we are withdrawing from that market - thus closing purchases of electronic books from iBooks immediately. Well be paying no fines for price-fixing since Apple was only allowing another venue for Publishers to sell in with their own pricing. Our Court Appointed Monitor is hereby barred from all Apple Facilities and Stores."

 

Monopolies are not illegal, disobeying court orders and refusing to pay fines is. I don't think this would be a particularly smart move.

post #45 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by walletinspector View Post
 

Here's a statement Apple should release: "Due to the Government allowing Amazon to keep it's Monopoly over e-books and their pricing, we are withdrawing from that market - thus closing purchases of electronic books from iBooks immediately. Well be paying no fines for price-fixing since Apple was only allowing another venue for Publishers to sell in with their own pricing. Our Court Appointed Monitor is hereby barred from all Apple Facilities and Stores."

 

Except "only" is not true because of the price matching agreement, withdrawing a profitable part of the ecosystem is disadvantageous to Apple and its customers, refusing to pay any fines before they've even been levied is both antagonistic and arrogantly juevenile, and the action of barring a court-appointed monitor from premises is illegal.

 

But what the hell, GO APPLE.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #46 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post
 

 

The prices were exactly the same because that is the nature of the agreement Apple signed. As soon as they had Apple onboard, the publishers all went to Amazon to change their deal. Therefore if Amazon chose to sell a book for $9.99 in future, Apple would also be able to match that, but the publishers could then cancel their deals with Amazon, withdraw their books and Apple would dominate the market.

 

By this method the publishers could eliminate any sellers offering books for $9.99 which was considered too cheap to them. This resulted in an immediate price raise, which is obviously bad for the consumer. It also resulted in a reduction of sales to those publishers, showing the harm done quite clearly.


You are lying.  Are you a juvenile?  You don't know what is legal what is illegal.  It is illgal for publishers to cancel deals with Amazon.  And you are thinking this is legal. 

 

And I don't think you understand what is wholesale.

post #47 of 89

Cancelling a deal isn't illegal.  Depends on the terms of the deal, but at your worst you're in breach of contract, and some contracts will allow exit at any time.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #48 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post
 

Cancelling a deal isn't illegal.  Depends on the terms of the deal, but at your worst you're in breach of contract, and some contracts will allow exit at any time.


No.  He is lying.  The publishers can cancel deals but they have to renegotiate deals. You can not refuse to sell to any legal retailer. 

post #49 of 89

Sure you can, you can refuse to sell to anyone you want.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #50 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post
 

Sure you can, you can refuse to sell to anyone you want.


No!!!!!

post #51 of 89
post #52 of 89

Ok Darth, have it your way, publishers are obliged to sell to every book retailer, just because.  Producers are not allowed any control over their product at all.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #53 of 89
The monitor is supposed to be there for one reason. The book case and is supposed to only ask those involved in the book case and nothing else. So he should not have to go to anyone other than those that were involved with the book deal and case for any answers he needs. I see no reason for the appeals judges not to side with Apple as far as what the monitor is allowed to do instead of having free rain which Coyte gave him.
I don't think I like this comment made by Lynch. "Maybe if they had spent some of their very valuable time keeping the company from violating antitrust laws, perhaps they wouldn't be in this position," Judge Gerard Lynch said.
Why does he comment like this when he knows there is an appeal going on which may reverse this whole case entirely. I find that was really not necessary.
I also find that even though Apple does have plenty of money a $1000.00 an hour for anyones salary is quite excessive no matter who it is.
post #54 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post

The prices were exactly the same because that is the nature of the agreement Apple signed. As soon as they had Apple onboard, the publishers all went to Amazon to change their deal. Therefore if Amazon chose to sell a book for $9.99 in future, Apple would also be able to match that, but the publishers could then cancel their deals with Amazon, withdraw their books and Apple would dominate the market.

By this method the publishers could eliminate any sellers offering books for $9.99 which was considered too cheap to them. This resulted in an immediate price raise, which is obviously bad for the consumer. It also resulted in a reduction of sales to those publishers, showing the harm done quite clearly.

At the same time if Amazon kept 9.99 as the price, competitors would go out of business or exit the ebook market effectively making them the only reseller of ebooks. Then Amazon can raise prices because sooner or later shareholders will wake up and want more revenue/profits.
post #55 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by b9bot View Post

The monitor is supposed to be there for one reason. The book case and is supposed to only ask those involved in the book case and nothing else.

 

I believe his actual stated purpose is to monitor compliance with antitrust law, so he should be asking questions of anyone who is currently involved in contractual matters (existing and under negotiation) for publishing/selling content.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #56 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post


At the same time if Amazon kept 9.99 as the price, competitors would go out of business or exit the ebook market effectively making them the only reseller of ebooks. Then Amazon can raise prices because sooner or later shareholders will wake up and want more revenue/profits.

This may well be true, but should have resulted in an antitrust complaint, not a backroom agreement between Apple and the publishers to rig pricing.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #57 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by b9bot View Post

The monitor is supposed to be there for one reason. The book case and is supposed to only ask those involved in the book case and nothing else.

No he isn't. Here is there for antitrust violations and to determine Apple's antitrust policies. This was driven by the ebook deal but it is not the focus of his work.

 

Quote:
So he should not have to go to anyone other than those that were involved with the book deal and case for any answers he needs. I see no reason for the appeals judges not to side with Apple as far as what the monitor is allowed to do instead of having free rain which Coyte gave him.

Apple refuse to accept a limited scope of his enquiry and indicate they will fight to have him removed regardless. Therefore to 'side with Apple' would be to remove him entirely.


 

Quote:
I also find that even though Apple does have plenty of money a $1000.00 an hour for anyones salary is quite excessive no matter who it is.

Apple offered him $800/hour iirc, so the difference is pretty tiny.

post #58 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post


At the same time if Amazon kept 9.99 as the price, competitors would go out of business or exit the ebook market effectively making them the only reseller of ebooks. Then Amazon can raise prices because sooner or later shareholders will wake up and want more revenue/profits.


Yes, they could raise the prices, but they would still have gone no higher than the price people were willing to pay. At the same time this would have let a rich competitor with a platform to drive (ie Apple) compete by offering slightly better discounts. That would be totally fine and the whole point of price competition.

post #59 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post

I believe his actual stated purpose is to monitor compliance with antitrust law, so he should be asking questions of anyone who is currently involved in contractual matters (existing and under negotiation) for publishing/selling content.

So how does Ive figure in that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post


Yes, they could raise the prices, but they would still have gone no higher than the price people were willing to pay. At the same time this would have let a rich competitor with a platform to drive (ie Apple) compete by offering slightly better discounts. That would be totally fine and the whole point of price competition.

Price people are willing to pay? If it's the only game in town, people will buy it if they want it.
post #60 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post


So how does Ive figure in that.

I have literally no idea about Apple's board organisation. I expect neither does Bromwich. Meeting with Ive for an hour is not really some sort of impossible task for Apple and I bet that once he'd met him that would have been the end of it as he clearly wasn't involved. Still, Apple is free to make representations that certain staff be off limits, they refuse to do that though.

 

Quote:
Price people are willing to pay? If it's the only game in town, people will buy it if they want it.

But they're not the only game in town. Both Apple and Google want to get in on this market, and you know they'll be waiting by the sidelines looking for the profit.

post #61 of 89


This is what I said the publishers can not simply cancel the deals.  They have to renegotiate.  Apple did nothing wrong.  The DOJ and judge Cote erred.  Apple should appeal all the way to the Supreme Court if needed. 

post #62 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by tzeshan View Post
 


This is what I said the publishers can not simply cancel the deals.  They have to renegotiate.  Apple did nothing wrong.  The DOJ and judge Cote erred.  Apple should appeal all the way to the Supreme Court if needed. 

 

They did renegotiate, they switched to agency pricing which led to them being unable to compete on price.

 

You seem to be just putting your fingers in your ears and insisting they did nothing wrong at all. That's not really a winning tactic. Apple is entitled to appeal all the way up to the Supreme Court, but at some point you're going to have to look at the evidence of what happened.

post #63 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post


So how does Ive figure in that.

 

He doesn't, as far as I can see.  I'm not defending the monitor, just correcting an inaccuracy.  That said, I don't have any line of sight into Apple, so maybe there's some unexpected way in which Ive was involved in contractual matters.  Maybe relating to procuring prototype materials; I really don't know.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #64 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post

I have literally no idea about Apple's board organisation. I expect neither does Bromwich. Meeting with Ive for an hour is not really some sort of impossible task for Apple and I bet that once he'd met him that would have been the end of it as he clearly wasn't involved. Still, Apple is free to make representations that certain staff be off limits, they refuse to do that though.

But they're not the only game in town. Both Apple and Google want to get in on this market, and you know they'll be waiting by the sidelines looking for the profit.

How do you know they haven't? An hour of your time may have minimal impact, but an hour of their time may not be.

Apple and Googs do want to get in but they intend to make profit. Selling at a loss != profits.
post #65 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post
 

 

They did renegotiate, they switched to agency pricing which led to them being unable to compete on price.

 

You seem to be just putting your fingers in your ears and insisting they did nothing wrong at all. That's not really a winning tactic. Apple is entitled to appeal all the way up to the Supreme Court, but at some point you're going to have to look at the evidence of what happened.


Why Amazon can not compete on price if it is selling at the same price? It seems Amazon simply can not compete.  It is not the pricing. 

post #66 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post


How do you know they haven't? An hour of your time may have minimal impact, but an hour of their time may not be.

This is the tack Apple has taken, 'their time is of unlimited value' but it is just nonsense. Ive is a product designer. His time may be valuable, but that does not mean he can claim it is so valuable he is entitled to ignore court judgements. I think making a claim like yours requires extraordinary evidence, wheras Apple refuses to provide any.

 

Quote:
Apple and Googs do want to get in but they intend to make profit. Selling at a loss != profits.

Amazon makes profits. Their tactic is to use a loss-leader. Google was against the agency pricing, wheras Apple was for it as they expect their users to be motivated to use Apple's ecosystem and therefore pay more. That was not enough for Apple on its own, that's why this whole price fixing conspiracy was established.

post #67 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by tzeshan View Post
 

This is what I said the publishers can not simply cancel the deals.  They have to renegotiate. 

 

It's a good idea to, as otherwise you're not selling anything.  But no, you don't have to renegotiate a deal.  If the contract allows, you can exit.  If not, you'll have to negotiate something, be it a settlement, or a new arrangement, but you don't have to renegotiate a sales deal if you don't want to sell.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tzeshan View Post
 

Apple did nothing wrong.  The DOJ and judge Cote erred.  Apple should appeal all the way to the Supreme Court if needed. 

 

Different subject.  Apple insisted on a price matching agreement.  That definitely strays into anticompetitive territory.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #68 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by tzeshan View Post
 


Why Amazon can not compete on price if it is selling at the same price? It seems Amazon simply can not compete.  It is not the pricing. 

 

If Amazon dropped the price, Apple could also drop the price and pay the same. There was no competition on price. How many times do I have to repeat this? Apple wanted to compete on devices, Amazon wanted to compete on prices. Apple illegally conspired to remove Amazon's ability to compete as they obviously felt the iPad would beat the Kindle.

 

It's as simple as that.

post #69 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post
 

 

It's a good idea to, as otherwise you're not selling anything.  But no, you don't have to renegotiate a deal.  If the contract allows, you can exit.  If not, you'll have to negotiate something, be it a settlement, or a new arrangement, but you don't have to renegotiate a sales deal if you don't want to sell.

 

 

Different subject.  Apple insisted on a price matching agreement.  That definitely strays into anticompetitive territory.


Price matching?  How convenient for you to insert a new accusation!

post #70 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post
 

 

If Amazon dropped the price, Apple could also drop the price and pay the same. There was no competition on price. How many times do I have to repeat this? Apple wanted to compete on devices, Amazon wanted to compete on prices. Apple illegally conspired to remove Amazon's ability to compete as they obviously felt the iPad would beat the Kindle.

 

It's as simple as that.


Are you out of your mind?  You forget what the issue is.  Apple did not set the price.  Apple let the publishers set the price. 

post #71 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by tzeshan View Post
 


Price matching?  How convenient for you to insert a new meaning!

 

New meaning how?  Apple and the publishers agreed that ebooks wouldn't be sold cheaper in any other store, that the iBookstore price would always be matched to the lowest price in any other store.

 

I would call that price matching, sorry if it's the wrong technical term.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #72 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by tzeshan View Post
 


Price matching?  How convenient for you to insert a new accusation!

Oh wait, new "accusation".

 

Well it's the same accusation I've always used, and the same one that the DOJ used, so I'm not sure what's new about it, but whatever,

 

Apologies for the inconvenience of facts.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #73 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by tzeshan View Post
 


Are you out of your mind?  You forget what the issue is.  Apple did not set the price.  Apple let the publishers set the price. 


I really don't appreciate the insults. I have explained this to you clearly and patiently. Apple facilitated the publishers, they conspired with the publishers. This is why they were included.

post #74 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post
 

 

New meaning how?  Apple and the publishers agreed that ebooks wouldn't be sold cheaper in any other store, that the iBookstore price would always be matched to the lowest price in any other store.

 

I would call that price matching, sorry if it's the wrong technical term.


I have doubt in the preciseness of your two statements. 

post #75 of 89

You're allowed to have any doubt you want, but regardless it's a well documented fact of the agreement Apple made with publishers.  It's often referred to as the Most Favoured Nation clause (apologies, I only just remembered that, otherwise I would have said it instead of "price matching").

 

I'm not sure what your favoured news outlet is, but I'm sure they covered it.   Here's an example: 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/06/business/media/publishers-tell-of-disputes-with-apple-on-e-book-prices.html

 

Quote:
The most-favored clause is a provision in the publishers’ contracts with Apple requiring that no other retailer sell e-books for a lower price.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #76 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post
 


What Apple did was to sit in the middle of all of the publishers and offer them a platform that would comply with their demands. Before Apple's involvement the publishers did want to conspire regardless, but they had no way to fight with Amazon. It was unpalatable to them to lose so many sales in order to try and move prices up.

 

Apple provided the iPad, which would comply with their demands and undoubtedly be incredibly popular. They did this knowing full well that it would eliminate retail price competition and so put their platform in a perfect place to sell to their users. Why would anyone install a Kindle app if the prices were exactly the same?

 

This is what Apple did that was illegal, they were involved in orchestrating a conspiracy to eliminate price competition which would directly benefit them. It's a long read, but http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f299200/299275.pdf summarises it pretty well.

 

Apart from not "orchestrating" anything, the publishers were already seeking the same deal with Barnes and Noble BEFORE Apple even started looking into iBooks.

 

Apple was a vertical player, the idiot judge, in her rabid, frothing at the mouth crazy rampage to find Apple guilty judged them based on rules applied to horizontal players.

 

Apple did not set ANY prices.

 

The sooner they are out of this stupid bitches kangaroo court, the better.

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 #77 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post
 

 

The prices were exactly the same because that is the nature of the agreement Apple signed. As soon as they had Apple onboard, the publishers all went to Amazon to change their deal. Therefore if Amazon chose to sell a book for $9.99 in future, Apple would also be able to match that, but the publishers could then cancel their deals with Amazon, withdraw their books and Apple would dominate the market.

 

By this method the publishers could eliminate any sellers offering books for $9.99 which was considered too cheap to them. This resulted in an immediate price raise, which is obviously bad for the consumer. It also resulted in a reduction of sales to those publishers, showing the harm done quite clearly.

 

Wrong.

 

The publishers contracts came up for renewal and were renegotiated.

 

Normal course of business.

 

Since when is it the governments business to mandate the price of books?

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 #78 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post
 

 

Apart from not "orchestrating" anything, the publishers were already seeking the same deal with Barnes and Noble BEFORE Apple even started looking into iBooks.

The correct quote to use from me is "involved in orchestrating". Apple certainly was and there's direct testimony that they "expected" publishers to raise their prices. Regardless of the publishers' previous behaviour Apple did indeed facilitate this conspiracy with them. Yes the publishers were also at fault and they settled with the court. Apple chose to defend itself.
 

Quote:

Apple was a vertical player, the idiot judge, in her rabid, frothing at the mouth crazy rampage to find Apple guilty judged them based on rules applied to horizontal players.

 

I believe I've asked you or others before for a citation on this and I can't remember one being provided. The judgement makes it clear that they need only be disparate economic entities rather than horizontal competitors.

 

Quote:
The sooner they are out of this stupid bitches kangaroo court, the better.

The thread you're posting in is about Apple in a different court. The misogynistic insults don't help your case.

post #79 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

 

Since when is it the governments business to mandate the price of books?

 

It's the government's business to act against restraints of trade that increase prices and hurt consumers.

post #80 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post
 

You're allowed to have any doubt you want, but regardless it's a well documented fact of the agreement Apple made with publishers.  It's often referred to as the Most Favoured Nation clause (apologies, I only just remembered that, otherwise I would have said it instead of "price matching").

 

I'm not sure what your favoured news outlet is, but I'm sure they covered it.   Here's an example: 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/06/business/media/publishers-tell-of-disputes-with-apple-on-e-book-prices.html

 


OK  This provision is wrong.  But the agency model is not. 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple continues fight to have antitrust monitor reined in, judges appear skeptical