or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Court shoots down Apple motion to rein in e-books antitrust monitor
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Court shoots down Apple motion to rein in e-books antitrust monitor - Page 2

post #41 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Who the heck did I elect to the DoJ? irked.gif  

Every position appointable by the President should be fireable by Congress at the behest of its constituents.

At the very least there should never be such a thing as a "lifetime appointment".

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #42 of 72
The good part: The court greatly limited Bromwich's abilities

Quote: The three-judge panel did, however, reinforce the narrow scope of Apple's monitorship. Apple executives and board members are to be instructed on the antitrust compliance stipulations and what they mean, but Bromwich is not allowed to "investigate whether such personnel were in fact complying with the antitrust or other laws."

The court stated:

1. Bromwich is not allowed to investigate if Apple executives and board members are complying with the antitrust law or other laws.

2. Bromwich is suppose to only instruct them on what the antitrust compliance stipulations are and what they mean.
post #43 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

At the very least there should never be such a thing as a "lifetime appointment".

No cabinet level position is a lifetime job. The only ones are fed judges (at least SCOTUS).

On a side note, B&N killed their hardware group. I wonder if the DOJ will go after Apple for that.
post #44 of 72
Apple has won in that:

1. Bromwich does not have to be given documents or information which have nothing to do with eBooks.

2. Bromwich cannot investigate if Apple executives are complying with antitrust laws or any other law. Bromwich is limited to only educating the executives.

The court greatly curtailed his ability to do a witchhunt.
post #45 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

No cabinet level position is a lifetime job. The only ones are fed judges (at least SCOTUS).

On a side note, B&N killed their hardware group. I wonder if the DOJ will go after Apple for that.
Nope. They should'a gone after Microsoft on that one. 1hmm.gif
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #46 of 72

So the pocket hungry judge can be refused and sent home empty handed and empty pocketed we hope (little DED,dear wife and me) when he tries to snoop where his nose is not legally assigned to go.

Cool.

When I find time to rewrite the laws of Physics, there'll Finally be some changes made round here!

I am not crazy! Three out of five court appointed psychiatrists said so.

Reply

When I find time to rewrite the laws of Physics, there'll Finally be some changes made round here!

I am not crazy! Three out of five court appointed psychiatrists said so.

Reply
post #47 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by jameskatt2 View Post

Apple has won in that:

1. Bromwich does not have to be given documents or information which have nothing to do with eBooks.

2. Bromwich cannot investigate if Apple executives are complying with antitrust laws or any other law. Bromwich is limited to only educating the executives.

The court greatly curtailed his ability to do a witchhunt.

 

As far as I am aware, these were the original terms of the order. The DOJ just confirmed that this was its interpretation. Apple said that this was insufficient and would press for removal of the monitor regardless.

 

This isn't really a win for either side as I see it, it's maintaining the status quo.

post #48 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post
 

 

As far as I am aware, these were the original terms of the order. The DOJ just confirmed that this was its interpretation. Apple said that this was insufficient and would press for removal of the monitor regardless.

 

This isn't really a win for either side as I see it, it's maintaining the status quo.

Yes and no. Those were basically the original terms, but it wasn't clearly spelled out that he was strictly limited to that. Further, when Cote hired him, the two opf them discussed widening his job, and apparently agreed that he could do more investigating of Apple. The Justice Department supported the expanded powers in statements they made (I believe even in court to Judge Cote). Bromwich acted on the wider mandate, and was investigating Apple beyond the original order, with approval from Cote and the DOJ.

 

During the appeals court hearing on the emergency stay, the Justice Department backtracked, and said that Bromwich was only there to check on Apple's compliance program, and was restricted to limited interviews with executives. They knew they would lose if they supported the expanded powers Bromwich was asserting.

 

So while it restores the original intent of the monitor, it greatly scales back the overreaching of Bromwich, Cote and the DOJ.

post #49 of 72
I had a bad feeling about Apple's sneaky book prices right off the get go. I had the 1st gen iPad a week into its release. I checked out the bookstore that same day. I was blown away by the book price comparison between apple bookstore and Amazon's kindle. I had the kindle and the iPad. I picked up two books from the apple bookstore and never ordered another since. Why accept a blatant ripoff regardless of the name brand?! I still have the original iPad. It works fine with the news and YouTube. Thank you very much.
post #50 of 72
Originally Posted by ces69jen View Post
I had a bad feeling about Apple's sneaky book prices right off the get go.

 

Shut up.

 
Why accept a blatant ripoff regardless of the name brand?!

 

Because the only way it’s a “rip-off” is if you enjoy paying $50 for an eBook from Amazon for the rest of your life.

post #51 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Because the only way it’s a “rip-off” is if you enjoy paying $50 for an eBook from Amazon for the rest of your life.

Ahh good ol' scare tactics. People wouldn't buy a $50 ebook, they'd just go buy to a book store and get the hardcover much cheaper.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #52 of 72
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post
a book store

 

Yeah. About that.

post #53 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Because the only way it’s a “rip-off” is if you enjoy paying $50 for an eBook from Amazon for the rest of your life.

Amazon's prices were cheaper, not more expensive. Indeed the prices through Apple increased by between 30 and 50%

post #54 of 72
Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post
Amazon's prices were cheaper, not more expensive.

 

Yes. No one has ever undercut competitors to drive them out of a business before raising prices to whatever they want now that they’re the only game in town. We certainly don’t have any examples of that from any time in history.

post #55 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Yeah. About that.

There's still plenty around, and if ebook prices ever went that high more would open up. There will always be someone to satisfy a large enough demand.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #56 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

 

Yes. No one has ever undercut competitors to drive them out of a business before raising prices to whatever they want now that they’re the only game in town. We certainly don’t have any examples of that from any time in history.


So let me get this straight, you can now predict the future and know that somehow Amazon will prevent other competitors buying ebooks from the publishers and selling to the users. Please explain how that works.

post #57 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Yes. No one has ever undercut competitors to drive them out of a business before raising prices to whatever they want now that they’re the only game in town. We certainly don’t have any examples of that from any time in history.

You beat that by offering a better product. Who's better at doing that than Apple?
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #58 of 72

That is an opinion piece that says nothing like what you claimed. Amazon has direct competitors including Apple. How will Amazon prevent Apple undercutting them by selling at the wholesale price?

 

I've not quoted your post because the rest of it is trolling.

post #59 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post


So let me get this straight, you can now predict the future and know that somehow Amazon will prevent other competitors buying ebooks from the publishers and selling to the users. Please explain how that works.

TS acts like Amazon can kill ALL competition forever and always. If they raise the price that high it'll allow new competitors to beat them on price.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #60 of 72
Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post
Amazon has direct competitors including Apple.

 

Not anymore.

post #61 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

 

Not anymore.

 

Since when? Apple's illegal deal got struck down but they are absolutely free to sign agency or wholesale agreements with book distributors and in fact I believe that's exactly what they have done. Does iBooks no longer work for you?

post #62 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Not anymore.

Yes they do.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #63 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Yes they do.

Outside of Apple, all the smaller ones will drop out as they need to make money. Selling below cost does not make good business sense for long.
post #64 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post


Outside of Apple, all the smaller ones will drop out as they need to make money. Selling below cost does not make good business sense for long.

 

Well, Apple, Google, Microsoft are the big 3 that can clearly afford to sustain an ebook business despite minimal profits. There's also Amazon's more direct competitors and potential new entrants to the market.

 

I really don't think it's reasonable to say that without an illegal price fixing conspiracy, prices would somehow be worse when only Apple were happy with the new deals that increased price.

post #65 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post

Well, Apple, Google, Microsoft are the big 3 that can clearly afford to sustain an ebook business despite minimal profits. There's also Amazon's more direct competitors and potential new entrants to the market.

I really don't think it's reasonable to say that without an illegal price fixing conspiracy, prices would somehow be worse when only Apple were happy with the new deals that increased price.

Interesting you say that since B&N was thinking of going in Apple's direction prior to Apple. Also note the number of viable competitors increased when Apple got in the game.
post #66 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post


Interesting you say that since B&N was thinking of going in Apple's direction prior to Apple. Also note the number of viable competitors increased when Apple got in the game.

 

It's a weird issue because publishers actually earned less with the Apple deal. What they feared most was price erosion to below $10. For some people such as Apple (who has the iPad to drive adoption) or high street stores (who have presence where Amazon does not) then agency deals and similar with MFN clauses are preferable.

 

I do however disagree with your last sentence, the only reason these companies were 'viable competitors' is that there was no price competition. A market made up of non competing stores isn't really a market anymore, the competition is shifted to things like iPads / Androids or high street presence vs online.

post #67 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post

It's a weird issue because publishers actually earned less with the Apple deal. What they feared most was price erosion to below $10. For some people such as Apple (who has the iPad to drive adoption) or high street stores (who have presence where Amazon does not) then agency deals and similar with MFN clauses are preferable.

I do however disagree with your last sentence, the only reason these companies were 'viable competitors' is that there was no price competition. A market made up of non competing stores isn't really a market anymore, the competition is shifted to things like iPads / Androids or high street presence vs online.

Publishers would earn less in the short term but they would have more say in the long term rather than be subjected to Amazon's monopoly. Who is to say 9.99 is fair market price for an ebook? Never in the history of the US has the DOJ took action this early in an emerging market.

In addition, the kindle app is available every where. These are ebooks were talking about. No "in store" selling is necessary.
post #68 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post


Publishers would earn less in the short term but they would have more say in the long term rather than be subjected to Amazon's monopoly. Who is to say 9.99 is fair market price for an ebook? Never in the history of the US has the DOJ took action this early in an emerging market.

Indeed the publishers would have price control, but this is exactly the opposite of what consumers want. They want as many parties fighting to lower prices as possible. The fair market value is set by how much people will pay. Sales went down when prices went up, so that is direct evidence of harm.

 

Quote:
In addition, the kindle app is available every where. These are ebooks were talking about. No "in store" selling is necessary.

Right, but what I'm saying is that under the deal the publishers preferred, the competition in the market was eliminated and instead competition was moved to alternate factors. If Apple rejected the Kindle app but had iBooks and the prices were identical, then the balance would be based on that market's competition, rather than ebook price competition.

post #69 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post

Indeed the publishers would have price control, but this is exactly the opposite of what consumers want. They want as many parties fighting to lower prices as possible. The fair market value is set by how much people will pay. Sales went down when prices went up, so that is direct evidence of harm.

Right, but what I'm saying is that under the deal the publishers preferred, the competition in the market was eliminated and instead competition was moved to alternate factors. If Apple rejected the Kindle app but had iBooks and the prices were identical, then the balance would be based on that market's competition, rather than ebook price competition.

I'm sure more people will buy ebooks at $5 too. That doesn't mean it's the fair price for it.

"If" Apple blocked the Kindle app. They haven't.
post #70 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post


I'm sure more people will buy ebooks at $5 too. That doesn't mean it's the fair price for it.

Doesn't it? If people won't buy at $6 but will at $5, that is clearly the value they assign for it in their mind. I have no problem with retail price competition, hell it's saved me plenty of money that I can use to buy more things. It's economically beneficial as well.

 

Quote:
"If" Apple blocked the Kindle app. They haven't.

Sure, the whole thing was a hypothetical. My point was that I don't agree with saying there's "more competition" when in fact there were just a number of different sellers competing in different markets, they were all bound to the same prices in the ebook market. That is only good if you are one of the publisher companies or if you have another market to drive purchases (so the iPad or Kindle). It's not so good for everyone else including the consumer.

post #71 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post
 

Doesn't it? If people won't buy at $6 but will at $5, that is clearly the value they assign for it in their mind. I have no problem with retail price competition, hell it's saved me plenty of money that I can use to buy more things. It's economically beneficial as well.

 

Price competition is fair, but what is unfair is when Amazon has a long leash to continue to lose money on its ebook business. Amazon has used its market position to stifle competition. A lot of folks say that its ok for Amazon to undercut competitors on pricing because it's their choice and the free market will dictate how things should be. My opinion is that the actions that Amazon takes by spreading out losses across multiple businesses has had a direct impact on competitors large and small. Amazon is given the freedom to break even or lose money on Kindles, as well as break even and lose money on ebooks, because that isn't their only business. B&N and even worse, smaller book stores, don't have that luxury. Investors haven't dumped Amazon because they are banking on the long play that if they continue to back it, hopefully at some point, they won't have any real competitors across a lot of their businesses.

 

Beyond that, there have been reports that show that Amazon actually had a hand in this investigation with Apple even coming up. Then you have the shadiness of the relationship of the Judge with the court monitor. You also have the fact that Amazon isn't getting any attention from the DOJ even though they exert a monopoly position to stifle competition.

 

This whole case is just weird.

post #72 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by foad View Post
 

 

Price competition is fair, but what is unfair is when Amazon has a long leash to continue to lose money on its ebook business. Amazon has used its market position to stifle competition. A lot of folks say that its ok for Amazon to undercut competitors on pricing because it's their choice and the free market will dictate how things should be. My opinion is that the actions that Amazon takes by spreading out losses across multiple businesses has had a direct impact on competitors large and small. Amazon is given the freedom to break even or lose money on Kindles, as well as break even and lose money on ebooks, because that isn't their only business. B&N and even worse, smaller book stores, don't have that luxury.

 

Lets assume that is the case, and Amazon is conducting illegal activities. That still wouldn't give Apple the freedom to conduct a price fixing conspiracy. Regardless of Amazon's actions, it doesn't change the illegality of Apple's actions.

 

Quote:
Beyond that, there have been reports that show that Amazon actually had a hand in this investigation with Apple even coming up. Then you have the shadiness of the relationship of the Judge with the court monitor. You also have the fact that Amazon isn't getting any attention from the DOJ even though they exert a monopoly position to stifle competition.

There's been 'reports' of a lot of things, so far the only evidence I've seen for the relationship between the two is that she might have endorsed him nearly 2 decades ago. How would that be a bad thing though? the Judge is the judge, not the prosecution. You would in fact expect her to appoint someone she had previously endorsed for good work.

 

Now that his job has been doubly confirmed, we'll have to see if Apple continues to fight for his removal.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Court shoots down Apple motion to rein in e-books antitrust monitor