If we take previous cases of price fixing, like the airlines and fuel surcharges, there were actual meetings held by the airlines, plus a few emails swapped and so forth. The airlines colluded to subvert market forces, and worked against the consumer.
However.
There is a very big difference between airlines and book publishers.
If I want to fly between London and New York, there are many airlines who can sell me a ticket. The service they offer is the same.
However, if I want to buy a Harry Potter book, then I can only buy it through one publisher. Admittedly, I could buy "any" book, but the chances are - I probably won't - I'll buy a book on a recommendation or review or advert. All of these things are specific to a single book. If I want to read about Harry Potter, my choices are limited.
So I'm not sure how publishers can be charged with price fixing when they sell different books. You could say that if you were looking for a book on Madrid there are many choices, but could you imagine a court trying to work out the difference between a Harry Potter book vs a Madrid travel book?
The other issue is quite how Apple are getting dragged into this. The lawyer mentions about companies wanting to retain "profitability" hence turning to Apple. That is not grounds for a price fixing case.
Apple asking for the same terms that other companies get is also not anti-competitive either, and is a common thing. Why would a company write a contract that puts them at a disadvantage? What could be illegal is asking for better terms (eg Google Books) than anyone else, but again, that's not always a bad thing.
You're arguing against someone presenting the case for Amazon. It will be up to the court to decide whether Amazon's frivolities can be accounted superior to Apple's righteousness.
DaHarder bought 9 of them, 3 each for himself, his wife, and their dog.
Actually, I bought about a dozen '4th generation' Kindles this past Holiday season to give out as stocking stuffers.
Here's a pic of the Kindle Fire, Kindle Keyboard 3G, Kindle Touch 3G, and Kindle (and the iPad 2/64gb/Verizon that I often use for reading magazines etc.) that were given out to those in my immediate household.
You're arguing against someone presenting the case for Amazon. It will be up to the court to decide whether Amazon's frivolities can be accounted superior to Apple's righteousness.
Cheers
The case is filed on behalf of consumers, not Amazon. Amazon isn't even a party to it. This isn't about Amazon per se. Every other retail seller of e-books was impacted the same way -- Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Sony, etc.
This is an American lawsuit based on American laws based on American pricing. Every territory has different agreements, laws, pricing. Aussie pricing is totally irrelevant to this.
So your story continues like this:
Presents evidence of same title at $4.99 on iBooks store.
Prosecution then presents evidence that the price is actually $9.99 on iBooks store and that the defense attempted to commit fraud on the court by quoting an irrelevant pricing in a different market. Judge holds defense in contempt of court...
Wrong, the book IS available to iTunes customers as an iBook for $4.99, in a country where the market decides, not some over regulated state where pricing is dictated by pen pushing public servants in the Government.
I could even purchase it and send it as a gift to an American in the land of the judicially enslaved from the land of the free if I wanted to.
Actually, I bought about a dozen '4th generation' Kindles this past Holiday season to give out as stocking stuffers.
Here's a pic of the Kindle Fire, Kindle Keyboard 3G, Kindle Touch 3G, and Kindle (and the iPad 2/64gb/Verizon that I often use for reading magazines etc.) that were given out to those in my immediate household.
So Many Wonderful eReading Devices
Of the three e-ink kindles, which one do you like most, and why?
Of the three e-ink kindles, which one do you like most, and why?
The basic Kindle (no touchscreen/no 3G), as it's the lightest, most ergonomically friendly of them all while proving the single best eReading experience currently available on any electronic reading device I've yet owned (including my NOOK Simple Touch).
You're arguing against someone presenting the case for Amazon. It will be up to the court to decide whether Amazon's frivolities can be accounted superior to Apple's righteousness.
Cheers
It has nothing to do with Amazon - or Apple for that matter.
The only way Apple could be brought into this is to host a meeting with the CEOs of the publishing houses where they all agree a pricing policy. This would great a cartel, which is obviously illegal, and frankly, Apple's lawyers would barricade reception if they got wind of management doing anything so daft.
You said "It was a much different time in the gadget-sphere, and those numbers were quite good for said time." yet you claim that time didn't include the 2010 iPad launch 2 years later so I included a launch pre-dates the Kindle. Now your claim is that 2007 doesn't count? I can show you the iPhone sales for 2008 but it hurts your argument even more and I've already destroyed plenty of your arguments tonight so I think I'll let others take over from here.
Both these arguments are pointless....
It doesn't matter if the Kindle sold well "relative" to some benchmark. The accusation by Amazon is of Price Fixing. If this had any chance in Hell of sticking, Apple would have to be proven to be colluding with other companies to set prices.
"Fixing" the price of books for your company is like having 99 cent songs... it's a price. Is the airline industry guilty of "fixing prices" because business class pays more than vacationers who are flexible on dates?
Amazon's Kindle did well for a short time because there was NOTHING else.
This lawsuit has no merit,... but maybe the lawyers are on retainer or trying to slow down the iPad as "some company" is trying to slow down Android.
It has nothing to do with Amazon - or Apple for that matter.
The only way Apple could be brought into this is to host a meeting with the CEOs of the publishing houses where they all agree a pricing policy. This would great a cartel, which is obviously illegal, and frankly, Apple's lawyers would barricade reception if they got wind of management doing anything so daft.
No. Apple meeting with all the publishing CEOs would even then NOT be price fixing.
Apple and another outlet that was ePublishing would have to agree what the price would be. This isn't like the Oil industry fixing the price of gas folks.
Sure... If that's what you need to believe, but the FACT is that the Kindle 1 sold very well for its time, especially for a first generation device from a company not known for selling their own hardware.
The case is filed on behalf of consumers, not Amazon. Amazon isn't even a party to it. This isn't about Amazon per se. Every other retail seller of e-books was impacted the same way -- Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Sony, etc.
If you don't think Amazon had anything to do with it, you're naive.
Anyone want to bet how many of the plaintiffs are Amazon employees or family members?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fake_William_Shatner
No. Apple meeting with all the publishing CEOs would even then NOT be price fixing.
Apple and another outlet that was ePublishing would have to agree what the price would be. This isn't like the Oil industry fixing the price of gas folks.
The person you responded to said that if Apple met with all the publishing CEOs and they agreed at that meeting on the price that it would be price fixing. And that is pretty much true.
From a legal perspective, if Apple did meet with a large number of publishers all at the same time, their attorneys would probably not let them discuss price at all.
It doesn't matter if the Kindle sold well "relative" to some benchmark. The accusation by Amazon is of Price Fixing. If this had any chance in Hell of sticking, Apple would have to be proven to be colluding with other companies to set prices.
"Fixing" the price of books for your company is like having 99 cent songs... it's a price. Is the airline industry guilty of "fixing prices" because business class pays more than vacationers who are flexible on dates?
Amazon's Kindle did well for a short time because there was NOTHING else.
This lawsuit has no merit,... but maybe the lawyers are on retainer or trying to slow down the iPad as "some company" is trying to slow down Android.
They are pointless if we were talking about price fixing, but we weren't. MY comments were specifically about the Kindle selling phenomenally well for CE in 2008. Nothing more.
If you don't think Amazon had anything to do with it, you're naive.
Anyone want to bet how many of the plaintiffs are Amazon employees or family members?
The person you responded to said that if Apple met with all the publishing CEOs and they agreed at that meeting on the price that it would be price fixing. And that is pretty much true.
From a legal perspective, if Apple did meet with a large number of publishers all at the same time, their attorneys would probably not let them discuss price at all.
I doubt Amazon was behind the companion investigation launched by the EU. They too have concerns about illegal dealings between Apple and the publishers.
I doubt Amazon was behind the companion investigation launched by the EU. They too have concerns about illegal dealings between Apple and the publishers.
IMHO, Apple doesn't have entirely clean hands in this particular case. Of course my opinion isn't worth any more than anyone else's in this thread.
Apple is entering the market, whereas Amazon had a monopoly(?) position before iBookstore. I see a lot more potential wrong doing on Amazon's part with:
Dumping: where a company sells a product in a competitive market at a loss.
Exclusive dealing: where a retailer or wholesaler is obliged by contract to only purchase from the contracted supplier.
Price fixing: where companies collude to set prices, effectively dismantling the free market.
Refusal to deal: where two companies agree not to use a certain vendor
Limit Pricing: where the price is set by a monopolist at a level intended to discourage entry into a market.
I could make an argument for all of these actions on Amazon's part but that doesn't mean they would be guilty in a court of law.
"we?ve uncovered statements from executives at several publishers that demonstrate they viewed Amazon as a significant threat to the long-term survival of their profitability"
And they choose not to use this service? Sure.
And you sue them for it? Ummm?
So what's next, I get sued for not buying a Porsche?
Apple is entering the market, whereas Amazon had a monopoly(?) position before iBookstore. I see a lot more potential wrong doing on Amazon's part with:
Dumping: where a company sells a product in a competitive market at a loss.
Exclusive dealing: where a retailer or wholesaler is obliged by contract to only purchase from the contracted supplier.
Price fixing: where companies collude to set prices, effectively dismantling the free market.
Refusal to deal: where two companies agree not to use a certain vendor
Limit Pricing: where the price is set by a monopolist at a level intended to discourage entry into a market.
I could make an argument for all of these actions on Amazon's part but that doesn't mean they would be guilty in a court of law.
If all of that was true, I would expect the EU to open a case on Amazon too, wouldn't you? They don't seem to shy away from high-profile investigations.
If all of that was true, I would expect the EU to open a case on Amazon too, wouldn't you? They don't seem to shy away from high-profile investigations.
I dont' think any of them are true in the sense they can be proven in a court of law. Amazon's position in the eBook market segment seems to be completely natural, at least up until Apple entered it and Amazon appears to have at least threatened not to use publishers if they used Apple's iBookstore.
"Deep antagonism" equates to price-fixing? I'd like to be present if this plays out in court. It'll be hilarious to watch the judge kick the Hagens Berman attorney's ass up around his ears for even trying to make such a tortured argument.
Kind of makes you think Amazon is involved in this suit, behind the scenes, though.
If you don't think Amazon had anything to do with it, you're naive.
Anyone want to bet how many of the plaintiffs are Amazon employees or family members?
The person you responded to said that if Apple met with all the publishing CEOs and they agreed at that meeting on the price that it would be price fixing. And that is pretty much true.
From a legal perspective, if Apple did meet with a large number of publishers all at the same time, their attorneys would probably not let them discuss price at all.
No -- Apple is the SINGLE outlet for the eBooks they sell.
The Publishers are NOT fixing prices to consumers with other outlets -- they are agreeing to a standard price with APPLE's stores. It's really, really not the same thing though it appears to be.
If Apple and Amazon had the same prices -- that would be Fixing prices of eBooks.
Comments
Not seeing any collusion right now.
If we take previous cases of price fixing, like the airlines and fuel surcharges, there were actual meetings held by the airlines, plus a few emails swapped and so forth. The airlines colluded to subvert market forces, and worked against the consumer.
However.
There is a very big difference between airlines and book publishers.
If I want to fly between London and New York, there are many airlines who can sell me a ticket. The service they offer is the same.
However, if I want to buy a Harry Potter book, then I can only buy it through one publisher. Admittedly, I could buy "any" book, but the chances are - I probably won't - I'll buy a book on a recommendation or review or advert. All of these things are specific to a single book. If I want to read about Harry Potter, my choices are limited.
So I'm not sure how publishers can be charged with price fixing when they sell different books. You could say that if you were looking for a book on Madrid there are many choices, but could you imagine a court trying to work out the difference between a Harry Potter book vs a Madrid travel book?
The other issue is quite how Apple are getting dragged into this. The lawyer mentions about companies wanting to retain "profitability" hence turning to Apple. That is not grounds for a price fixing case.
Apple asking for the same terms that other companies get is also not anti-competitive either, and is a common thing. Why would a company write a contract that puts them at a disadvantage? What could be illegal is asking for better terms (eg Google Books) than anyone else, but again, that's not always a bad thing.
You're arguing against someone presenting the case for Amazon. It will be up to the court to decide whether Amazon's frivolities can be accounted superior to Apple's righteousness.
Cheers
DaHarder bought 9 of them, 3 each for himself, his wife, and their dog.
Actually, I bought about a dozen '4th generation' Kindles this past Holiday season to give out as stocking stuffers.
Here's a pic of the Kindle Fire, Kindle Keyboard 3G, Kindle Touch 3G, and Kindle (and the iPad 2/64gb/Verizon that I often use for reading magazines etc.) that were given out to those in my immediate household.
So Many Wonderful eReading Devices
You're arguing against someone presenting the case for Amazon. It will be up to the court to decide whether Amazon's frivolities can be accounted superior to Apple's righteousness.
Cheers
The case is filed on behalf of consumers, not Amazon. Amazon isn't even a party to it. This isn't about Amazon per se. Every other retail seller of e-books was impacted the same way -- Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Sony, etc.
This is an American lawsuit based on American laws based on American pricing. Every territory has different agreements, laws, pricing. Aussie pricing is totally irrelevant to this.
So your story continues like this:
Presents evidence of same title at $4.99 on iBooks store.
Prosecution then presents evidence that the price is actually $9.99 on iBooks store and that the defense attempted to commit fraud on the court by quoting an irrelevant pricing in a different market. Judge holds defense in contempt of court...
Wrong, the book IS available to iTunes customers as an iBook for $4.99, in a country where the market decides, not some over regulated state where pricing is dictated by pen pushing public servants in the Government.
I could even purchase it and send it as a gift to an American in the land of the judicially enslaved from the land of the free if I wanted to.
Btw Amazon doesn't even sell it here.
Actually, I bought about a dozen '4th generation' Kindles this past Holiday season to give out as stocking stuffers.
Here's a pic of the Kindle Fire, Kindle Keyboard 3G, Kindle Touch 3G, and Kindle (and the iPad 2/64gb/Verizon that I often use for reading magazines etc.) that were given out to those in my immediate household.
So Many Wonderful eReading Devices
Of the three e-ink kindles, which one do you like most, and why?
Of the three e-ink kindles, which one do you like most, and why?
The basic Kindle (no touchscreen/no 3G), as it's the lightest, most ergonomically friendly of them all while proving the single best eReading experience currently available on any electronic reading device I've yet owned (including my NOOK Simple Touch).
You're arguing against someone presenting the case for Amazon. It will be up to the court to decide whether Amazon's frivolities can be accounted superior to Apple's righteousness.
Cheers
It has nothing to do with Amazon - or Apple for that matter.
The only way Apple could be brought into this is to host a meeting with the CEOs of the publishing houses where they all agree a pricing policy. This would great a cartel, which is obviously illegal, and frankly, Apple's lawyers would barricade reception if they got wind of management doing anything so daft.
You said "It was a much different time in the gadget-sphere, and those numbers were quite good for said time." yet you claim that time didn't include the 2010 iPad launch 2 years later so I included a launch pre-dates the Kindle. Now your claim is that 2007 doesn't count? I can show you the iPhone sales for 2008 but it hurts your argument even more and I've already destroyed plenty of your arguments tonight so I think I'll let others take over from here.
Both these arguments are pointless....
It doesn't matter if the Kindle sold well "relative" to some benchmark. The accusation by Amazon is of Price Fixing. If this had any chance in Hell of sticking, Apple would have to be proven to be colluding with other companies to set prices.
"Fixing" the price of books for your company is like having 99 cent songs... it's a price. Is the airline industry guilty of "fixing prices" because business class pays more than vacationers who are flexible on dates?
Amazon's Kindle did well for a short time because there was NOTHING else.
This lawsuit has no merit,... but maybe the lawyers are on retainer or trying to slow down the iPad as "some company" is trying to slow down Android.
It has nothing to do with Amazon - or Apple for that matter.
The only way Apple could be brought into this is to host a meeting with the CEOs of the publishing houses where they all agree a pricing policy. This would great a cartel, which is obviously illegal, and frankly, Apple's lawyers would barricade reception if they got wind of management doing anything so daft.
No. Apple meeting with all the publishing CEOs would even then NOT be price fixing.
Apple and another outlet that was ePublishing would have to agree what the price would be. This isn't like the Oil industry fixing the price of gas folks.
Sure... If that's what you need to believe, but the FACT is that the Kindle 1 sold very well for its time, especially for a first generation device from a company not known for selling their own hardware.
http://techcrunch.com/2008/08/01/we-...s-sold-240000/
They topped Amazon's sales charts numerous times, and we're often sold out during that first year, and continue to sell extremely well today.
Sad to say those figure are not from Amazon but an ANALyst who was guessing the figures.
The case is filed on behalf of consumers, not Amazon. Amazon isn't even a party to it. This isn't about Amazon per se. Every other retail seller of e-books was impacted the same way -- Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Sony, etc.
If you don't think Amazon had anything to do with it, you're naive.
Anyone want to bet how many of the plaintiffs are Amazon employees or family members?
No. Apple meeting with all the publishing CEOs would even then NOT be price fixing.
Apple and another outlet that was ePublishing would have to agree what the price would be. This isn't like the Oil industry fixing the price of gas folks.
The person you responded to said that if Apple met with all the publishing CEOs and they agreed at that meeting on the price that it would be price fixing. And that is pretty much true.
From a legal perspective, if Apple did meet with a large number of publishers all at the same time, their attorneys would probably not let them discuss price at all.
Both these arguments are pointless....
It doesn't matter if the Kindle sold well "relative" to some benchmark. The accusation by Amazon is of Price Fixing. If this had any chance in Hell of sticking, Apple would have to be proven to be colluding with other companies to set prices.
"Fixing" the price of books for your company is like having 99 cent songs... it's a price. Is the airline industry guilty of "fixing prices" because business class pays more than vacationers who are flexible on dates?
Amazon's Kindle did well for a short time because there was NOTHING else.
This lawsuit has no merit,... but maybe the lawyers are on retainer or trying to slow down the iPad as "some company" is trying to slow down Android.
They are pointless if we were talking about price fixing, but we weren't. MY comments were specifically about the Kindle selling phenomenally well for CE in 2008. Nothing more.
If you don't think Amazon had anything to do with it, you're naive.
Anyone want to bet how many of the plaintiffs are Amazon employees or family members?
The person you responded to said that if Apple met with all the publishing CEOs and they agreed at that meeting on the price that it would be price fixing. And that is pretty much true.
From a legal perspective, if Apple did meet with a large number of publishers all at the same time, their attorneys would probably not let them discuss price at all.
I doubt Amazon was behind the companion investigation launched by the EU. They too have concerns about illegal dealings between Apple and the publishers.
http://www.engadget.com/2011/12/06/a...price-rigging/
IMHO, Apple doesn't have entirely clean hands in this particular case. Of course my opinion isn't worth any more than anyone else's in this thread.
I doubt Amazon was behind the companion investigation launched by the EU. They too have concerns about illegal dealings between Apple and the publishers.
http://www.engadget.com/2011/12/06/a...price-rigging/
IMHO, Apple doesn't have entirely clean hands in this particular case. Of course my opinion isn't worth any more than anyone else's in this thread.
Apple is entering the market, whereas Amazon had a monopoly(?) position before iBookstore. I see a lot more potential wrong doing on Amazon's part with:
- Dumping: where a company sells a product in a competitive market at a loss.
- Exclusive dealing: where a retailer or wholesaler is obliged by contract to only purchase from the contracted supplier.
- Price fixing: where companies collude to set prices, effectively dismantling the free market.
- Refusal to deal: where two companies agree not to use a certain vendor
- Limit Pricing: where the price is set by a monopolist at a level intended to discourage entry into a market.
I could make an argument for all of these actions on Amazon's part but that doesn't mean they would be guilty in a court of law.And they choose not to use this service? Sure.
And you sue them for it? Ummm?
So what's next, I get sued for not buying a Porsche?
Apple is entering the market, whereas Amazon had a monopoly(?) position before iBookstore. I see a lot more potential wrong doing on Amazon's part with:
- Dumping: where a company sells a product in a competitive market at a loss.
- Exclusive dealing: where a retailer or wholesaler is obliged by contract to only purchase from the contracted supplier.
- Price fixing: where companies collude to set prices, effectively dismantling the free market.
- Refusal to deal: where two companies agree not to use a certain vendor
- Limit Pricing: where the price is set by a monopolist at a level intended to discourage entry into a market.
I could make an argument for all of these actions on Amazon's part but that doesn't mean they would be guilty in a court of law.If all of that was true, I would expect the EU to open a case on Amazon too, wouldn't you? They don't seem to shy away from high-profile investigations.
If all of that was true, I would expect the EU to open a case on Amazon too, wouldn't you? They don't seem to shy away from high-profile investigations.
I dont' think any of them are true in the sense they can be proven in a court of law. Amazon's position in the eBook market segment seems to be completely natural, at least up until Apple entered it and Amazon appears to have at least threatened not to use publishers if they used Apple's iBookstore.
"Deep antagonism" equates to price-fixing? I'd like to be present if this plays out in court. It'll be hilarious to watch the judge kick the Hagens Berman attorney's ass up around his ears for even trying to make such a tortured argument.
Kind of makes you think Amazon is involved in this suit, behind the scenes, though.
If you don't think Amazon had anything to do with it, you're naive.
Anyone want to bet how many of the plaintiffs are Amazon employees or family members?
The person you responded to said that if Apple met with all the publishing CEOs and they agreed at that meeting on the price that it would be price fixing. And that is pretty much true.
From a legal perspective, if Apple did meet with a large number of publishers all at the same time, their attorneys would probably not let them discuss price at all.
No -- Apple is the SINGLE outlet for the eBooks they sell.
The Publishers are NOT fixing prices to consumers with other outlets -- they are agreeing to a standard price with APPLE's stores. It's really, really not the same thing though it appears to be.
If Apple and Amazon had the same prices -- that would be Fixing prices of eBooks.
IMHO, Apple doesn't have entirely clean hands in this particular case. Of course my opinion isn't worth any more than anyone else's in this thread.
Actually, Gatorguy's opinion isn't worth anything since we know he's paid to post anti-Apple propaganda here.