Apple's ebook price-fixing court battle spills into Canada



  • Reply 41 of 51
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member

    edit: Not worth it.

  • Reply 42 of 51



    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

    edit: Not worth it.


    Wise choice.  I'll use your discretion as an example when I'm tempted to spar with J-Rag on legal matters.

  • Reply 43 of 51
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member



    Originally Posted by ljocampo View Post



    You don't raise prices to be competitive. You discount prices to be competitive. The practice I mention is to get more profit out of higher income regions from online buyers, even when they don't live anywhere near your place of operation. It was considered illegal, or at least a no no, when the Internet marketplace began, but like with everything else when people aren't willing, or too lazy, to complain about something with their wallet, it just allows retailers to become more brazen in their greed. Aren't you the one who is always calling out Apple for their greedy practices?


    It was never illegal to have a different price in different states.  But feel free to cite a law that supports your contention.

    You keep making claims that are absolutely wrong. I would suggest that you learn something about the topic before commenting further.



    Originally Posted by ljocampo View Post




    With this interpretation there is no such thing as collusion in pricing since it's just good business practice. I still disagree with you and I have to add that it's people like you that keep the practice going. Apple should make sure you are sitting on the jury. As a consumer, I believe a major retail outlet, online or not, should set a price for a product that they believe the whole market will bear. If they want to discount the item, fine, but raising the price just because of economic status in different regions should be illegal. Would you be so agreeable to this pricing scheme if the federal government set their income tax rate higher in different regions of the country? I don't need proof to know this is happening. I've purchased enough items online to know it is, even when cynical people like you try play the confrontational game.




    "Law a secret understanding between two or more personsto gain something illegally, to defraud another of his or herrights, or to appear as adversaries though in agreement:collusion of husband and wife to obtain a divorce."


    It's really quite simple. If there's a secret agreement, it's collusion. If the parties simply do something on their own (or even copy public information), it's not collusion.

    Your suggestion that prices should be the same everywhere is inane and suggests a complete lack of understanding of business.

    Businesses exist to make money. There is nothing illegal or immoral about what you suggest. If customer A is willing to pay more than customer B, a business is perfectly free to charge customer A more. It happens all the time.

    Furthermore, there are many legitimate reasons why companies charge more in some areas than others. Just a few possibilities:

    - Cost of doing business (rent and employee salaries vary, you know).

    - Shipping costs

    - Return rates (which can vary by state)

    - Regional preferences (it would make little sense to stock a lot of parkas in Florida, so the cost might be higher because of reduced turnover)

    - Accessibility of local warehouses

    - Purchase volume

    - And many more


    If you want to create a business that operates on the principle of "everyone should pay the same", feel free. Just don't assume that your view is something that everyone else should be expected to follow.

  • Reply 44 of 51
    Letting publishers set prices is price fixing, while Amazon setting one price for books is not?
  • Reply 45 of 51
    jragosta wrote: »
    <p> Yes, but if you can sell more units at a lower price and you're the publisher, wouldn't you rather sell more units at a lower price where the distributor keeps 30% rather than having the distributor keep 55% or 70%?<br /> <br /> There's nothing in the agency model which precludes a distributor from dropping price to sell more units. It's simply up to the publisher to set the price rather than leaving it to the distributor. And since the publisher is more likely to have their own interests in mind than the distributor, it's not surprising that publishers like the agency model.</p>

    I don't care how it's done, or how many units I sell, I only want to maximize my profits. But I do believe this is only going to happen with the agency model. Why do you believe I'm arguing otherwise?
  • Reply 46 of 51
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    Traditional Supply and Demand curve for products with a significant cost for increased supply. [indent][URL=][IMG][/IMG][/URL][/indent]

    Supply and Demand graph for digital media (I can't stipulate it's authenticity as a model but it looks accurate to me).

    [indent][URL=][IMG][/IMG][/URL] [/indent]

    Regardless of the product the goal is to maximize profits. I'm amazed that some people are so actually against a free market to suggest that company should be able to lower a price but never raise them or to have a good be sold for the same price in an expensive city and store (e.g.: Manhattan) as opposed to an inexpensive one (e,g.: small town).
  • Reply 47 of 51



    Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

    Letting publishers set prices is price fixing, while Amazon setting one price for books is not?


    Correct.  But whether the price fixing is illegal depends on additional factors.

  • Reply 48 of 51
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    Correct.  But whether the price fixing is illegal depends on additional factors.

    By definition price fixing is always illegal. To be clear, competition law isn't using fixing to mean mend/repair or decide/determine, but to "influence the outcome [...] by illegal or underhanded means,' as in fixing a race.
  • Reply 49 of 51
    ljocampoljocampo Posts: 657member

    This is my last post on this thread. For the record I don't think Apple colluded with the publishers. I believe Apple will lose this court battle, not because Apple is guilty but because they are Apple.


    Attention Soli_x: I apologize for bad mouthing you in this thread. Doing so only reflects on my character not yours.

  • Reply 50 of 51
    tooltalktooltalk Posts: 766member

    not sure who's behind Amazon, but we know Al Gore is on Apple's board

  • Reply 51 of 51
    tooltalktooltalk Posts: 766member

    This is pretty simple: if Amazon colludes with other book retailers to set the price, yes.


Sign In or Register to comment.