Or maybe Apple knows that they didn't do anything wrong and refuse to be blackmailed. So where's your evidence proving that they're guilty and know that they're guilty?
You keep making that claim - and there's no evidence to support it.
The claim you keep making is that Apple demanded that the publishers refuse to sell to anyone if they asked for a price lower than Apple. That's not what the agreement says. It says that if the publisher sells to anyone at a lower price, they have to match that price for Apple. It's called a 'most favored nation' clause and is fully legal - and has been upheld by the Supreme Court.
Walmart is very careful not to sell under their costs. Selling under their costs for an entire division would most certainly end them up with a predatory pricing lawsuit.
The rest of your argument is equally inane. First, there WERE other companies selling eBooks at the time Amazon set their $9.99 price. Second, even if there weren't, it's irrelevant. Selling an entire product line at a cost below your cost in order to keep competition from getting established is most certainly an example of predatory pricing.
Whats inane is you believing that Amazon sells ALL ebooks at or under cost and its just not true. That is why there hasnt been no "predatory pricing" lawsuit set against them. I never claimed Apple demanded anything.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Or maybe Apple knows that they didn't do anything wrong and refuse to be blackmailed. So where's your evidence proving that they're guilty and know that they're guilty?
You keep making that claim - and there's no evidence to support it.
The claim you keep making is that Apple demanded that the publishers refuse to sell to anyone if they asked for a price lower than Apple. That's not what the agreement says. It says that if the publisher sells to anyone at a lower price, they have to match that price for Apple. It's called a 'most favored nation' clause and is fully legal - and has been upheld by the Supreme Court.
Walmart is very careful not to sell under their costs. Selling under their costs for an entire division would most certainly end them up with a predatory pricing lawsuit.
The rest of your argument is equally inane. First, there WERE other companies selling eBooks at the time Amazon set their $9.99 price. Second, even if there weren't, it's irrelevant. Selling an entire product line at a cost below your cost in order to keep competition from getting established is most certainly an example of predatory pricing.
Whats inane is you believing that Amazon sells ALL ebooks at or under cost and its just not true. That is why there hasnt been no "predatory pricing" lawsuit set against them. I never claimed Apple demanded anything.