Judge says evidence will likely show Apple culpable in e-book price fixing case

12467

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 136
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    The seven major publishers (somehow) all agreed at once that the minimum price for a "Bestseller" e-book could not be less than $12.99. No book seller, Amazon included, could sell from that specific category at a lower price. The minimum price was fixed.





    So how come bestsellers were available in iTunes for $9.99?

  • Reply 62 of 136
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    dbtinc wrote: »
    It always amazed me that an ebook from Apple or Amazon for that matter was always so expensive compared to the hardcover version. I refuse to believe that producing, storing and shipping represent such a small fraction of the total cost of a book. Guess profit margins for ebooks are calculated on another formula such as how much can we squeeze the customer til he goes back to hardcover?

    There are plenty of other factors to consider. For some reason in the digital age we've gotten this notion that anything electronic is somehow free to produce unlimited copies, and unfortunately file sharing has made that convenient enough to appear true. Two big reasons for the pricing is to not affect the physical book sales and fraud. IOW, they need to consider how an eBook will affect both a physical book sale, which includes if that one copy of the ebook is then distributed to others illegally. As you're aware a physical book can only be in one place at a time.

    Part of the publishers displeasure with Amazon is that Amazon was selling their products at a loss which has had a negative effect on the product's perceived value. It's odd¡ that no one is saying they colluded with their issues over Amazon's dumping.
  • Reply 63 of 136
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,980member

    So why did they all plead guilty to price fixing if they were all innocent?

    Settling is not an admission of guilt. Some might say they thought it was too expensive to fight but I doubt that seeing how Penguin was just fined $75 million, I'd say it would've been more expensive to lose.
  • Reply 64 of 136
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    Had the agreement stood Amazon could not have "run a sale" on any of that group of books. The minimum price was fixed per contract. By pure happenstance each one of those publishers arrived at the same minimum price in those contracts tho they hadn't talked to one another to compare terms. Believe it or not.



     


    The price of the equivalent paperback books, $12.99 which were selling in those dead things once known as book stores.

  • Reply 65 of 136
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,980member
    solipsismx wrote: »
    It would seem that way. :D

    A perfect example is OJ Simpson, not guilty in a criminal court but guilty in a civil one.
  • Reply 66 of 136
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,760member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by hill60 View Post




    So how come bestsellers were available in iTunes for $9.99?



    From one of those 7 publishers Hill60? Apple violated the contract terms they had just agreed to with that group? Well of course they didn't and you know that. Apple wasn't permitted to sell from that specific category and published by the group of seven for any less than $12.99. 


     


    You're more than welcome to refute that with some citation to the contrary Hill60. You've already implied you have some to offer proving the $12.99 minimum price for new release best-sellers from those specific publishers wasn't true. Bring it on.

  • Reply 67 of 136
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,705member
    It's not COMPLETE BS, when what I said was completely right. I only omitted the $14.99.

    1/2 * BS still equals BS.
  • Reply 68 of 136
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,760member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by hill60 View Post


     


    The price of the equivalent paperback books, $12.99 which were selling in those dead things once known as book stores.



    ...at whatever price the bookseller wanted to offer, even free as a promo if they wished, That price printed on the spine was suggested, not a minimal mandate. You apparently would like readers to believe booksellers could not sell for less that the suggested price, just as most of the major publishers tried to set minimal contractually-mandated prices for e-books.


     


    You can argue that Apple did nothing wrong, nor any of the publishers for that matter. Know that you make that argument appear to be on shaky ground when you stoop to implying things to be true that really aren't to make your case. 

  • Reply 69 of 136
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mrrodriguez View Post




    So why did they all plead guilty to price fixing if they were all innocent?



     


    They didn't plead guilty, they settled without ANY plea, guilty or otherwise.


     


    Why?


     


    ...because this is a kangaroo court, the Judge just showed that, it's like something out of Alice in Wonderland ($0.00 - iBooks).

  • Reply 70 of 136
    eliangonzaleliangonzal Posts: 490member
    I imagine Jeff Bezos reading this and saying: "The suspense killing me! Hope it will last."
  • Reply 71 of 136
    malaxmalax Posts: 1,598member


    This is not good for Apple (or justice).  Any time someone says "I believe ____" in a public way, they are going to be inclined to stick with that opinion and give extra credence to things that make them "correct" (even if they don't understand/admit that they are doing so).  People don't like to be wrong and especially don't like to admit they were wrong.  Bummer.

  • Reply 72 of 136
    smalmsmalm Posts: 656member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by hill60 View Post


    Since when do judges make guilty pronouncements before being presented with all the evidence?



    Exactly my first thought!

  • Reply 73 of 136
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ankleskater View Post




    We have only a snapshot of what is being presented. Don't you think we should give the judge the benefit of the doubt given her training, knowledge and experience, not to mention her access to the body of evidence unavailable to us (even if it still is incomplete)?


     


    There is simply no basis for us to judge. Fine, we are entitled to our opinions. But to agree with slamming a judge?



     


    Gross incompetence based on a predetermined PUBLIC statement of GUILT before a trial has started.


     


    Training, knowledge and experience of a kindergarten child with a complete lack of understanding of what the "presumption of innocence" means.

  • Reply 74 of 136
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mrrodriguez View Post


     


    Dismissal on what grounds? And if she's seen evidence most of us haven't, and made an estimated guess as to the outcome, I don't see how most of AI is saying there is no case. Apple is not a godlike company that does no wrong. They only released a few emails, yet they have a lot more evidence to support a price fixing scheme. They might have emails of Apple consulting with the other publishers and pushing their $12.99 price, and telling publishers about the evil Amazon model.



     


    Apple did NOT set prices so how could they "fix" them?

  • Reply 75 of 136
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    (Apple set a minimum price)



     


    Thousands of iBooks are $0.00, that's Apple's "minimum" price.

  • Reply 76 of 136
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,980member
    hill60 wrote: »
    Apple did NOT set prices so how could they "fix" them?

    The issue is more did Apple facilitate price fixing by the publishers but even that isn't necessarily illegal.
  • Reply 77 of 136
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    hill60 wrote: »
    Thousands of iBooks are $0.00, that's Apple's "minimum" price.

    So Apple won't let publishers pay customers to download books from iBookstore? OUTRAGEOUS¡
  • Reply 78 of 136
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,760member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    From one of those 7 publishers Hill60? Apple violated the contract terms they had just agreed to with that group? Well of course they didn't and you know that. Apple wasn't permitted to sell from that specific category and published by the group of seven for any less than $12.99. 


     


    You're more than welcome to refute that with some citation to the contrary Hill60. You've already implied you have some to offer proving the $12.99 minimum price for new release best-sellers from those specific publishers wasn't true. Bring it on.



     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by hill60 View Post


     


    Thousands of iBooks are $0.00, that's Apple's "minimum" price.



    Not from that group of major publishers for the new release category, which is the only segment of e-book sales the price controls applied to. So you're still going to rely on misdirection to prove your point? Your argument is sounding weaker and weaker. 

  • Reply 79 of 136
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member


    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

    The issue is more did Apple facilitate price fixing by the publishers but even that isn't necessarily illegal.


     


    Ma Bell and CERN are guilty of price fixing, then, since they facilitated the ability to communicate the price fixing.


     


    So are all automobile manufacturers.

  • Reply 80 of 136
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    The issue is more did Apple facilitate price fixing by the publishers but even that isn't necessarily illegal.

    The current evidence shows Apple fixed no price. The current evidence shows Apple did not collude with publishers. The current evidence shows Jobs opinion of where he thought the sweet spot would be, why he thought Amazon's model was harmful and unsustainable in the long run, as well as his his concerns that he may be wrong about all of it despite a decade of digital sales with the iTS. The agency model isn't price fixing. It may be seen as problematic as a business tactic but I'd think Amazon's dumping would be more of an issue, however, it appears not to be from the court's position thus far.
Sign In or Register to comment.