Hopefully the morons at the DOJ will give a complete refund to the pubkishers, and then perue the true criminals in the US - the fincial institutions and healthxare providers.
The publishers don't deserve it. The fine was the price of caving in, bending over and taking it.
Anyway, I'm really not following this. If Amazon asks for the same deals then why hasn't this been thrown out already?
It's too bad the other publishers already settled. They might have won.
Not likely. I think this case is more about proving the big five publishers' guilt than Apple. They were offer a platform alternative to control their own pricing but will only do so if Apple can sign up more publishers...which from the evidences so far, are only proving these publishing CEOs had dealings in the background to band together. Had they each sign up separately and independently with Apple, this BS case would never be happening now. Amazon as a victim in this case is absolutely the biggest joke here. This also shows how sad these CEOs are, so shortsighted and lacks understanding of the direction of ebook technology.
Had they each sign up separately and independently with Apple, this BS case would never be happening now.
They did sign up separately and independently with Apple, with negotiated variations in the terms of the various contracts, one of the big six publishers, Random House rejected Apple's offer altogether.
According to Philip Elmer-DeWitt, the Most Favored Nation clause in Apple's agreement is as follows:
"If, for any particular New Release in hardcover format, the then-current Customer Price at any time is or becomes higher than a customer price offered by any other reseller ("Other Customer Price"), then Publisher shall designate a new, lower Customer Price to meet such lower Other Customer Price."
As you can see, contrary to what is stated in this article, there is nothing at all that "precludes them from selling said content to other retailers for lower prices.", although this is what the DOJ would like you to believe. Full coverage of the clause, its author, and its intention can be found at http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2013/06/05/apple-mfn-saul-ebook/.
But that is the beauty and genius of Apple. They know that that argument sounds beautiful. The problem is combined with their guaranteed 30% revenue- it is the equivalent of forcing higher prices while 'sounding' like it allows lower prices. The DoJ is going to have a hard time.
Publishers all independently decided to raise their prices so they could support Apples 30% profit margin. From 9.99 to 12.99...
Lets say something crazy happened- like competition driving the price down to 9.99....
Publishers would be back to making little from other bookstores and they would be going out of business from Apple- where they would only be selling books for 6 dollars (since at the 9.99 point apple would be guaranteed a little over 3 dollars of that).
The MFN forces publishers to keep their prices at a point that is profitable even with Apples 30% rake- where other sellers are not guaranteed that same rake. So Apples plan was to 'help publishers' with the competitions money, and keep their own. Pretty amazing.
According to Philip Elmer-DeWitt, the Most Favored Nation clause in Apple's agreement is as follows:
"If, for any particular New Release in hardcover format, the then-current Customer Price at any time is or becomes higher than a customer price offered by any other reseller ("Other Customer Price"), then Publisher shall designate a new, lower Customer Price to meet such lower Other Customer Price."
As you can see, contrary to what is stated in this article, there is nothing at all that "precludes them from selling said content to other retailers for lower prices.", although this is what the DOJ would like you to believe. Full coverage of the clause, its author, and its intention can be found at http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2013/06/05/apple-mfn-saul-ebook/.
Actually, it says exactly that. The publisher could set prices differently for different resellers, but whatever the lowest price was always what Apple's price would be. It couldn't set a price of $13.99 for Apple and $10.99 for Amazon. If it tried to do that, the Apple price became $10.99. Although it could do the reverse, say set a price of $10.99 for Apple and $13.99 for Amazon.
What a waste of resources this stupid DOJ action represents!
Agreed. With all the humongous nonsense swirling around them -- fast and furious, tracking and criminalizing reporters, etc -- you'd think they had more important things to do. Maroons.
"I believe that the government will be able to show at trial direct evidence that Apple knowingly participated in and facilitated a conspiracy to raise prices of e-books, and that the circumstantial evidence in this case, including the terms of the agreements, will confirm that." - Judge Cote prior to the start of the trial.
What an absolute farce this is, now hurry up and find Apple guilty you moronic Judge, an appeal to the Supreme Court awaits and that should put an end to this incompetence.
According to Philip Elmer-DeWitt, the Most Favored Nation clause in Apple's agreement is as follows:
"If, for any particular New Release in hardcover format, the then-current Customer Price at any time is or becomes higher than a customer price offered by any other reseller ("Other Customer Price"), then Publisher shall designate a new, lower Customer Price to meet such lower Other Customer Price."
As you can see, contrary to what is stated in this article, there is nothing at all that "<span style="color:rgb(24,24,24);font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;line-height:18px;">precludes them from selling said content to other retailers for lower prices.", although this is what the DOJ would like you to believe. Full coverage of the clause, its author, and its intention can be found at </span> http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2013/06/05/apple-mfn-saul-ebook/.
PED is truly one of the smartest, most careful tech reporters out there. Also writes beautifully.
See where the Judge made a determination on the case before being presented with all the evidence.
See how the evidence that is coming out is falling apart in a shambles which supports the position I have held since day one i.e. that Apple has done nothing wrong and will be exonerated.
That's why I'm "blaming the judge".
So the sooner she finds Apple guilty, opening grounds for an appeal to the supreme court, the better.
"...what is known in the business as an agency model, which allows content owners to set pricing under a most favored nations clause. The clause precludes them from selling said content to other retailers for lower prices"
This is misleading. It suggests that there is a minimum-price, and there isn't. What it DOES say is that, if the publisher offers a lower price, then it must offer the same, lower price also to Apple.
According to <em>The Verge</em>, by the end of Turvey's interview, he had gone from saying publishing executives spoke with him directly, to conceding they "likely" told someone on his team about Apple's purportedly aggressive tactics.
In the end, it doesn't matter. It's hearsay, whether they told him directly or told one of his team members. As such, it's meaningless.
"The clause precludes them from selling said content to other retailers for lower prices."
That is false.
MFN does not prohibit publishers from selling at lower prices. All it does is guarantee that Apple can lower prices to match any competitor should the publishers work out better deals with them.
Comments
Totally OT, but I didn't think the issue here has any content.
* no, not the retail store....!
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreeRange
Hopefully the morons at the DOJ will give a complete refund to the pubkishers, and then perue the true criminals in the US - the fincial institutions and healthxare providers.
The publishers don't deserve it. The fine was the price of caving in, bending over and taking it.
Anyway, I'm really not following this. If Amazon asks for the same deals then why hasn't this been thrown out already?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rayz
The publishers don't deserve it. The fine was the price of caving in, bending over and taking it.
Anyway, I'm really not following this. If Amazon asks for the same deals then why hasn't this been thrown out already?
Perhaps it has something to do with the meeting which took place here, on Sunday Jan. 24, 2010:-
Bezo's boathouse.
"I'm not comfortable discussing the contents of that meeting." - Russell Grandinetti Vice President Kindle content, Day 4 of the kangaroo court
I guess e-book pricing is more important in some alternate universe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jd_in_sb
It's too bad the other publishers already settled. They might have won.
Not likely. I think this case is more about proving the big five publishers' guilt than Apple. They were offer a platform alternative to control their own pricing but will only do so if Apple can sign up more publishers...which from the evidences so far, are only proving these publishing CEOs had dealings in the background to band together. Had they each sign up separately and independently with Apple, this BS case would never be happening now. Amazon as a victim in this case is absolutely the biggest joke here. This also shows how sad these CEOs are, so shortsighted and lacks understanding of the direction of ebook technology.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Techboy
Had they each sign up separately and independently with Apple, this BS case would never be happening now.
They did sign up separately and independently with Apple, with negotiated variations in the terms of the various contracts, one of the big six publishers, Random House rejected Apple's offer altogether.
Quote:
Originally Posted by larryhorton
According to Philip Elmer-DeWitt, the Most Favored Nation clause in Apple's agreement is as follows:
"If, for any particular New Release in hardcover format, the then-current Customer Price at any time is or becomes higher than a customer price offered by any other reseller ("Other Customer Price"), then Publisher shall designate a new, lower Customer Price to meet such lower Other Customer Price."
As you can see, contrary to what is stated in this article, there is nothing at all that "precludes them from selling said content to other retailers for lower prices.", although this is what the DOJ would like you to believe. Full coverage of the clause, its author, and its intention can be found at http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2013/06/05/apple-mfn-saul-ebook/.
But that is the beauty and genius of Apple. They know that that argument sounds beautiful. The problem is combined with their guaranteed 30% revenue- it is the equivalent of forcing higher prices while 'sounding' like it allows lower prices. The DoJ is going to have a hard time.
Publishers all independently decided to raise their prices so they could support Apples 30% profit margin. From 9.99 to 12.99...
Lets say something crazy happened- like competition driving the price down to 9.99....
Publishers would be back to making little from other bookstores and they would be going out of business from Apple- where they would only be selling books for 6 dollars (since at the 9.99 point apple would be guaranteed a little over 3 dollars of that).
The MFN forces publishers to keep their prices at a point that is profitable even with Apples 30% rake- where other sellers are not guaranteed that same rake. So Apples plan was to 'help publishers' with the competitions money, and keep their own. Pretty amazing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by larryhorton
According to Philip Elmer-DeWitt, the Most Favored Nation clause in Apple's agreement is as follows:
"If, for any particular New Release in hardcover format, the then-current Customer Price at any time is or becomes higher than a customer price offered by any other reseller ("Other Customer Price"), then Publisher shall designate a new, lower Customer Price to meet such lower Other Customer Price."
As you can see, contrary to what is stated in this article, there is nothing at all that "precludes them from selling said content to other retailers for lower prices.", although this is what the DOJ would like you to believe. Full coverage of the clause, its author, and its intention can be found at http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2013/06/05/apple-mfn-saul-ebook/.
Actually, it says exactly that. The publisher could set prices differently for different resellers, but whatever the lowest price was always what Apple's price would be. It couldn't set a price of $13.99 for Apple and $10.99 for Amazon. If it tried to do that, the Apple price became $10.99. Although it could do the reverse, say set a price of $10.99 for Apple and $13.99 for Amazon.
Agreed. With all the humongous nonsense swirling around them -- fast and furious, tracking and criminalizing reporters, etc -- you'd think they had more important things to do. Maroons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
"I believe that the government will be able to show at trial direct evidence that Apple knowingly participated in and facilitated a conspiracy to raise prices of e-books, and that the circumstantial evidence in this case, including the terms of the agreements, will confirm that." - Judge Cote prior to the start of the trial.
What an absolute farce this is, now hurry up and find Apple guilty you moronic Judge, an appeal to the Supreme Court awaits and that should put an end to this incompetence.
Why are you blaming the judge?
PED is truly one of the smartest, most careful tech reporters out there. Also writes beautifully.
I wish AI could get him to write a weekly column.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm
Why are you blaming the judge?
See where I quoted the Judge.
See where the Judge made a determination on the case before being presented with all the evidence.
See how the evidence that is coming out is falling apart in a shambles which supports the position I have held since day one i.e. that Apple has done nothing wrong and will be exonerated.
That's why I'm "blaming the judge".
So the sooner she finds Apple guilty, opening grounds for an appeal to the supreme court, the better.
DOJ Lawyer: Apple's competitor, do you have anything bad to say about Apple?
Competitor: Yes, I have first hand knowledge they did bad, bad things.
Apple Lawyer: What is that first hand knowledge?
Competitor: A lawyer told me he overhead a conversation in a some bar. He can't remember which, because he was pretty buzzed.
This is misleading. It suggests that there is a minimum-price, and there isn't. What it DOES say is that, if the publisher offers a lower price, then it must offer the same, lower price also to Apple.
In the end, it doesn't matter. It's hearsay, whether they told him directly or told one of his team members. As such, it's meaningless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
In the end, it doesn't matter. It's hearsay, whether they told him directly or told one of his team members. As such, it's meaningless.
Not according to the DoJ and their stooge of a judge.
That is false.
MFN does not prohibit publishers from selling at lower prices. All it does is guarantee that Apple can lower prices to match any competitor should the publishers work out better deals with them.