US court finds Apple guilty of conspiring to raise e-book prices

1235789

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 163
    The judge found that Apple violated the fair price law by allowing publishers to set their own prices. Who is John Galt?
  • Reply 82 of 163
    slurpyslurpy Posts: 5,382member


    I feel like throwing up. This is absolutely disgusting, and a disgrace. Just complete contempt of the actual evidence of the situation. Every single ridiculous argument the DOJ made was torn apart with actual facts. Judgements like this make me lose all faith in the "justice" system. Vomit-inducing. 

  • Reply 83 of 163
    evilutionevilution Posts: 1,399member
    I don't get it.
    Apple offered book publishers the option to use the agency model for selling their books, a model that is totally legal and used in other areas.
    Amazon and other companies that don't use the agency model didn't HAVE to change, they were not forced. However, the prices for ebooks have gone up so why are they not investigating the price hike by Amazon?
  • Reply 84 of 163
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,206member
    FWIW I was wrong about Apple probably winning this. I really didn't think Apple would be found guilty. I guess there must be evidence that we never saw in published articles here, or there's some subtleties that make sense only to lawyers and judges.
  • Reply 85 of 163


    Wow, I didn't think Apple was such a scum. Boycotting this filthy, overglorified Samsung Technology Repackager.

  • Reply 86 of 163
    isteelersisteelers Posts: 738member
    slurpy wrote: »
    I feel like throwing up. This is absolutely disgusting, and a disgrace. Just complete contempt of the actual evidence of the situation. Every single ridiculous argument the DOJ made was torn apart with actual facts. Judgements like this make me lose all faith in the "justice" system. Vomit-inducing. 

    It is politics, plain and simple. The judge couldn't rule for Apple, as that would make the government lawyers be shown for the incompetents they really are. As she is employed by the government it would be career suicide for her to give the Justice Detpartment such an embarrassing black eye, thus the verdict. The government wanted to flex its muscles and deliver a message that going against them is futile. Any appeals Apple goes through would be just as futile. The Constitution is more like a work of fiction to politicians; a great read, but not reality. Should have contributed more to campaigns and Apple would not be in this mess.
  • Reply 87 of 163
    mdriftmeyermdriftmeyer Posts: 7,503member
    The knee jerk reactions here remind me of a group of 15 year olds knowing all the answers. Just deal with it. Apple has teams of professionals that do so.
  • Reply 88 of 163


    It's such a shame that many Conservatives side with a foreign company wrapping itself in the American flag.


    Apple is American in name only. Hell, Samsung does more for the US economy than Apple.

  • Reply 89 of 163
    solomansoloman Posts: 228member
    The judge said the pricing change to agency model was NOT the result of market forces, but a price fixing conspiracy by corporations.
    Yeah, like Amazon dictating $9.99 pricing caps to publishers was the result of "market forces."

    So what was it when Apple dictating $9.99 album prices to the music industry?
  • Reply 90 of 163
    ktappektappe Posts: 824member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jungmark View Post





    Maybe if Apple undercuts Amazon, Amazon will cry to the judge to make it stop. It's unfair to sell at a greater loss.


     


    But then Apple can cite the Constitution's equal protection clause. If the DOJ didn't go after Amazon when it was under-pricing its books, it shouldn't be able to go after Apple now to protect Amazon. 

  • Reply 91 of 163
    customtbcustomtb Posts: 346member
    The question I have is what does this mean going forward? Other than the obvious appeals.... What happens next?

    Apple will get a fine. Maybe some restrictions like eliminating the favored nation clauses. But they'll still be able to sell books. They'll either stick with the agency plan or switch to the wholesale model. There will be some price war going on or maybe not. Apple might just be apple and set their prices where they want them knowing a lot of people on I devices will just buy through iBooks.

    What am I missing?
  • Reply 92 of 163
    solomansoloman Posts: 228member
    evilution wrote: »
    I don't get it.
    Apple offered book publishers the option to use the agency model for selling their books, a model that is totally legal and used in other areas.
    Amazon and other companies that don't use the agency model didn't HAVE to change, they were not forced. However, the prices for ebooks have gone up so why are they not investigating the price hike by Amazon?

    Yes Amazon was absolutely forced.

    http://www.internetnews.com/ec-news/article.php/3862016/Amazon+Yields+to+Macmillan+in+Kindle+Standoff.htm

    http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/01/amazon-agrees-to-agency-pricing-model-with-two-more-publishers/
  • Reply 93 of 163
    gazoobee wrote: »
    All I can say is this judge knows nothing about the book industry.  The Agency model has been king forever, and the way the book industry works is that prices have *always* been set artificially by collusion among publishers.  

    Anyone who has ever owned a bookstore can tell you this.  You are told what the prices are, what the discounts are and how high or low you can sell them.  It's almost always been this way and the so-called "free market" rules don't apply and never have.  

    The agency model has not been found to be illegal, what was illegal was the conspiracy among publishers to jointly decide to use the agency model for distribution was illegal. The main question to be decided was whether Apple was part of that conspiracy.
  • Reply 94 of 163

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Jessi View Post


     


    First off, you're right that the law is a bogus law.  It's a law written by communists (literally, back when communism was an up and coming thing) to punish people for "competing". 



     


    Some of these laws predate Communism, actually.


     


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Jessi View Post


     


    Your presumption that only lawyers can have an opinions is silly.  The law is not complicated.  In fact, the highest law, the one under which Apple is absolutely innocent, is the constitution.  The constitution does not give the federal government the power to persecute Apple in this way.  That document was written so that everyone could read it.  All laws in violation of it (which anti-trust are) are null and void. 



     


     


    These laws do not violate the Constitution.


     


    Quote:


    Originally Posted by Jessi View Post


     


    However, given the weakness of the case, the judge is to blame, always.  Whenever the law is bad, it is the judge's job to set aside the law and rule in the moral way.



     


    Judges do not have that ability.  Under English common law, only juries are able to not apply the law in their verdict.

  • Reply 95 of 163

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mjtomlin View Post


    The funny thing about all of this... Apple has the ability (money) to undercut pricing that Amazon couldn't match and take a large chunk of their market share from them... but I bet Apple would've been sued by the DOJ for anti-trust there too. LOL



     


    Apple would be wrong to do so in that case, and Amazon would be correct to pursue legal remedies.

  • Reply 96 of 163
    customtbcustomtb Posts: 346member


     


    Interesting article...and it pretty much means the industry will continue it's shift to Agency.  The ruling today against Apple won't likely prevent that and even if there is a problem with the Favorite Nation clauses, the publishers will be giving all major outlets the same pricing.


     


    So, if they lose on appeal, Apple pays a fine and moves on. But they will be competing with Amazon "Apples to Apples" so to speak.


     


    Book sellers win, Apple wins, Amazon wins/loses (money per book/competitiveness), Consumer loses.

  • Reply 97 of 163
    customtbcustomtb Posts: 346member


     


     


    Just realized these were old articles. Does anyone now if the DOJ settlements with the booksellers affected the Agency model or were they just fines?

  • Reply 98 of 163
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,926member
    I wish Sammy would stop paying trolls to come on this site.

    In hindsight, perhaps Apple should have staggers the agreements with publishers.
  • Reply 99 of 163
    cnocbuicnocbui Posts: 3,613member


    My, aren't the iPhones and iPads being hurled from the pram with vigor today.


     


    Can't have helped Apple's case that the publishers all caved.

  • Reply 100 of 163
    muaddibmuaddib Posts: 81member
    I would be willing to sign a a petition to the White House requesting that the DOJ open an investigation of abuse of monopoly by Amazon. A Barnes & Noble rep testified in the trial they couldn't compete with Amazon because Amazon was basically dumping e-books at or below cost. We penalize other countries when they do this to us by taking it to the WTO. Amazon should not get away with this. This is concerning the time frame before Apple entered the market and the had 80 - 90% of the e-book market.

    It shouldn't be too hard to get 100,000 signatures.


    P.S. This whole thing came about because Amazon went crying to the DOJ.
Sign In or Register to comment.