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".
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.
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.
The judge here has committed a profound crime-- has betrayed any oath or claim of fealty to justice.
The only possible service to the people she's done here is to show that government justice is justice denied.
She's shown that the "justice" system has been corrupted into a partisan persecution organization.
She's shown that the US government is nothing more than a bunch of mafia-like thugs.
Thank god we have laws to protect us all from companies like Apple. Talk about mafia like thugs that describes Apple to a "T" these days.
I'm not siding with Apple for the sake of siding with Apple. But if what they did was in violation of an antitrust law, I just think it's a stupid law! It's only logical for a retailer to bargain with suppliers for the lowest possible price.
To my knowledge, the only stipulations made by apple were that publishers offer them the lowest available price for their ebooks and that apple collect a 30% retailers fee. How is this illegal? Regardless of emails Steve Jobs may or may not have sent- these terms were not dictated in the deals that were signed by the publishing companies. They were just thoughts being communicated. How long does the arm of the government extend? Has it become illegal for corporate leaders to casually share ideas with each other leading up to a business partnership? This, to me sounds ridiculous! If this is the law, it needs to be changed.
That didn't happen, either. Amazon didn't dictate $9.99 pricing caps. Rather, they sold the books at $9.99 and paid the correct price to the publisher - eating a loss on many books in order to gain market share.
Please stick to the facts.
Yes, you are right about that detail. I stand corrected.
Thankfully none of the pro-Apple people actually practice law, they don't even know what basic Antitrust laws are about.
Everything below was copied from the FTC's website.
The words in CAPS are for emphasis.
The Antitrust Laws
"Congress passed the first antitrust law, the Sherman Act, in 1890 as a "comprehensive charter of economic liberty aimed at preserving free and UNFETTERED COMPETITION as the rule of trade."
"...Yet for over 100 years, the antitrust laws have had the same basic objective: to protect the process of competition for the BENEFIT OF CONSUMERS, making sure there are strong incentives for businesses to operate efficiently, KEEP PRICES DOWN,..."
"...an agreement between two individuals to form a partnership restrains trade, but may not do so unreasonably, and thus may be lawful under the antitrust laws. On the other hand, certain acts are considered so harmful to competition that they are almost always illegal. These include plain ARRANGEMENTS AMONG COMPETING INDIVIDUALS OR BUSINESSES TO FIX PRICES...
These acts are "per se" violations of the Sherman Act; in other words, NO DEFENSE OR JUSTIFICATION IS ALLOWED."
Can people with no knowledge of US Constitutional Law please stop interjecting Communism into the conversation? Go buy a copy of Black's Law. Read it. Then do some research on contract law and more. Read Supreme Court precedence on such laws and then perhaps you'll understand that Communism doesn't predate the US and it's 220+ years of creating laws, never mind the thousands of years of law previously that that Founders drew upon.
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.
What sources do you have to back up your claim "the Agency model has been king forever" ?
"Traditionally, publishers have sold books to stores, with the wholesale price for hardcovers set at fifty per cent of the cover price . . . Though this situation is less than ideal, it has persisted, more or less unchanged, for decades."
---
The wholesale model has been the traditional agreement between publisher and retailers of physical books. Under the wholesale model, the publisher sets the cover price and sells the books to the retailers for about half the cover price. The retailer, in turn, is free to sell the book at whatever price they choose to the consumer. The wholesale model existed before eBook and Amazon.
This DOJ decision is a farce because it props up a business model that is well past its use by date, whereby product distributors (e.g., Amazon) can fix prices of some products to promote the sale of other products, (e.g., lowering the prices of eBooks to sell more Kindles). This is just another example of the objectionable business practice whereby printer manufacturers sell printers for way under their cost to manufacture, and consumables like printer ink at way over the cost of manufacture. This sort of practice leads to huge price distortions and subsequent exploitation of markets by powerful companies.
The agency model is far better in this day and age because author/publishers can set the price they think the product is worth, and product distributors (e.g., Apple) take a fixed percentage of that price as commission for facilitating its electronic distribution and payment to the author/publisher. If the author/publisher sets the price too high, then few customers will buy it. The distributor cannot play games with the product price to achieve benefits for parties other than the author/publisher.
Does this ruling mean that the agency model cannot be used to compete with electronic product distributors like Amazon that manipulate market prices to suit their own needs? If that is so, can we expect the DoJ to mount a challenge to the AppStore which is also based on the agency model and has definitely put Apple software distributors right out of business and achieved huge benefits for both developers and customers? And if they refuse to challenge the legitimacy of the AppStore, why should we not assume that the DoJ has been hired by Amazon to defend their highly profitable and basically 'rotten-to-the-core' business model relating to just eBooks and Kindles?
If the author/publisher sets the price too high, then few customers will buy it. The distributor cannot play games with the product price to achieve benefits for parties other than the author/publisher.
The problem with that is if a equally priced product is selling well at one retailer and not at another. The publisher would in no way lower the price in one store because it would have to lower the price in the store that their product is selling well in. The destiny of the reseller is in the hands of the publisher.
The problem with that is if a equally priced product is selling well at one retailer and not at another. The publisher would in no way lower the price in one store because it would have to lower the price in the store that their product is selling well in. The destiny of the reseller is in the hands of the publisher.
But publishers distributing through Apple stores are dealing with (an approximation of) a global market, not just a couple of 'bricks and mortar' stores. Ideally, the author/publisher sets the global price for the global market place and doesn't have to worry about setting separate prices for each physical store based on local demand. Until we can get companies like Amazon out of the ebook distribution business, there will always be significant barriers erected between author and reader which syphon off money into big and powerful businesses like Amazon and traditional book publishers.
But publishers distributing through Apple stores are dealing with (an approximation of) a global market, not just a couple of 'bricks and mortar' stores. Ideally, the author/publisher sets the global price for the global market place and doesn't have to worry about setting separate prices for each physical store based on local demand. Until we can get companies like Amazon out of the ebook distribution business, there will always be significant barriers erected between author and reader which syphon off money into big and powerful businesses like Amazon and traditional book publishers.
Even in a global market it would hurt someone like Barnes & Noble who may not have the global presence of a Apple or Amazon. Of course I don't like what Amazon was doing but forcing the same price across all vendors isn't good either. I would put a little leeway in the MFN clause, if a competitor's price is over one dollar less then I must be allowed to price match.
Even though Apple let the publishers set their own prices, the agreements they had to sign forbade publishers from selling the same product elsewhere or allowing their other outlets, such as Amazon, to sell their products for less money. That is price fixing. If Apple even hinted at prices they hoped the sellers would select, that would mean they were colluding with the others to set a price at a certain level.
Comments
I have never before seen a collection this large of complete and utter morons.
I understand that you like Apple. Hell, I understand that you may even worship them.
But they broke the law. You keep referring to Amazon doing it, which just proves how little you know about anything at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessi
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".
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.
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.
The judge here has committed a profound crime-- has betrayed any oath or claim of fealty to justice.
The only possible service to the people she's done here is to show that government justice is justice denied.
She's shown that the "justice" system has been corrupted into a partisan persecution organization.
She's shown that the US government is nothing more than a bunch of mafia-like thugs.
Thank god we have laws to protect us all from companies like Apple. Talk about mafia like thugs that describes Apple to a "T" these days.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui
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.
It is nice to see a level headed person on these forums for a change instead of the Apple can do no wrong that is always posted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by harharhar
I have never before seen a collection this large of complete and utter morons.
I understand that you like Apple. Hell, I understand that you may even worship them.
But they broke the law. You keep referring to Amazon doing it, which just proves how little you know about anything at all.
But you have to admit that you can come here and get a lot of laughs from the fanbois.
http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2013/February/13-at-171.html
To my knowledge, the only stipulations made by apple were that publishers offer them the lowest available price for their ebooks and that apple collect a 30% retailers fee. How is this illegal? Regardless of emails Steve Jobs may or may not have sent- these terms were not dictated in the deals that were signed by the publishing companies. They were just thoughts being communicated. How long does the arm of the government extend? Has it become illegal for corporate leaders to casually share ideas with each other leading up to a business partnership? This, to me sounds ridiculous! If this is the law, it needs to be changed.
Yes, you are right about that detail. I stand corrected.
And that explains your presence?
Thanks for calling people "utter morons." You set an example of forum behavior that I fear I can never reach.
Thankfully none of the pro-Apple people actually practice law, they don't even know what basic Antitrust laws are about.
Everything below was copied from the FTC's website.
The words in CAPS are for emphasis.
The Antitrust Laws
"Congress passed the first antitrust law, the Sherman Act, in 1890 as a "comprehensive charter of economic liberty aimed at preserving free and UNFETTERED COMPETITION as the rule of trade."
"...Yet for over 100 years, the antitrust laws have had the same basic objective: to protect the process of competition for the BENEFIT OF CONSUMERS, making sure there are strong incentives for businesses to operate efficiently, KEEP PRICES DOWN,..."
"...an agreement between two individuals to form a partnership restrains trade, but may not do so unreasonably, and thus may be lawful under the antitrust laws. On the other hand, certain acts are considered so harmful to competition that they are almost always illegal. These include plain ARRANGEMENTS AMONG COMPETING INDIVIDUALS OR BUSINESSES TO FIX PRICES...
These acts are "per se" violations of the Sherman Act; in other words, NO DEFENSE OR JUSTIFICATION IS ALLOWED."
ftc.gov/bc/antitrust/antitrust_laws.shtm
I can't wait for apple to lose the No Poach Agreement lawsuit.
Can people with no knowledge of US Constitutional Law please stop interjecting Communism into the conversation? Go buy a copy of Black's Law. Read it. Then do some research on contract law and more. Read Supreme Court precedence on such laws and then perhaps you'll understand that Communism doesn't predate the US and it's 220+ years of creating laws, never mind the thousands of years of law previously that that Founders drew upon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
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.
What sources do you have to back up your claim "the Agency model has been king forever" ?
This article back in 2010 http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/04/26/100426fa_fact_auletta contradicts your claim
---
"Traditionally, publishers have sold books to stores, with the wholesale price for hardcovers set at fifty per cent of the cover price . . . Though this situation is less than ideal, it has persisted, more or less unchanged, for decades."
---
The wholesale model has been the traditional agreement between publisher and retailers of physical books. Under the wholesale model, the publisher sets the cover price and sells the books to the retailers for about half the cover price. The retailer, in turn, is free to sell the book at whatever price they choose to the consumer. The wholesale model existed before eBook and Amazon.
Why wait to gloat? No better time than the present.
Pricing model has nothing to do with this case. Amazon has nothing to do with this case.
It was about illegally agreeing to fix prices together as a group (i.e. cartel) and was Apple part of it.
Publishers are not denying this (settlements), so it is clear they were involved.
This DOJ decision is a farce because it props up a business model that is well past its use by date, whereby product distributors (e.g., Amazon) can fix prices of some products to promote the sale of other products, (e.g., lowering the prices of eBooks to sell more Kindles). This is just another example of the objectionable business practice whereby printer manufacturers sell printers for way under their cost to manufacture, and consumables like printer ink at way over the cost of manufacture. This sort of practice leads to huge price distortions and subsequent exploitation of markets by powerful companies.
The agency model is far better in this day and age because author/publishers can set the price they think the product is worth, and product distributors (e.g., Apple) take a fixed percentage of that price as commission for facilitating its electronic distribution and payment to the author/publisher. If the author/publisher sets the price too high, then few customers will buy it. The distributor cannot play games with the product price to achieve benefits for parties other than the author/publisher.
Does this ruling mean that the agency model cannot be used to compete with electronic product distributors like Amazon that manipulate market prices to suit their own needs? If that is so, can we expect the DoJ to mount a challenge to the AppStore which is also based on the agency model and has definitely put Apple software distributors right out of business and achieved huge benefits for both developers and customers? And if they refuse to challenge the legitimacy of the AppStore, why should we not assume that the DoJ has been hired by Amazon to defend their highly profitable and basically 'rotten-to-the-core' business model relating to just eBooks and Kindles?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessi
There are countries that respect rights and are much more capitalist than the USA, and also going in the right direction...
Many countries are more free and safer than America.
Got a list of those? I have my bags packed... seriously, I need a list so I can do some homework.
No, I'm serious!!
Of course it would help if English was at least a secondary language taught in their schools...
The problem with that is if a equally priced product is selling well at one retailer and not at another. The publisher would in no way lower the price in one store because it would have to lower the price in the store that their product is selling well in. The destiny of the reseller is in the hands of the publisher.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soloman
The problem with that is if a equally priced product is selling well at one retailer and not at another. The publisher would in no way lower the price in one store because it would have to lower the price in the store that their product is selling well in. The destiny of the reseller is in the hands of the publisher.
But publishers distributing through Apple stores are dealing with (an approximation of) a global market, not just a couple of 'bricks and mortar' stores. Ideally, the author/publisher sets the global price for the global market place and doesn't have to worry about setting separate prices for each physical store based on local demand. Until we can get companies like Amazon out of the ebook distribution business, there will always be significant barriers erected between author and reader which syphon off money into big and powerful businesses like Amazon and traditional book publishers.
Even in a global market it would hurt someone like Barnes & Noble who may not have the global presence of a Apple or Amazon. Of course I don't like what Amazon was doing but forcing the same price across all vendors isn't good either. I would put a little leeway in the MFN clause, if a competitor's price is over one dollar less then I must be allowed to price match.
Even though Apple let the publishers set their own prices, the agreements they had to sign forbade publishers from selling the same product elsewhere or allowing their other outlets, such as Amazon, to sell their products for less money. That is price fixing. If Apple even hinted at prices they hoped the sellers would select, that would mean they were colluding with the others to set a price at a certain level.