Here's a statement Apple should release: "Due to the Government allowing Amazon to keep it's Monopoly over e-books and their pricing, we are withdrawing from that market - thus closing purchases of electronic books from iBooks immediately. Well be paying no fines for price-fixing since Apple was only allowing another venue for Publishers to sell in with their own pricing. Our Court Appointed Monitor is hereby barred from all Apple Facilities and Stores."
Are you writing this in your imagination? Kindle app opens the books bought from Amazon. How could the prices be exactly the same as from the iBook store?
The prices were exactly the same because that is the nature of the agreement Apple signed. As soon as they had Apple onboard, the publishers all went to Amazon to change their deal. Therefore if Amazon chose to sell a book for $9.99 in future, Apple would also be able to match that, but the publishers could then cancel their deals with Amazon, withdraw their books and Apple would dominate the market.
By this method the publishers could eliminate any sellers offering books for $9.99 which was considered too cheap to them. This resulted in an immediate price raise, which is obviously bad for the consumer. It also resulted in a reduction of sales to those publishers, showing the harm done quite clearly.
Here's a statement Apple should release: "Due to the Government allowing Amazon to keep it's Monopoly over e-books and their pricing, we are withdrawing from that market - thus closing purchases of electronic books from iBooks immediately. Well be paying no fines for price-fixing since Apple was only allowing another venue for Publishers to sell in with their own pricing. Our Court Appointed Monitor is hereby barred from all Apple Facilities and Stores."
Monopolies are not illegal, disobeying court orders and refusing to pay fines is. I don't think this would be a particularly smart move.
Here's a statement Apple should release: "Due to the Government allowing Amazon to keep it's Monopoly over e-books and their pricing, we are withdrawing from that market - thus closing purchases of electronic books from iBooks immediately. Well be paying no fines for price-fixing since Apple was only allowing another venue for Publishers to sell in with their own pricing. Our Court Appointed Monitor is hereby barred from all Apple Facilities and Stores."
Except "only" is not true because of the price matching agreement, withdrawing a profitable part of the ecosystem is disadvantageous to Apple and its customers, refusing to pay any fines before they've even been levied is both antagonistic and arrogantly juevenile, and the action of barring a court-appointed monitor from premises is illegal.
The prices were exactly the same because that is the nature of the agreement Apple signed. As soon as they had Apple onboard, the publishers all went to Amazon to change their deal. Therefore if Amazon chose to sell a book for $9.99 in future, Apple would also be able to match that, but the publishers could then cancel their deals with Amazon, withdraw their books and Apple would dominate the market.
By this method the publishers could eliminate any sellers offering books for $9.99 which was considered too cheap to them. This resulted in an immediate price raise, which is obviously bad for the consumer. It also resulted in a reduction of sales to those publishers, showing the harm done quite clearly.
You are lying. Are you a juvenile? You don't know what is legal what is illegal. It is illgal for publishers to cancel deals with Amazon. And you are thinking this is legal.
And I don't think you understand what is wholesale.
Cancelling a deal isn't illegal. Depends on the terms of the deal, but at your worst you're in breach of contract, and some contracts will allow exit at any time.
Cancelling a deal isn't illegal. Depends on the terms of the deal, but at your worst you're in breach of contract, and some contracts will allow exit at any time.
No. He is lying. The publishers can cancel deals but they have to renegotiate deals. You can not refuse to sell to any legal retailer.
Ok Darth, have it your way, publishers are obliged to sell to every book retailer, just because. Producers are not allowed any control over their product at all.
The monitor is supposed to be there for one reason. The book case and is supposed to only ask those involved in the book case and nothing else. So he should not have to go to anyone other than those that were involved with the book deal and case for any answers he needs. I see no reason for the appeals judges not to side with Apple as far as what the monitor is allowed to do instead of having free rain which Coyte gave him. I don't think I like this comment made by Lynch. "Maybe if they had spent some of their very valuable time keeping the company from violating antitrust laws, perhaps they wouldn't be in this position," Judge Gerard Lynch said. Why does he comment like this when he knows there is an appeal going on which may reverse this whole case entirely. I find that was really not necessary. I also find that even though Apple does have plenty of money a $1000.00 an hour for anyones salary is quite excessive no matter who it is.
The prices were exactly the same because that is the nature of the agreement Apple signed. As soon as they had Apple onboard, the publishers all went to Amazon to change their deal. Therefore if Amazon chose to sell a book for $9.99 in future, Apple would also be able to match that, but the publishers could then cancel their deals with Amazon, withdraw their books and Apple would dominate the market.
By this method the publishers could eliminate any sellers offering books for $9.99 which was considered too cheap to them. This resulted in an immediate price raise, which is obviously bad for the consumer. It also resulted in a reduction of sales to those publishers, showing the harm done quite clearly.
At the same time if Amazon kept 9.99 as the price, competitors would go out of business or exit the ebook market effectively making them the only reseller of ebooks. Then Amazon can raise prices because sooner or later shareholders will wake up and want more revenue/profits.
The monitor is supposed to be there for one reason. The book case and is supposed to only ask those involved in the book case and nothing else.
I believe his actual stated purpose is to monitor compliance with antitrust law, so he should be asking questions of anyone who is currently involved in contractual matters (existing and under negotiation) for publishing/selling content.
At the same time if Amazon kept 9.99 as the price, competitors would go out of business or exit the ebook market effectively making them the only reseller of ebooks. Then Amazon can raise prices because sooner or later shareholders will wake up and want more revenue/profits.
This may well be true, but should have resulted in an antitrust complaint, not a backroom agreement between Apple and the publishers to rig pricing.
The monitor is supposed to be there for one reason. The book case and is supposed to only ask those involved in the book case and nothing else.
No he isn't. Here is there for antitrust violations and to determine Apple's antitrust policies. This was driven by the ebook deal but it is not the focus of his work.
Quote:
So he should not have to go to anyone other than those that were involved with the book deal and case for any answers he needs. I see no reason for the appeals judges not to side with Apple as far as what the monitor is allowed to do instead of having free rain which Coyte gave him.
Apple refuse to accept a limited scope of his enquiry and indicate they will fight to have him removed regardless. Therefore to 'side with Apple' would be to remove him entirely.
Quote:
I also find that even though Apple does have plenty of money a $1000.00 an hour for anyones salary is quite excessive no matter who it is.
Apple offered him $800/hour iirc, so the difference is pretty tiny.
At the same time if Amazon kept 9.99 as the price, competitors would go out of business or exit the ebook market effectively making them the only reseller of ebooks. Then Amazon can raise prices because sooner or later shareholders will wake up and want more revenue/profits.
Yes, they could raise the prices, but they would still have gone no higher than the price people were willing to pay. At the same time this would have let a rich competitor with a platform to drive (ie Apple) compete by offering slightly better discounts. That would be totally fine and the whole point of price competition.
I believe his actual stated purpose is to monitor compliance with antitrust law, so he should be asking questions of anyone who is currently involved in contractual matters (existing and under negotiation) for publishing/selling content.
Yes, they could raise the prices, but they would still have gone no higher than the price people were willing to pay. At the same time this would have let a rich competitor with a platform to drive (ie Apple) compete by offering slightly better discounts. That would be totally fine and the whole point of price competition.
Price people are willing to pay? If it's the only game in town, people will buy it if they want it.
I have literally no idea about Apple's board organisation. I expect neither does Bromwich. Meeting with Ive for an hour is not really some sort of impossible task for Apple and I bet that once he'd met him that would have been the end of it as he clearly wasn't involved. Still, Apple is free to make representations that certain staff be off limits, they refuse to do that though.
Quote:
Price people are willing to pay? If it's the only game in town, people will buy it if they want it.
But they're not the only game in town. Both Apple and Google want to get in on this market, and you know they'll be waiting by the sidelines looking for the profit.
This is what I said the publishers can not simply cancel the deals. They have to renegotiate. Apple did nothing wrong. The DOJ and judge Cote erred. Apple should appeal all the way to the Supreme Court if needed.
Comments
Here's a statement Apple should release: "Due to the Government allowing Amazon to keep it's Monopoly over e-books and their pricing, we are withdrawing from that market - thus closing purchases of electronic books from iBooks immediately. Well be paying no fines for price-fixing since Apple was only allowing another venue for Publishers to sell in with their own pricing. Our Court Appointed Monitor is hereby barred from all Apple Facilities and Stores."
Are you writing this in your imagination? Kindle app opens the books bought from Amazon. How could the prices be exactly the same as from the iBook store?
The prices were exactly the same because that is the nature of the agreement Apple signed. As soon as they had Apple onboard, the publishers all went to Amazon to change their deal. Therefore if Amazon chose to sell a book for $9.99 in future, Apple would also be able to match that, but the publishers could then cancel their deals with Amazon, withdraw their books and Apple would dominate the market.
By this method the publishers could eliminate any sellers offering books for $9.99 which was considered too cheap to them. This resulted in an immediate price raise, which is obviously bad for the consumer. It also resulted in a reduction of sales to those publishers, showing the harm done quite clearly.
Here's a statement Apple should release: "Due to the Government allowing Amazon to keep it's Monopoly over e-books and their pricing, we are withdrawing from that market - thus closing purchases of electronic books from iBooks immediately. Well be paying no fines for price-fixing since Apple was only allowing another venue for Publishers to sell in with their own pricing. Our Court Appointed Monitor is hereby barred from all Apple Facilities and Stores."
Monopolies are not illegal, disobeying court orders and refusing to pay fines is. I don't think this would be a particularly smart move.
Here's a statement Apple should release: "Due to the Government allowing Amazon to keep it's Monopoly over e-books and their pricing, we are withdrawing from that market - thus closing purchases of electronic books from iBooks immediately. Well be paying no fines for price-fixing since Apple was only allowing another venue for Publishers to sell in with their own pricing. Our Court Appointed Monitor is hereby barred from all Apple Facilities and Stores."
Except "only" is not true because of the price matching agreement, withdrawing a profitable part of the ecosystem is disadvantageous to Apple and its customers, refusing to pay any fines before they've even been levied is both antagonistic and arrogantly juevenile, and the action of barring a court-appointed monitor from premises is illegal.
But what the hell, GO APPLE.
The prices were exactly the same because that is the nature of the agreement Apple signed. As soon as they had Apple onboard, the publishers all went to Amazon to change their deal. Therefore if Amazon chose to sell a book for $9.99 in future, Apple would also be able to match that, but the publishers could then cancel their deals with Amazon, withdraw their books and Apple would dominate the market.
By this method the publishers could eliminate any sellers offering books for $9.99 which was considered too cheap to them. This resulted in an immediate price raise, which is obviously bad for the consumer. It also resulted in a reduction of sales to those publishers, showing the harm done quite clearly.
You are lying. Are you a juvenile? You don't know what is legal what is illegal. It is illgal for publishers to cancel deals with Amazon. And you are thinking this is legal.
And I don't think you understand what is wholesale.
Cancelling a deal isn't illegal. Depends on the terms of the deal, but at your worst you're in breach of contract, and some contracts will allow exit at any time.
Cancelling a deal isn't illegal. Depends on the terms of the deal, but at your worst you're in breach of contract, and some contracts will allow exit at any time.
No. He is lying. The publishers can cancel deals but they have to renegotiate deals. You can not refuse to sell to any legal retailer.
Sure you can, you can refuse to sell to anyone you want.
Sure you can, you can refuse to sell to anyone you want.
No!!!!!
No!!!!!
Yes! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leegin_Creative_Leather_Products,_Inc._v._PSKS,_Inc.#Facts
Ok Darth, have it your way, publishers are obliged to sell to every book retailer, just because. Producers are not allowed any control over their product at all.
I don't think I like this comment made by Lynch. "Maybe if they had spent some of their very valuable time keeping the company from violating antitrust laws, perhaps they wouldn't be in this position," Judge Gerard Lynch said.
Why does he comment like this when he knows there is an appeal going on which may reverse this whole case entirely. I find that was really not necessary.
I also find that even though Apple does have plenty of money a $1000.00 an hour for anyones salary is quite excessive no matter who it is.
At the same time if Amazon kept 9.99 as the price, competitors would go out of business or exit the ebook market effectively making them the only reseller of ebooks. Then Amazon can raise prices because sooner or later shareholders will wake up and want more revenue/profits.
The monitor is supposed to be there for one reason. The book case and is supposed to only ask those involved in the book case and nothing else.
I believe his actual stated purpose is to monitor compliance with antitrust law, so he should be asking questions of anyone who is currently involved in contractual matters (existing and under negotiation) for publishing/selling content.
At the same time if Amazon kept 9.99 as the price, competitors would go out of business or exit the ebook market effectively making them the only reseller of ebooks. Then Amazon can raise prices because sooner or later shareholders will wake up and want more revenue/profits.
This may well be true, but should have resulted in an antitrust complaint, not a backroom agreement between Apple and the publishers to rig pricing.
The monitor is supposed to be there for one reason. The book case and is supposed to only ask those involved in the book case and nothing else.
No he isn't. Here is there for antitrust violations and to determine Apple's antitrust policies. This was driven by the ebook deal but it is not the focus of his work.
Apple refuse to accept a limited scope of his enquiry and indicate they will fight to have him removed regardless. Therefore to 'side with Apple' would be to remove him entirely.
Apple offered him $800/hour iirc, so the difference is pretty tiny.
At the same time if Amazon kept 9.99 as the price, competitors would go out of business or exit the ebook market effectively making them the only reseller of ebooks. Then Amazon can raise prices because sooner or later shareholders will wake up and want more revenue/profits.
Yes, they could raise the prices, but they would still have gone no higher than the price people were willing to pay. At the same time this would have let a rich competitor with a platform to drive (ie Apple) compete by offering slightly better discounts. That would be totally fine and the whole point of price competition.
So how does Ive figure in that.
Price people are willing to pay? If it's the only game in town, people will buy it if they want it.
So how does Ive figure in that.
I have literally no idea about Apple's board organisation. I expect neither does Bromwich. Meeting with Ive for an hour is not really some sort of impossible task for Apple and I bet that once he'd met him that would have been the end of it as he clearly wasn't involved. Still, Apple is free to make representations that certain staff be off limits, they refuse to do that though.
But they're not the only game in town. Both Apple and Google want to get in on this market, and you know they'll be waiting by the sidelines looking for the profit.
Yes! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leegin_Creative_Leather_Products,_Inc._v._PSKS,_Inc.#Facts
This is what I said the publishers can not simply cancel the deals. They have to renegotiate. Apple did nothing wrong. The DOJ and judge Cote erred. Apple should appeal all the way to the Supreme Court if needed.