Judge approves Apple's $450 million e-book settlement

13»

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 52
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,985member
    davidw wrote: »
    The court found that Apple played a part in the publishers collusion to increase the price of eBooks, (by ganging up and forcing Amazonn into an agency model), based on emails and communiation between the publishers and Steve Jobs. No where did the court determined that any deal the publishers made with Apple was the illegal. Up to the point of the publishers colluding to force Amazon into an agency model, there was no collusion involved. But the eMails and communication between the publishers and Jobs was interpeted by the court that Apple knew before hand and was part of the publishers plan from the beginning, to gang up and force Amazon into an agency model. Apple denied knowing, encouraging or being part of the publishers plan to gang up on Amazon in order to force Amazoninto an agency model. But Jobs eMails hinted that he knew that would happen ( the forcing of Amazon into an agency model, not the ganging up part), and that's what got Apple in trouble. The publishers deal with Apple did not cause the price of eBooks to go up and wouldn't have. It was the publishers forcing Amazon into an agency model that cause the price increase and the publishers colluded to get that done. And thus bringing the DOJ into this. 

    I agree that the agreements between Apple, and the publishers were legal, yet the court nullified them.
  • Reply 42 of 52

    What on earth is your reason for being on this site? Just to get attention? Isn't there some place else you can go to? I can think of one.

  • Reply 43 of 52
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post





    I agree that the agreements between Apple, and the publishers were legal, yet the court nullified them.

     

     

    And yet the court allows Amazon to sign an agency model deal with publishers. The same type of deal the publishers had with Apple. So long as there's no collusion involve in getting Amazon to sign on.  This will slowly raise the price of eBooks and yet no one is crying foul. Go figure. 

  • Reply 44 of 52
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by DavidW View Post

     

     

     

    And yet the court allows Amazon to sign an agency model deal with publishers. The same type of deal the publishers had with Apple. So long as there's no collusion involve in getting Amazon to sign on.  This will slowly raise the price of eBooks and yet no one is crying foul. Go figure. 




    Insanity. Pure insanity. Apple needs to buy better lobbyists and judges.

  • Reply 45 of 52
    crowleycrowley Posts: 6,065member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by DavidW View Post

     

     

     

    And yet the court allows Amazon to sign an agency model deal with publishers. The same type of deal the publishers had with Apple. So long as there's no collusion involve in getting Amazon to sign on.  This will slowly raise the price of eBooks and yet no one is crying foul. Go figure. 


    Raising prices isn't illegal.

  • Reply 46 of 52
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,985member
    davidw wrote: »

    And yet the court allows Amazon to sign an agency model deal with publishers. The same type of deal the publishers had with Apple. So long as there's no collusion involve in getting Amazon to sign on.  This will slowly raise the price of eBooks and yet no one is crying foul. Go figure. 

    There's nothing wrong with the agency model. It's the most favored nation clause that was the issue.
  • Reply 47 of 52
    davidwdavidw Posts: 977member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post





    There's nothing wrong with the agency model. It's the most favored nation clause that was the issue.

     

    You mean like the one Amazon has on their  Kindle Direct Program?

     

     

    http://go-to-hellman.blogspot.com/2014/04/is-kindle-direct-program-mfn-legal.html

  • Reply 48 of 52
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,985member
    davidw wrote: »
    You mean like the one Amazon has on their  Kindle Direct Program?


    http://go-to-hellman.blogspot.com/2014/04/is-kindle-direct-program-mfn-legal.html

    There's nothing wrong with a MFN clause, but it then put the publishers in a conundrum with Amazon in which they had to then collectively bargain to change the current business terms. That's what got them in trouble, and unfortunately dragged Apple into it.
  • Reply 49 of 52
    davidwdavidw Posts: 977member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post





    There's nothing wrong with a MFN clause, but it then put the publishers in a conundrum with Amazon in which they had to then collectively bargain to change the current business terms. That's what got them in trouble, and unfortunately dragged Apple into it.

     

    So we are in agreement.

     

    There was nothing wrong with the publishers making a deal with Apple on an agency model.

     

    There was nothnig wrong with Apple including a MFN cause in their deal with the publishers.

     

    There was nothing wrong with the publishers dealing with Amazon to get them to adopt an agency model.

     

    There is nothing illegal about Amazon wanting a MFN cause included in their deal.

     

    There is nothing illegal with increasing the price of eBooks. 

     

    The only thing illegal in this case, and that's without a doubt, was that the publishers collectively bargained with Amazon when dealing with them to adopt an agency plan.

     

    But did Apple willingly participate the publishers plan to collude when dealing with Amazon?  Did Apple know that the publishers would collude to bargain with Amazon. The court seems to think so. Just based on the evidence that Jobs hinted (in his eMail) that he knew that the publishers would eventually want Amazon to adopt an agency plan.

     

    Would Apple or the publishers had did anything illegal if there was no collusion on part of the publishers when dealing with Amazon and the price of eBooks eventually increased because Amazon went on to adopt an agency model with each of the publishers on their own terms? Most likely not, but there's no guarantee of that with this court (and judge). 

  • Reply 50 of 52
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by pazuzu View Post

     

    All my ebook purchases are from Amazon so I can read them on both my Kindle or iPad, iPhone or Mac so I'won't be getting any money back anyway. I would never buy an Apple ebook.

    But bad Apple- thank god my ebook prices are lower again in a FREE market.


     

    Thanks to Apple Amazon have lifted their game and introduced things like colour and interactivity that came with iBooks.

     

    Otherwise you can get pdf's for free, if price is your only consideration why bother paying at all?

  • Reply 51 of 52
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by DavidW View Post

     

     

    The court found that Apple played a part in the publishers collusion to increase the price of eBooks, (by ganging up and forcing Amazonn into an agency model), based on emails and communiation between the publishers and Steve Jobs. No where did the court determined that any deal the publishers made with Apple was the illegal. Up to the point of the publishers colluding to force Amazon into an agency model, there was no collusion involved. But the eMails and communication between the publishers and Jobs was interpeted by the court that Apple knew before hand and was part of the publishers plan from the beginning, to gang up and force Amazon into an agency model. Apple denied knowing, encouraging or being part of the publishers plan to gang up on Amazon in order to force Amazon into an agency model. But Jobs eMails hinted that he knew that would happen ( the forcing of Amazon into an agency model, not the ganging up part), and that's what got Apple in trouble. The publishers deal with Apple did not cause the price of eBooks to go up and wouldn't have. It was the publishers forcing Amazon into an agency model that cause the price increase and the publishers colluded to get that done. And if they ganged up as one, they could have done it without the Apple deal. Thus bringing the DOJ into this. 


     

    One unsent, draft email from a dead man who was unable to explain or defend himself.

  • Reply 52 of 52
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,985member
    hill60 wrote: »
    One unsent, draft email from a dead man who was unable to explain or defend himself.

    Like a gift, it's the thought that counts.
Sign In or Register to comment.