Hope Apple get to present case to supreme court and revert the lower court decision. Amazon is a monopoly in e-books.
You'd better hope they don't get a chance to present their case, because it will be rebuke number three. But the odds are, the SC will turn down the case, because the lower court rulings were correct.
"Negotiations prior to the iBooks Store launch in 2010 led to publishers adopting an agency model, and Apple winning "most favored nation" status, such that e-book prices elsewhere could be no lower than its own."
if true than Apple deserves to get fined. Or am I wrong?
Even Cote stated that favored nation clauses aren't illegal. Nor are agency terms.
But then she turned around and declared what they did as collusion. There are reports that she ignored like half the evidence that disproved her pre-trial judgement that Apple would be proven guilty.
So maybe they don't. Maybe they don't deserve this over-reaching monitor etc.
Even Cote stated that favored nation clauses aren't illegal. Nor are agency terms.
But then she turned around and declared what they did as collusion. There are reports that she ignored like half the evidence that disproved her pre-trial judgement that Apple would be proven guilty.
So maybe they don't. Maybe they don't deserve this over-reaching monitor etc.
MFN clauses aren't illegal. Nor are agency terms. What is illegal is gathering all the publishers and conspiring with them to all adopt the same policies in an effort to drive the price of the product up,while ensuring that you get the best price. That's price fixing.
Nope. Apple's gig is more less buy and markup and more sell on consignment. If it sells great, if it doesn't, Apple hasn't spent a dime.
The result of this, I suppose, is that publishers and authors set the price, Apple and Amazon take their 30 percent, as does everyone else. At first release, the publishers want the maximum sale price, but as time goes by, they will reduce the pricing, likely at tiers.
The error that the DOJ made, in my opinion, is that they ultimately placed too much value on low consumer prices, and not enough value on the creator, or the creator's representative, the publisher. When Amazon was purchasing titles wholesale, they were able to set the prices artificially low for the industry, which has the result of driving competitors out of business, and likely creating an untenable financial return for creators, reducing new works.
The Agency Model restores the balance, and it is up to the consumer to decide if they wish to purchase new releases at a premium, or wait some months for discounts to take place.
The result of this, I suppose, is that publishers and authors set the price, Apple and Amazon take their 30 percent, as does everyone else. At first release, the publishers want the maximum sale price, but as time goes by, they will reduce the pricing, likely at tiers.
The error that the DOJ made, in my opinion, is that they ultimately placed too much value on low consumer prices, and not enough value on the creator, or the creator's representative, the publisher. When Amazon was purchasing titles wholesale, they were able to set the prices artificially low for the industry, which has the result of driving competitors out of business, and likely creating an untenable financial return for creators, reducing new works.
The Agency Model restores the balance, and it is up to the consumer to decide if they wish to purchase new releases at a premium, or wait some months for discounts to take place.
The DOJ made no error. This isn't about consumer prices. It's about an industry conspiring together to fix prices. That is illegal.
Hope Apple get to present case to supreme court and revert the lower court decision. Amazon is a monopoly in e-books.
And some of their recent changes in payments to self publishers is just wrong. Don't have a publisher? Ok then we'll pay you just on the pages read by the purchaser even though they (the reader/purchaser) have paid us 100% of the quoted price for the ebook.
I've stopped using Amazon since they made those changes. Yes, I am an author.
"Joe Wikert, the general manager and publisher of O’Reilly Media, which publishes about 200 e-books a year, said that if there was indeed a meeting of the minds, then the parties in the suit were, of course, guilty as charged. “But the fact that a whole bunch of them at a time decided to adopt the agency model for the sake of the future of the business, I don’t see how this is collusion.”
“It feels like the Justice Department is solving a mythical problem and creating a bigger predator in this way,” Wikert said, referring to Amazon. If the settlement allows Amazon to return to its $9.99 model, Wikert said that the brand—most importantly, the author’s name—would be cheapened.
Scott Turow, president of the Authors Guild, agrees. “Amazon’s predatory pricing would shield it from e-book competitors that lacked Amazon’s deep pockets,” Turow wrote on his blog last month. “The irony bites hard: our government may be on the verge of killing real competition in order to save the appearance of competition.”
Regardless of the merits of the case on either side, I've never understood why the DOJ would consider a $3 increase for an entertainment product to be a priority for prosecution when you have huge scams in areas like housing, health care, and education that are actually necessities for consumers. As a consumer, saying "no" to a NY Times bestseller because it's temporarily at a higher price isn't going to impact your quality of life very much.
The DOJ made no error. This isn't about consumer prices. It's about an industry conspiring together to fix prices. That is illegal.
Did you join just to troll the thread? Amazon was the monopoly, not Apple. Apple joining the ebook market brought competition to the market. Also, any agreements with Apple did not bind Amazon to do anything as you implied previously.
The DOJ made no error. This isn't about consumer prices. It's about an industry conspiring together to fix prices. That is illegal.
Did you join just to troll the thread? Amazon was the monopoly, not Apple. Apple joining the ebook market brought competition to the market. Also, any agreements with Apple did not bind Amazon to do anything as you implied previously.
They (the publishers) got together and strong-armed Amazon into the same agreement they made with Apple. You gotta remember, these are old publishing houses with tons of political clout. They've published numerous statesmen, Presidents, ex-Presidents, and members of Congress. They most likely settled because that's the advice they were given.
They (the publishers) got together and strong-armed Amazon into the same agreement they made with Apple. You gotta remember, these are old publishing houses with tons of political clout. They've published numerous statesmen, Presidents, ex-Presidents, and members of Congress. They most likely settled because that's the advice they were given.
Did the publishers all meet together?
Apple made seperate deals with the publishers. They just happen to be the same deal.
They (the publishers) got together and strong-armed Amazon into the same agreement they made with Apple. You gotta remember, these are old publishing houses with tons of political clout. They've published numerous statesmen, Presidents, ex-Presidents, and members of Congress. They most likely settled because that's the advice they were given.
Did the publishers all meet together?
Apple made seperate deals with the publishers. They just happen to be the same deal.
My understanding is that they did, but you gotta understand that most of the publishers operate in close proximity to each other. They're old businesses, and the CEOs all know each other, and probably attend each other's personal/private parties, and family functions. I'm actually quite baffled that they allowed Amazon to get the upper hand on them.
My understanding is that they did, but you gotta understand that most of the publishers operate in close proximity to each other. They're old businesses, and the CEOs all know each other, and probably attend each other's personal/private parties, and family functions. I'm actually quite baffled that they allowed Amazon to get the upper hand on them.
I don't think there was evidence they got together. The Doj inferred Apple was the ring leader and coordinated the "price fixing" even though Apple just wanted the same deal for the ebooks. To my knowledge, there was no evidence Apple discussed specifics of the deals with the others outside of the negotiating tactics.
They (the publishers) got together and strong-armed Amazon into the same agreement they made with Apple. You gotta remember, these are old publishing houses with tons of political clout. They've published numerous statesmen, Presidents, ex-Presidents, and members of Congress. They most likely settled because that's the advice they were given.
My point stands that the Apple agreement did not bind Amazon. If the publishers then went to Amazon to change the deal, that is on them.
They (the publishers) got together and strong-armed Amazon into the same agreement they made with Apple. You gotta remember, these are old publishing houses with tons of political clout. They've published numerous statesmen, Presidents, ex-Presidents, and members of Congress. They most likely settled because that's the advice they were given.
My point stands that the Apple agreement did not bind Amazon. If the publishers then went to Amazon to change the deal, that is on them.
Agreed, but they used Apple as a fulcrum to get leverage against Amazon, making it seem like Apple was somehow involved.
<p style="border:0px;color:rgb(0,0,0);margin-bottom:1em;margin-top:1em;vertical-align:baseline;">"Joe Wikert, the general manager and publisher of O’Reilly Media, which publishes about 200 e-books a year, said that if there was indeed a meeting of the minds, then the parties in the suit were, of course, guilty as charged. “But the fact that a whole bunch of them at a time decided to adopt the agency model for the sake of the future of the business, I don’t see how this is collusion.”</p>
<p style="border:0px;color:rgb(0,0,0);margin-bottom:1em;margin-top:1em;vertical-align:baseline;">“It feels like the Justice Department is solving a mythical problem and creating a bigger predator in this way,” Wikert said, referring to Amazon. If the settlement allows Amazon to return to its $9.99 model, Wikert said that the brand—most importantly, the author’s name—would be cheapened.</p>
<p style="border:0px;color:rgb(0,0,0);margin-bottom:1em;margin-top:1em;vertical-align:baseline;">Scott Turow, president of the Authors Guild, agrees. “Amazon’s predatory pricing would shield it from e-book competitors that lacked Amazon’s deep pockets,” Turow wrote on his blog last month. “The irony bites hard: our government may be on the verge of killing real competition in order to save the appearance of competition.”</p>
None of which changes the fact that Apple and the publishers conspired to fix prices, which is against the law. It's like a murderer defending himself by claiming that the person he killed might have killed others later. He's still guilty.
<p style="border:0px;color:rgb(0,0,0);margin-bottom:1em;margin-top:1em;vertical-align:baseline;">"Joe Wikert, the general manager and publisher of O’Reilly Media, which publishes about 200 e-books a year, said that if there was indeed a meeting of the minds, then the parties in the suit were, of course, guilty as charged. “But the fact that a whole bunch of them at a time decided to adopt the agency model for the sake of the future of the business, I don’t see how this is collusion.”</p>
<p style="border:0px;color:rgb(0,0,0);margin-bottom:1em;margin-top:1em;vertical-align:baseline;">“It feels like the Justice Department is solving a mythical problem and creating a bigger predator in this way,” Wikert said, referring to Amazon. If the settlement allows Amazon to return to its $9.99 model, Wikert said that the brand—most importantly, the author’s name—would be cheapened.</p>
<p style="border:0px;color:rgb(0,0,0);margin-bottom:1em;margin-top:1em;vertical-align:baseline;">Scott Turow, president of the Authors Guild, agrees. “Amazon’s predatory pricing would shield it from e-book competitors that lacked Amazon’s deep pockets,” Turow wrote on his blog last month. “The irony bites hard: our government may be on the verge of killing real competition in order to save the appearance of competition.”</p>
Did you join just to troll the thread? Amazon was the monopoly, not Apple. Apple joining the ebook market brought competition to the market. Also, any agreements with Apple did not bind Amazon to do anything as you implied previously.
I joined the thread to bring some sorely needed truth. Regardless of Amazon's position in the market, Apple conspired with publishers to fix prices. You seem to think that if a company has a monopoly position, then competitors are allowed to break the law. They are not.
You don't bring competition by forcing every one to sell at the same or higher price. And, you should really research before you speak. Yes, Apple's agreement with the publishers did affect Amazon's ability to charge the price it wanted. Apple conspired to get all the publishers to move to the agency model, in which the publishers set the price, not the seller. Then, the contacted with those same publishers to charge the lowest price through Apple. No other seller could have a price lower than Apple. If Apple sold the book for $12.99, Amazon could not sell for lower than $12.99.
They're not. The Supreme Court will decline to hear the case, because it's open and shut. Apple aren't even arguing they didn't break the law anymore, they're arguing that they had to break it to compete.
Comments
You'd better hope they don't get a chance to present their case, because it will be rebuke number three. But the odds are, the SC will turn down the case, because the lower court rulings were correct.
"Negotiations prior to the iBooks Store launch in 2010 led to publishers adopting an agency model, and Apple winning "most favored nation" status, such that e-book prices elsewhere could be no lower than its own."
if true than Apple deserves to get fined. Or am I wrong?
Even Cote stated that favored nation clauses aren't illegal. Nor are agency terms.
But then she turned around and declared what they did as collusion. There are reports that she ignored like half the evidence that disproved her pre-trial judgement that Apple would be proven guilty.
So maybe they don't. Maybe they don't deserve this over-reaching monitor etc.
#1. This means, Apple buys books for $9.99 and resells for $12.99.
Nope. Apple's gig is more less buy and markup and more sell on consignment. If it sells great, if it doesn't, Apple hasn't spent a dime.
MFN clauses aren't illegal. Nor are agency terms. What is illegal is gathering all the publishers and conspiring with them to all adopt the same policies in an effort to drive the price of the product up,while ensuring that you get the best price. That's price fixing.
Nope. Apple's gig is more less buy and markup and more sell on consignment. If it sells great, if it doesn't, Apple hasn't spent a dime.
The result of this, I suppose, is that publishers and authors set the price, Apple and Amazon take their 30 percent, as does everyone else. At first release, the publishers want the maximum sale price, but as time goes by, they will reduce the pricing, likely at tiers.
The error that the DOJ made, in my opinion, is that they ultimately placed too much value on low consumer prices, and not enough value on the creator, or the creator's representative, the publisher. When Amazon was purchasing titles wholesale, they were able to set the prices artificially low for the industry, which has the result of driving competitors out of business, and likely creating an untenable financial return for creators, reducing new works.
The Agency Model restores the balance, and it is up to the consumer to decide if they wish to purchase new releases at a premium, or wait some months for discounts to take place.
The DOJ made no error. This isn't about consumer prices. It's about an industry conspiring together to fix prices. That is illegal.
Hope Apple get to present case to supreme court and revert the lower court decision. Amazon is a monopoly in e-books.
And some of their recent changes in payments to self publishers is just wrong. Don't have a publisher? Ok then we'll pay you just on the pages read by the purchaser even though they (the reader/purchaser) have paid us 100% of the quoted price for the ebook.
I've stopped using Amazon since they made those changes. Yes, I am an author.
The DOJ made no error. This isn't about consumer prices. It's about an industry conspiring together to fix prices. That is illegal.
There's other sides to this.
An example;
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/04/11/amazon-is-the-big-winner-in-justice-dept-suit-against-apple-and-5-publishers.html
"Joe Wikert, the general manager and publisher of O’Reilly Media, which publishes about 200 e-books a year, said that if there was indeed a meeting of the minds, then the parties in the suit were, of course, guilty as charged. “But the fact that a whole bunch of them at a time decided to adopt the agency model for the sake of the future of the business, I don’t see how this is collusion.”
“It feels like the Justice Department is solving a mythical problem and creating a bigger predator in this way,” Wikert said, referring to Amazon. If the settlement allows Amazon to return to its $9.99 model, Wikert said that the brand—most importantly, the author’s name—would be cheapened.
Scott Turow, president of the Authors Guild, agrees. “Amazon’s predatory pricing would shield it from e-book competitors that lacked Amazon’s deep pockets,” Turow wrote on his blog last month. “The irony bites hard: our government may be on the verge of killing real competition in order to save the appearance of competition.”
Regardless of the merits of the case on either side, I've never understood why the DOJ would consider a $3 increase for an entertainment product to be a priority for prosecution when you have huge scams in areas like housing, health care, and education that are actually necessities for consumers. As a consumer, saying "no" to a NY Times bestseller because it's temporarily at a higher price isn't going to impact your quality of life very much.
The DOJ made no error. This isn't about consumer prices. It's about an industry conspiring together to fix prices. That is illegal.
Did you join just to troll the thread? Amazon was the monopoly, not Apple. Apple joining the ebook market brought competition to the market. Also, any agreements with Apple did not bind Amazon to do anything as you implied previously.
They (the publishers) got together and strong-armed Amazon into the same agreement they made with Apple. You gotta remember, these are old publishing houses with tons of political clout. They've published numerous statesmen, Presidents, ex-Presidents, and members of Congress. They most likely settled because that's the advice they were given.
Did the publishers all meet together?
Apple made seperate deals with the publishers. They just happen to be the same deal.
My understanding is that they did, but you gotta understand that most of the publishers operate in close proximity to each other. They're old businesses, and the CEOs all know each other, and probably attend each other's personal/private parties, and family functions. I'm actually quite baffled that they allowed Amazon to get the upper hand on them.
I don't think there was evidence they got together. The Doj inferred Apple was the ring leader and coordinated the "price fixing" even though Apple just wanted the same deal for the ebooks. To my knowledge, there was no evidence Apple discussed specifics of the deals with the others outside of the negotiating tactics.
They (the publishers) got together and strong-armed Amazon into the same agreement they made with Apple. You gotta remember, these are old publishing houses with tons of political clout. They've published numerous statesmen, Presidents, ex-Presidents, and members of Congress. They most likely settled because that's the advice they were given.
My point stands that the Apple agreement did not bind Amazon. If the publishers then went to Amazon to change the deal, that is on them.
Agreed, but they used Apple as a fulcrum to get leverage against Amazon, making it seem like Apple was somehow involved.
Judge Dennis Jacobs dissent in the circuit appeal explains why Apple had no choice but to act as they did:
http://eveshungry.blogspot.com/2015/07/dissent-in-apple-ebook-case-points-to.html
They're going to win this.
None of which changes the fact that Apple and the publishers conspired to fix prices, which is against the law. It's like a murderer defending himself by claiming that the person he killed might have killed others later. He's still guilty.
I joined the thread to bring some sorely needed truth. Regardless of Amazon's position in the market, Apple conspired with publishers to fix prices. You seem to think that if a company has a monopoly position, then competitors are allowed to break the law. They are not.
You don't bring competition by forcing every one to sell at the same or higher price. And, you should really research before you speak. Yes, Apple's agreement with the publishers did affect Amazon's ability to charge the price it wanted. Apple conspired to get all the publishers to move to the agency model, in which the publishers set the price, not the seller. Then, the contacted with those same publishers to charge the lowest price through Apple. No other seller could have a price lower than Apple. If Apple sold the book for $12.99, Amazon could not sell for lower than $12.99.
They're not. The Supreme Court will decline to hear the case, because it's open and shut. Apple aren't even arguing they didn't break the law anymore, they're arguing that they had to break it to compete.