If it's open an shut, why did one circuit court judge dissent (and argue that that the case created a circuit split which demanded the Supreme Court intervene)? And why, couldn't the two judges who rejected the appeal, agree that Apple had violated the law under a rule of reason standard? Further, Apple hasn't argued that it "broke the law." That's simply not true. In fact, Apple has frequently stated it did not break the law, and the original judges decision was "bizarre."
It's fine if you firmly believe that a vertical connection to a horizontal conspiracy "clearly" means that any anti-trust violation should be determined from a "per-se" basis rather than a "rule of reason." If you believe that, fine. But this silly meme that Apple doesn't have a case is absolute bunk. There is a very serious legal question on the table, as Judge Jacobs stated. And I don't think there is any reason to believe that this current, very pro-business Supreme Court, is going to punt and not address it.
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.
If the competition is using predatory pricing to gain marketshare, which is precisely what Amazon was doing with the wholesale model, then indeed Apple and everyone else wouldn't be able to compete because they couldn't or wouldn't subsidize the sales by selling below market cost.
That isn't a sustainable business model.
Further, Apple has only been convicted of collusion, which they are appealing, and that is based on the Court;s inability to understand what reasonable business negotiating tactics are.. The publishers were already onboard with the Agency Model. One of the three Appellate judges vigorously noted that.
Meanwhile, the FTC can't even decide what it wants to do;
"Market Power
Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors. That is how that term is used here: a "monopolist" is a firm with significant and durable market power. Courts look at the firm's market share, but typically do not find monopoly power if the firm (or a group of firms acting in concert) has less than 50 percent of the sales of a particular product or service within a certain geographic area. Some courts have required much higher percentages. In addition, that leading position must be sustainable over time: if competitive forces or the entry of new firms could discipline the conduct of the leading firm, courts are unlikely to find that the firm has lasting market power."
Amazon was at 90% of ebook sales at the time of the so called "collusion".
"Predatory or Below-Cost Pricing
Can prices ever be "too low?" The short answer is yes, but not very often. Generally, low prices benefit consumers. Consumers are harmed only if below-cost pricing allows a dominant competitor to knock its rivals out of the market and then raise prices to above-market levels for a substantial time. A firm's independent decision to reduce prices to a level below its own costs does not necessarily injure competition, and, in fact, may simply reflect particularly vigorous competition. Instances of a large firm using low prices to drive smaller competitors out of the market in hopes of raising prices after they leave are rare. This strategy can only be successful if the short-run losses from pricing below cost will be made up for by much higher prices over a longer period of time after competitors leave the market. Although the FTC examines claims of predatory pricing carefully, courts, including the Supreme Court, have been skeptical of such claims."
Where is the competitive market if an online retailer of "everything" uses its market position to subsidize below cost pricing over long periods of time, even indefinitely, of a singular product or service, which in effect forces competitors to exit the market? In this case, it also has the effect of diminishing value of the content creators that are germane to the business of books and ebooks.
Everything that Apple has done in ebook negotiations they did with music and video; they negotiated with all the content parties to create a stable market, and they are doing it again with music streaming at a higher level than previously existed. One wonders why the DOJ ever got involved with the with the case, and why there have been such extreme measures by the Court to restrain Apple.
If the competition is using predatory pricing to gain marketshare, which is precisely what Amazon was doing with the wholesale model, then indeed Apple and everyone else wouldn't be able to compete because they couldn't or wouldn't subsidize the sales by selling below market cost.
That isn't a sustainable business model.
Further, Apple has only been convicted of collusion, which they are appealing, and that is based on the Court;s inability to understand what reasonable business negotiating tactics are.. The publishers were already onboard with the Agency Model. One of the three Appellate judges vigorously noted that.
Meanwhile, the FTC can't even decide what it wants to do;
<p style="color:rgb(50,50,50);margin-bottom:1em;">Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors. That is how that term is used here: a "monopolist" is a firm with significant and durable market power. Courts look at the firm's market share, but typically do not find monopoly power if the firm (or a group of firms acting in concert) has less than 50 percent of the sales of a particular product or service within a certain geographic area. Some courts have required much higher percentages. In addition, that leading position must be sustainable over time: if competitive forces or the entry of new firms could discipline the conduct of the leading firm, courts are unlikely to find that the firm has lasting market power."</p>
<p style="color:rgb(50,50,50);margin-bottom:1em;">Amazon was at 90% of ebook sales at the time of the so called "collusion".</p>
<h1 id="user_page-title" style="color:rgb(36,72,115);letter-spacing:-.02em;margin-bottom:.385em;margin-top:0px;">"Predatory or Below-Cost Pricing</h1>
<div style="margin-bottom:1em;"><span style="color:rgb(50,50,50);line-height:1.4em;">Can prices ever be "too low?" The short answer is yes, but not very often. Generally, low prices benefit consumers. Consumers are harmed only if below-cost pricing allows a dominant competitor to knock its rivals out of the market and then raise prices to above-market levels for a substantial time. A firm's independent decision to reduce prices to a level below its own costs does not necessarily injure competition, and, in fact, may simply reflect particularly vigorous competition. Instances of a large firm using low prices to drive smaller competitors out of the market in hopes of raising prices after they leave are rare. This strategy can only be successful if the short-run losses from pricing below cost will be made up for by much higher prices over a longer period of time after competitors leave the market. Although the FTC examines claims of predatory pricing carefully, courts, including the Supreme Court, have been skeptical of such claims."</span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom:1em;">Where is the competitive market if an online retailer of "everything" uses its market position to subsidize below cost pricing over long periods of time, even <span style="line-height:22.399999618530273px;">indefinitely, of a singular product or service</span>
, which in effect forces competitors to exit the market? In this case, it also has the effect of diminishing value of the content creators that are germane to the business of books and ebooks. </div>
Everything that Apple has done in ebook negotiations they did with music and video; they negotiated with all the content parties to create a stable market, and they are doing it again with music streaming at a higher level than previously existed. One wonders why the DOJ ever got involved with the with the case, and why there have been such extreme measures by the Court to restrain Apple.
Nice, lengthy post. But you forgot a couple of things. First, the Apple case began as an investigation of Amazon (at Apple's behest), and it was found that Amazon does not engage in predatory pricing. They do use loss leaders, which is entirely legal. The investigation found that Amazon's ebook business is profitable, so it is sustainable.
Second, you're forgetting the part about Apple wanting to make more money than they could by simply competing with Amazon doesn't allow them to break the law, which they did. Stop making excuses for Apple. They did wrong, they should have the consequences. Gathering all the publishers together and planning to set the system up in order to raise prices is textbook price fixing.
As for your final question why did the DOJ get involved? I answered that in my first paragraph - they got involved because Apple requested they get involved. Apple hates to compete, and will take any measures to avoid it. Or, I should say, Apple under Steve Jobs did. Apple under Tim Cook is competing, and not pulling all these shenanigans.
Nice, lengthy post. But you forgot a couple of things. First, the Apple case began as an investigation of Amazon (at Apple's behest), and it was found that Amazon does not engage in predatory pricing. They do use loss leaders, which is entirely legal. The investigation found that Amazon's ebook business is profitable, so it is sustainable.
Second, you're forgetting the part about Apple wanting to make more money than they could by simply competing with Amazon doesn't allow them to break the law, which they did. Stop making excuses for Apple. They did wrong, they should have the consequences. Gathering all the publishers together and planning to set the system up in order to raise prices is textbook price fixing.
As for your final question why did the DOJ get involved? I answered that in my first paragraph - they got involved because Apple requested they get involved. Apple hates to compete, and will take any measures to avoid it. Or, I should say, Apple under Steve Jobs did. Apple under Tim Cook is competing, and not pulling all these shenanigans.
Do you have a source stating that Apple initiated a DOJ investigation of Amazon? Please provide it, because I have never seen anything to that effect anywhere.
Secondly, Apple's attempt to convince the publishers to adopt the Agency Model was not illegal. The Court cited "collusion" with the Publishers which Apple disputes, and at least one of the Appellate Judges in dissent argued that Apple was not colluding, merely negotiating.
Apple under Steve Jobs hated to compete? Really? Because Steve Jobs wanted to defend Apple's IP from copying, or is there some other reason?
As for your final question why did the DOJ get involved? I answered that in my first paragraph - they got involved because Apple requested they get involved. Apple hates to compete, and will take any measures to avoid it. Or, I should say, Apple under Steve Jobs did. Apple under Tim Cook is competing, and not pulling all these shenanigans.
Are you drunk? Apple hates to compete?
Haha haha haha.
Apple hates theft. Apple wants to avoid competition, that's why they enter these competitive markets and become a business. That is such a foolish statement.
And I do believe Amazon requested this inquiry as they hate to compete. They set a low-price barrier to entry. That's why Amazon has 90% of the ebook market prior to Apple.
The court's decision WRT the Apple e-book case sure looked to me as if the decision to stick a spy into Apple (in the form of that twat, Bromwich) had been predetermined and the court case was just the quickest path to do that.
If the competition is using predatory pricing to gain marketshare, which is precisely what Amazon was doing with the wholesale model, then indeed Apple and everyone else wouldn't be able to compete because they couldn't or wouldn't subsidize the sales by selling below market cost.
That isn't a sustainable business model.
Further, Apple has only been convicted of collusion, which they are appealing, and that is based on the Court;s inability to understand what reasonable business negotiating tactics are.. The publishers were already onboard with the Agency Model. One of the three Appellate judges vigorously noted that.
Meanwhile, the FTC can't even decide what it wants to do;
<p style="color:rgb(50,50,50);margin-bottom:1em;">Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors. That is how that term is used here: a "monopolist" is a firm with significant and durable market power. Courts look at the firm's market share, but typically do not find monopoly power if the firm (or a group of firms acting in concert) has less than 50 percent of the sales of a particular product or service within a certain geographic area. Some courts have required much higher percentages. In addition, that leading position must be sustainable over time: if competitive forces or the entry of new firms could discipline the conduct of the leading firm, courts are unlikely to find that the firm has lasting market power."</p>
<p style="color:rgb(50,50,50);margin-bottom:1em;">Amazon was at 90% of ebook sales at the time of the so called "collusion".</p>
<h1 id="user_page-title" style="color:rgb(36,72,115);letter-spacing:-.02em;margin-bottom:.385em;margin-top:0px;">"Predatory or Below-Cost Pricing</h1>
<div style="margin-bottom:1em;"><span style="color:rgb(50,50,50);line-height:1.4em;">Can prices ever be "too low?" The short answer is yes, but not very often. Generally, low prices benefit consumers. Consumers are harmed only if below-cost pricing allows a dominant competitor to knock its rivals out of the market and then raise prices to above-market levels for a substantial time. A firm's independent decision to reduce prices to a level below its own costs does not necessarily injure competition, and, in fact, may simply reflect particularly vigorous competition. Instances of a large firm using low prices to drive smaller competitors out of the market in hopes of raising prices after they leave are rare. This strategy can only be successful if the short-run losses from pricing below cost will be made up for by much higher prices over a longer period of time after competitors leave the market. Although the FTC examines claims of predatory pricing carefully, courts, including the Supreme Court, have been skeptical of such claims."</span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom:1em;">Where is the competitive market if an online retailer of "everything" uses its market position to subsidize below cost pricing over long periods of time, even <span style="line-height:22.399999618530273px;">indefinitely, of a singular product or service</span>
, which in effect forces competitors to exit the market? In this case, it also has the effect of diminishing value of the content creators that are germane to the business of books and ebooks. </div>
Everything that Apple has done in ebook negotiations they did with music and video; they negotiated with all the content parties to create a stable market, and they are doing it again with music streaming at a higher level than previously existed. One wonders why the DOJ ever got involved with the with the case, and why there have been such extreme measures by the Court to restrain Apple.
Apple hates theft. Apple wants to avoid competition, that's why they enter these competitive markets and become a business. That is such a foolish statement.
And I do believe Amazon requested this inquiry as they hate to compete. They set a low-price barrier to entry. That's why Amazon has 90% of the ebook market prior to Apple.
First, I said Apple under Jobs hated to compete, which is why they engaged in anticompetitive practices like price fixing and reverse holdups (both of which were found to be the case by the legal body and stand to this day).
I've laid out the actual facts of this case. They're part of the public record. I'm not sure if you're intentionally ignoring them or if they just can't make it intact when they cross the even horizon of the RDF. Here they are again.
1) APPLE requested the investigation by the DOJ of Amazon that ultimately led to the finding.
2) That investigation cleared Amazon of ALL illegal practices, and concluded that not only did Amazon not engage in predatory pricing, but thir ebook business was profitable. They do use loss leaders, as do many businesses, including Apple.
3) During the course of this investigation (which Apple requested), it was discovered that Apple had gathered all the major publishers and negotiated with them to switch to an agency model, and to guarantee that they would set Apple's retail price lowest.
4) Based on this act of price fixing, a case was started against Apple and the publishers. The publishers settled almost immediately. Apple chose to go to court.
5) Apple was found guilty. The presiding judge even gave Apple a warning before she ruled that the evidence was overwhelming, and a chance to settle. They refused and were found guilty.
6) They appealed, and the Appeals court affirmed the lower court ruling.
You don't have to like it, you just have to live with it.
First, I said Apple under Jobs hated to compete, which is why they engaged in anticompetitive practices like price fixing and reverse holdups (both of which were found to be the case by the legal body and stand to this day).
I've laid out the actual facts of this case. They're part of the public record. I'm not sure if you're intentionally ignoring them or if they just can't make it intact when they cross the even horizon of the RDF. Here they are again.
1) APPLE requested the investigation by the DOJ of Amazon that ultimately led to the finding.
2) That investigation cleared Amazon of ALL illegal practices, and concluded that not only did Amazon not engage in predatory pricing, but thir ebook business was profitable. They do use loss leaders, as do many businesses, including Apple.
3) During the course of this investigation (which Apple requested), it was discovered that Apple had gathered all the major publishers and negotiated with them to switch to an agency model, and to guarantee that they would set Apple's retail price lowest.
4) Based on this act of price fixing, a case was started against Apple and the publishers. The publishers settled almost immediately. Apple chose to go to court.
5) Apple was found guilty. The presiding judge even gave Apple a warning before she ruled that the evidence was overwhelming, and a chance to settle. They refused and were found guilty.
6) They appealed, and the Appeals court affirmed the lower court ruling.
You don't have to like it, you just have to live with it.
Show me the link to the investigation that Apple initiated the DOH investigation against Amazon; then I'll exit without further commenting.
The rest of the stuff is debatable, as it has always been, but I'll be happy to give you a "win" if you show me the link.
Comments
If it's open an shut, why did one circuit court judge dissent (and argue that that the case created a circuit split which demanded the Supreme Court intervene)? And why, couldn't the two judges who rejected the appeal, agree that Apple had violated the law under a rule of reason standard? Further, Apple hasn't argued that it "broke the law." That's simply not true. In fact, Apple has frequently stated it did not break the law, and the original judges decision was "bizarre."
It's fine if you firmly believe that a vertical connection to a horizontal conspiracy "clearly" means that any anti-trust violation should be determined from a "per-se" basis rather than a "rule of reason." If you believe that, fine. But this silly meme that Apple doesn't have a case is absolute bunk. There is a very serious legal question on the table, as Judge Jacobs stated. And I don't think there is any reason to believe that this current, very pro-business Supreme Court, is going to punt and not address it.
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.
If the competition is using predatory pricing to gain marketshare, which is precisely what Amazon was doing with the wholesale model, then indeed Apple and everyone else wouldn't be able to compete because they couldn't or wouldn't subsidize the sales by selling below market cost.
That isn't a sustainable business model.
Further, Apple has only been convicted of collusion, which they are appealing, and that is based on the Court;s inability to understand what reasonable business negotiating tactics are.. The publishers were already onboard with the Agency Model. One of the three Appellate judges vigorously noted that.
Meanwhile, the FTC can't even decide what it wants to do;
"Market Power
Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors. That is how that term is used here: a "monopolist" is a firm with significant and durable market power. Courts look at the firm's market share, but typically do not find monopoly power if the firm (or a group of firms acting in concert) has less than 50 percent of the sales of a particular product or service within a certain geographic area. Some courts have required much higher percentages. In addition, that leading position must be sustainable over time: if competitive forces or the entry of new firms could discipline the conduct of the leading firm, courts are unlikely to find that the firm has lasting market power."
Amazon was at 90% of ebook sales at the time of the so called "collusion".
"Predatory or Below-Cost Pricing
Everything that Apple has done in ebook negotiations they did with music and video; they negotiated with all the content parties to create a stable market, and they are doing it again with music streaming at a higher level than previously existed. One wonders why the DOJ ever got involved with the with the case, and why there have been such extreme measures by the Court to restrain Apple.
Nice, lengthy post. But you forgot a couple of things. First, the Apple case began as an investigation of Amazon (at Apple's behest), and it was found that Amazon does not engage in predatory pricing. They do use loss leaders, which is entirely legal. The investigation found that Amazon's ebook business is profitable, so it is sustainable.
Second, you're forgetting the part about Apple wanting to make more money than they could by simply competing with Amazon doesn't allow them to break the law, which they did. Stop making excuses for Apple. They did wrong, they should have the consequences. Gathering all the publishers together and planning to set the system up in order to raise prices is textbook price fixing.
As for your final question why did the DOJ get involved? I answered that in my first paragraph - they got involved because Apple requested they get involved. Apple hates to compete, and will take any measures to avoid it. Or, I should say, Apple under Steve Jobs did. Apple under Tim Cook is competing, and not pulling all these shenanigans.
Nice, lengthy post. But you forgot a couple of things. First, the Apple case began as an investigation of Amazon (at Apple's behest), and it was found that Amazon does not engage in predatory pricing. They do use loss leaders, which is entirely legal. The investigation found that Amazon's ebook business is profitable, so it is sustainable.
Second, you're forgetting the part about Apple wanting to make more money than they could by simply competing with Amazon doesn't allow them to break the law, which they did. Stop making excuses for Apple. They did wrong, they should have the consequences. Gathering all the publishers together and planning to set the system up in order to raise prices is textbook price fixing.
As for your final question why did the DOJ get involved? I answered that in my first paragraph - they got involved because Apple requested they get involved. Apple hates to compete, and will take any measures to avoid it. Or, I should say, Apple under Steve Jobs did. Apple under Tim Cook is competing, and not pulling all these shenanigans.
Do you have a source stating that Apple initiated a DOJ investigation of Amazon? Please provide it, because I have never seen anything to that effect anywhere.
Secondly, Apple's attempt to convince the publishers to adopt the Agency Model was not illegal. The Court cited "collusion" with the Publishers which Apple disputes, and at least one of the Appellate Judges in dissent argued that Apple was not colluding, merely negotiating.
Apple under Steve Jobs hated to compete? Really? Because Steve Jobs wanted to defend Apple's IP from copying, or is there some other reason?
Are you drunk? Apple hates to compete?
Haha haha haha.
Apple hates theft. Apple wants to avoid competition, that's why they enter these competitive markets and become a business. That is such a foolish statement.
And I do believe Amazon requested this inquiry as they hate to compete. They set a low-price barrier to entry. That's why Amazon has 90% of the ebook market prior to Apple.
First, I said Apple under Jobs hated to compete, which is why they engaged in anticompetitive practices like price fixing and reverse holdups (both of which were found to be the case by the legal body and stand to this day).
I've laid out the actual facts of this case. They're part of the public record. I'm not sure if you're intentionally ignoring them or if they just can't make it intact when they cross the even horizon of the RDF. Here they are again.
1) APPLE requested the investigation by the DOJ of Amazon that ultimately led to the finding.
2) That investigation cleared Amazon of ALL illegal practices, and concluded that not only did Amazon not engage in predatory pricing, but thir ebook business was profitable. They do use loss leaders, as do many businesses, including Apple.
3) During the course of this investigation (which Apple requested), it was discovered that Apple had gathered all the major publishers and negotiated with them to switch to an agency model, and to guarantee that they would set Apple's retail price lowest.
4) Based on this act of price fixing, a case was started against Apple and the publishers. The publishers settled almost immediately. Apple chose to go to court.
5) Apple was found guilty. The presiding judge even gave Apple a warning before she ruled that the evidence was overwhelming, and a chance to settle. They refused and were found guilty.
6) They appealed, and the Appeals court affirmed the lower court ruling.
You don't have to like it, you just have to live with it.
First, I said Apple under Jobs hated to compete, which is why they engaged in anticompetitive practices like price fixing and reverse holdups (both of which were found to be the case by the legal body and stand to this day).
I've laid out the actual facts of this case. They're part of the public record. I'm not sure if you're intentionally ignoring them or if they just can't make it intact when they cross the even horizon of the RDF. Here they are again.
1) APPLE requested the investigation by the DOJ of Amazon that ultimately led to the finding.
2) That investigation cleared Amazon of ALL illegal practices, and concluded that not only did Amazon not engage in predatory pricing, but thir ebook business was profitable. They do use loss leaders, as do many businesses, including Apple.
3) During the course of this investigation (which Apple requested), it was discovered that Apple had gathered all the major publishers and negotiated with them to switch to an agency model, and to guarantee that they would set Apple's retail price lowest.
4) Based on this act of price fixing, a case was started against Apple and the publishers. The publishers settled almost immediately. Apple chose to go to court.
5) Apple was found guilty. The presiding judge even gave Apple a warning before she ruled that the evidence was overwhelming, and a chance to settle. They refused and were found guilty.
6) They appealed, and the Appeals court affirmed the lower court ruling.
You don't have to like it, you just have to live with it.
Show me the link to the investigation that Apple initiated the DOH investigation against Amazon; then I'll exit without further commenting.
The rest of the stuff is debatable, as it has always been, but I'll be happy to give you a "win" if you show me the link.