And you know.. it was OK for Amazon to threaten book publishers and use their market position in the books business to gain control in ebook business.
Right- just like Steve Jobs and Apple treatened the music industry with $0.99 songs in order to sell more iPods while insisting it was doing so only to "save" the music industry from pirates.
Amazon just copied Apple when selling Kindles- same thing.
This is not true. In the lawsuit itself the DoJ said Apple condition was that APPLE have the right to LOWER the price to match anyone else and still take their 30% cut.
Apple doesn't control the price. Apple's contract says that the publisher must set the iTunes store price of their products at or below the lowest advertised price in any retail channel, including the wholesale channel. This protects Apple's reputation, since the public doesn't understand the basic fact that the iTunes isn't the "Apple" price.
If Apple used the whole sale model and sold ebooks at price lower that Amazon then they will say Apple is trying to crush the competition.
And you know.. it was OK for Amazon to threaten book publishers and use their market position in the books business to gain control in ebook business.
There is no evidence that Amazon violated any anti trust regulations. Having a powerful market position in and of itself is not illegal. If Amazon "gained" control of the ebook business as you stipulate, then Apple/Itunes would not have been able to enter it and become successful.
If you stay around long enough you'll realize you need to be aware of how Solip words his replies. He's technically correct that an agency model is not in and of itself illegal...
This is not true. In the lawsuit itself the DoJ said Apple condition was that APPLE have the right to LOWER the price to match anyone else and still take their 30% cut.
Like I said this is where it gets sticky. Apple lets the publishers set the price EXCEPT if someone else is selling it for less.
Maybe. On the other hand, the price of my Kindle e-books have risen by 30-50% since Apple entered the market, so it seems more plausible that this will reduce product prices over time.
What makes you so sure that that increase is because of Apple? Maybe Amazon simply got tired of selling things at a loss.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iSheldon
Colluding with providers of goods by price fixing is legal now? Say wha?
Maybe no one has explained it to you, but there's a principle in the US (and in Australia, too, AFAIK) that says that you're innocent until proven guilty. So far, no one has been found guilty.
Even the allegations are pretty vague. The published statements from Apple said essentially "if you use our model, you can charge more for your books and make more money". That is not the least bit illegal. It's only illegal if it can be proven that Apple colluded on setting prices.
From the DoJ complaint, and the fact that three of them have already agreed to a settlement, there seems little doubt that the publishers colluded during negotiations.
Not really. Just because you settle with somebody doesn't always mean that you admit any guilt or that any wrongdoing has occurred. There are lots of cases where they settle because the costs of fighting it are too high for them compared to the settlement.
We would need to see the exact settlement terms to know anything.
Not really. Just because you settle with somebody doesn't always mean that you admit any guilt or that any wrongdoing has occurred. There are lots of cases where they settle because the costs of fighting it are too high for them compared to the settlement.
We would need to see the exact settlement terms to know anything.
Absolutely true. But if coughing up ~52 million dollars is the 'easy way out' it says something...
Take off your Apple fanboi hat for a second and look at this objectively.
The evidence that the Justice department has gathered is pretty serious and damning against Apple.
They conspired with all the major Publishers to fix prices of new ebooks at 12.99 to 14.99. Apple has smart lawyers. They know this is illegal under anti-trust regulations in the US ( and in most other Western countries).
Apple should get sued by every country in which consumers were affected. If Apple is found guilt by the courts, then they should pay a fine that is equal to their gain from their illegal actions plus punitive damages.
Price fixing is anti competitive, anti consumer, and anti capitalistic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iSheldon
Colluding with providers of goods by price fixing is legal now? Say wha?
Did a company actually do this? Which one? Was it proven in court? Were they convicted?
Even the allegations are pretty vague. The published statements from Apple said essentially "if you use our model, you can charge more for your books and make more money". That is not the least bit illegal. It's only illegal if it can be proven that Apple colluded on setting prices.
I agree. It sounds worse for the publishers since there are more than them involved. From the loop:
Quote:
The Department of Justice ?has a far better case against the publishers than Apple,? says Dominick Armentano, professor emeritus of economics at the University of Hartford and author of Antitrust and Monopoly who?s now affiliated with the Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif. ?If the CEOs of the various publishers got together in hotel rooms to discuss prices, they are sunk? and might as well settle, he says.
Such meetings by the way (according to the linked article at the Loop) was that Apple was not at said meetings.
Apple really doesn't need to collude with the publishers at all - liability wise it wouldn't be. They just have to say that they want to use the agency model - a model that is in your best interests because of X. That really isn't collusion per se.
Not really. Just because you settle with somebody doesn't always mean that you admit any guilt or that any wrongdoing has occurred. There are lots of cases where they settle because the costs of fighting it are too high for them compared to the settlement.
We would need to see the exact settlement terms to know anything.
I wasn't talking about the complaint (which I have read). I was merely pointing out that a settlement with one party doesn't necessarily imply guilt on other parties or guilt on the parties that settled unless the terms of said said settlement involve admission of guilt. The person that will determine guilt is the judge and jury unless settlement terms dictate otherwise.
I don't really care what the complaint says - it's not proof and it has no bearing on guilt until a trial happens or a settlement involving admission of guilt occurs. I render no absolute options on the merits of the case other than what other people may say.
Right- just like Steve Jobs and Apple treatened the music industry with $0.99 songs in order to sell more iPods while insisting it was doing so only to "save" the music industry from pirates.
Amazon just copied Apple when selling Kindles- same thing.
Really? where did Apple said they were doing so to save the music industry? You keep making shit up. Back up your statement. Furthermore, there is no book piracy issue. So Amazon was not saving anything. Not same thing.
Apple doesn't control the price. Apple's contract says that the publisher must set the iTunes store price of their products at or below the lowest advertised price in any retail channel, including the wholesale channel. This protects Apple's reputation, since the public doesn't understand the basic fact that the iTunes isn't the "Apple" price.
I wasn't talking about the complaint (which I have read). I was merely pointing out that a settlement with one party doesn't necessarily imply guilt on other parties or guilt on the parties that settled unless the terms of said said settlement involve admission of guilt. The person that will determine guilt is the judge and jury unless settlement terms dictate otherwise.
The original point I made was that three of the five publishers settled. That, combined with the text of the complaint, which I still doubt that you read completely, leads one to believe that the publishers likely colluded. Hence the original statement I made "little doubt that the publishers colluded."
Did you like the part where, before the MFN clause, Apple wanted to include a requirement that the publishers guarantee to switch all contract to agency instead of wholesale? Or that Apple doesn't want to compete on price which is why this specific "unusual" MFN came from?
Apple doesn't control the price, other than inasmuch as they've contractually fixed the prices that the publishers will use in the absence of lower prices elsewhere.
There is no evidence that Amazon violated any anti trust regulations. Having a powerful market position in and of itself is not illegal. If Amazon "gained" control of the ebook business as you stipulate, then Apple/Itunes would not have been able to enter it and become successful.
In Aug 2010 Amazon said they have 70-80% of the ebook business. If that isn't control then I don't know would.
If it wasn't for Apple they would still have that much if not more. They got the publishers by you know what until Apple offered the alternative "agency model".
Really? where did Apple said they were doing so to save the music industry? You keep making shit up. Back up your statement. Furthermore, there is no book piracy issue. So Amazon was not saving anything. Not same thing.
Dude- quotation marks mean just that- I'm quoting something. It has been said over and over on here that that is what Apple did. I never said Apple said.....
If it wasn't for Apple they would still have that much if not more. They got the publishers by you know what until Apple offered the alternative "agency model".
So you'll defend greedy publishers but not greedy music producers all on Apple's behalf. Nice.
Comments
And you know.. it was OK for Amazon to threaten book publishers and use their market position in the books business to gain control in ebook business.
Right- just like Steve Jobs and Apple treatened the music industry with $0.99 songs in order to sell more iPods while insisting it was doing so only to "save" the music industry from pirates.
Amazon just copied Apple when selling Kindles- same thing.
This is not true. In the lawsuit itself the DoJ said Apple condition was that APPLE have the right to LOWER the price to match anyone else and still take their 30% cut.
Apple doesn't control the price. Apple's contract says that the publisher must set the iTunes store price of their products at or below the lowest advertised price in any retail channel, including the wholesale channel. This protects Apple's reputation, since the public doesn't understand the basic fact that the iTunes isn't the "Apple" price.
If Apple used the whole sale model and sold ebooks at price lower that Amazon then they will say Apple is trying to crush the competition.
And you know.. it was OK for Amazon to threaten book publishers and use their market position in the books business to gain control in ebook business.
There is no evidence that Amazon violated any anti trust regulations. Having a powerful market position in and of itself is not illegal. If Amazon "gained" control of the ebook business as you stipulate, then Apple/Itunes would not have been able to enter it and become successful.
Colluding with providers of goods by price fixing is legal now? Say wha?
http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.co...-book-pricing/
If you stay around long enough you'll realize you need to be aware of how Solip words his replies. He's technically correct that an agency model is not in and of itself illegal...
but the way this one was put together might be.
the fact that three of them have already agreed to a settlement, there seems little doubt that the publishers colluded during negotiations.
It's less clear that Apple "colluded" in the same way, we'll find out with the outcome of the current DoJ complaint.
That's exactly my take away.
This is not true. In the lawsuit itself the DoJ said Apple condition was that APPLE have the right to LOWER the price to match anyone else and still take their 30% cut.
Like I said this is where it gets sticky. Apple lets the publishers set the price EXCEPT if someone else is selling it for less.
Maybe. On the other hand, the price of my Kindle e-books have risen by 30-50% since Apple entered the market, so it seems more plausible that this will reduce product prices over time.
What makes you so sure that that increase is because of Apple? Maybe Amazon simply got tired of selling things at a loss.
Colluding with providers of goods by price fixing is legal now? Say wha?
http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.co...-book-pricing/
Maybe no one has explained it to you, but there's a principle in the US (and in Australia, too, AFAIK) that says that you're innocent until proven guilty. So far, no one has been found guilty.
Even the allegations are pretty vague. The published statements from Apple said essentially "if you use our model, you can charge more for your books and make more money". That is not the least bit illegal. It's only illegal if it can be proven that Apple colluded on setting prices.
From the DoJ complaint, and the fact that three of them have already agreed to a settlement, there seems little doubt that the publishers colluded during negotiations.
Not really. Just because you settle with somebody doesn't always mean that you admit any guilt or that any wrongdoing has occurred. There are lots of cases where they settle because the costs of fighting it are too high for them compared to the settlement.
We would need to see the exact settlement terms to know anything.
Not really. Just because you settle with somebody doesn't always mean that you admit any guilt or that any wrongdoing has occurred. There are lots of cases where they settle because the costs of fighting it are too high for them compared to the settlement.
We would need to see the exact settlement terms to know anything.
Absolutely true. But if coughing up ~52 million dollars is the 'easy way out' it says something...
Take off your Apple fanboi hat for a second and look at this objectively.
The evidence that the Justice department has gathered is pretty serious and damning against Apple.
They conspired with all the major Publishers to fix prices of new ebooks at 12.99 to 14.99. Apple has smart lawyers. They know this is illegal under anti-trust regulations in the US ( and in most other Western countries).
Apple should get sued by every country in which consumers were affected. If Apple is found guilt by the courts, then they should pay a fine that is equal to their gain from their illegal actions plus punitive damages.
Price fixing is anti competitive, anti consumer, and anti capitalistic.
Colluding with providers of goods by price fixing is legal now? Say wha?
Did a company actually do this? Which one? Was it proven in court? Were they convicted?
Even the allegations are pretty vague. The published statements from Apple said essentially "if you use our model, you can charge more for your books and make more money". That is not the least bit illegal. It's only illegal if it can be proven that Apple colluded on setting prices.
I agree. It sounds worse for the publishers since there are more than them involved. From the loop:
The Department of Justice ?has a far better case against the publishers than Apple,? says Dominick Armentano, professor emeritus of economics at the University of Hartford and author of Antitrust and Monopoly who?s now affiliated with the Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif. ?If the CEOs of the various publishers got together in hotel rooms to discuss prices, they are sunk? and might as well settle, he says.
Such meetings by the way (according to the linked article at the Loop) was that Apple was not at said meetings.
Apple really doesn't need to collude with the publishers at all - liability wise it wouldn't be. They just have to say that they want to use the agency model - a model that is in your best interests because of X. That really isn't collusion per se.
Not really. Just because you settle with somebody doesn't always mean that you admit any guilt or that any wrongdoing has occurred. There are lots of cases where they settle because the costs of fighting it are too high for them compared to the settlement.
We would need to see the exact settlement terms to know anything.
Sure, but you didn't read the complaint, did you?
Sure, but you didn't read the complaint, did you?
I wasn't talking about the complaint (which I have read). I was merely pointing out that a settlement with one party doesn't necessarily imply guilt on other parties or guilt on the parties that settled unless the terms of said said settlement involve admission of guilt. The person that will determine guilt is the judge and jury unless settlement terms dictate otherwise.
I don't really care what the complaint says - it's not proof and it has no bearing on guilt until a trial happens or a settlement involving admission of guilt occurs. I render no absolute options on the merits of the case other than what other people may say.
Right- just like Steve Jobs and Apple treatened the music industry with $0.99 songs in order to sell more iPods while insisting it was doing so only to "save" the music industry from pirates.
Amazon just copied Apple when selling Kindles- same thing.
Really? where did Apple said they were doing so to save the music industry? You keep making shit up. Back up your statement. Furthermore, there is no book piracy issue. So Amazon was not saving anything. Not same thing.
Apple doesn't control the price. Apple's contract says that the publisher must set the iTunes store price of their products at or below the lowest advertised price in any retail channel, including the wholesale channel. This protects Apple's reputation, since the public doesn't understand the basic fact that the iTunes isn't the "Apple" price.
Go read the complaint and then come back.
I wasn't talking about the complaint (which I have read). I was merely pointing out that a settlement with one party doesn't necessarily imply guilt on other parties or guilt on the parties that settled unless the terms of said said settlement involve admission of guilt. The person that will determine guilt is the judge and jury unless settlement terms dictate otherwise.
The original point I made was that three of the five publishers settled. That, combined with the text of the complaint, which I still doubt that you read completely, leads one to believe that the publishers likely colluded. Hence the original statement I made "little doubt that the publishers colluded."
Go read the complaint and then come back.
Did you like the part where, before the MFN clause, Apple wanted to include a requirement that the publishers guarantee to switch all contract to agency instead of wholesale? Or that Apple doesn't want to compete on price which is why this specific "unusual" MFN came from?
Apple doesn't control the price, other than inasmuch as they've contractually fixed the prices that the publishers will use in the absence of lower prices elsewhere.
There is no evidence that Amazon violated any anti trust regulations. Having a powerful market position in and of itself is not illegal. If Amazon "gained" control of the ebook business as you stipulate, then Apple/Itunes would not have been able to enter it and become successful.
In Aug 2010 Amazon said they have 70-80% of the ebook business. If that isn't control then I don't know would.
http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-18438_7-20012381-82.html
If it wasn't for Apple they would still have that much if not more. They got the publishers by you know what until Apple offered the alternative "agency model".
Really? where did Apple said they were doing so to save the music industry? You keep making shit up. Back up your statement. Furthermore, there is no book piracy issue. So Amazon was not saving anything. Not same thing.
Dude- quotation marks mean just that- I'm quoting something. It has been said over and over on here that that is what Apple did. I never said Apple said.....
If it wasn't for Apple they would still have that much if not more. They got the publishers by you know what until Apple offered the alternative "agency model".
So you'll defend greedy publishers but not greedy music producers all on Apple's behalf. Nice.