So I need to post an anti-trust case that Amazon lost in regards to their ill-gotten eBook monopoly or I need to withdrawal my opinion about Amazon's anti-competitve tactics? Seriously?!
I've not read or found the case you appear to mention and I'd be happy to read it so please post it. Post something to support this claim, and the claim isn't opinion it is about numbers, that Amazon is losing money on their ebook sales in order to buy marketshare.
That claim isn't like vanilla is the best ice cream. It is supportable by facts. Please post them.
I've not read or found the case you appear to mention and I'd be happy to read it so please post it. Post something to support this claim, and the claim isn't opinion it is about numbers, that Amazon is losing money on their ebook sales in order to buy marketshare.
That claim isn't like vanilla is the best ice cream. It is supportable by facts. Please post them.
I know several posters here are absolutely certain Amazon loses money on Kindle and book sales, but I don't know where they're getting their facts from. I've seen everything from Amazon taking a loss of $50 every time they sell a Kindle to Amazon making a profit of over $130 average from the sale of one. I guess pick and choose whichever one fits your argument.
Good point. I just found it interesting that the DoJ has about 10 "example" slides in their opening statement that featured an example of Amazon selling eBooks. On every single slide, the price that Amazon pays to the publishers is less than what they charge to consumers. I can't believe that Amazon is losing money on every book they sell, but the DoJ thought it was reasonable enough and common enough to use it for every one of their examples. Maybe these slides are left over from their top secret, pending Amazon predatory pricing case
On every single slide, the price that Amazon pays to the publishers is less than what they charge to consumers. I can't believe that Amazon is losing money on every book they sell, but the DoJ thought it was reasonable enough and common enough to use it for every one of their examples. Maybe these slides are left over from their top secret, pending Amazon predatory pricing case
Apple is not accused of price fixing, they're accused of price fixing AND collusion with the major publishers, thus causing a monopolistic position and an abuse of market power.
How can a non-monopoly player be accused of monopolistic practices? The mind boggles.
I hope people here to at least read the standards/rules for antitrust violations before mixing up some terms and think they make any sense.
Even with my limited knowledge, I know that section one violation does not require the consipirator to possess monopoly power. Certainly if you can have all major publishers to "agree" to a certain price mechanism, you will unreasonably restrain the commerce. But that does not mean you need to prove market power or Apple has to be the monopolist. Pendergast is just adding terms to conclude something that is not the law.
Also while it may sound silly, price fixing is a term of art and is illegal per se. Setting price for a new product like blanket license for music composers, on the other hand, is okay but that case does not help Apple.
I hope people here to actually read the standards/rules for antitrust violations before mixing up some terms and think they make any sense.
Even with my limited knowledge, I know that section one violation does not require the consipirator to possess monopoly power. Certainly if you can have all major publishers to "agree" to certain price mechanism, you will unreasonably restrain the commerce. But that does not mean you need to prove market power or Apple has to be the monopolist.
Also while it may sound silly, price fixing is a term of art and is illegal per se. Setting price for a new product like blanket license for music composers, on the other hand, is okay but that case does not help Apple.
How can a non-monopoly player be accused of monopolistic practices? The mind boggles.
In the allegation, Apple is not the monopoly... it's the PUBLISHERS who, by colluding together, that form a monopoly, and then abused their market power. Allegedly.
In the DoJ's case, to put in simpler terms, Apple is being accused of at least being the bank robber's getaway car-driver, or even the mastermind. Not the actual robbers, but still a part of it.
As I've read it, that's the case they're basically trying to make.
While I did not have you in mind when I replied, I think you do not know what you are talking about, seeing you simply citing the DOJ policies.
How so? What agencies would normally raise anti-trust concerns? The DoJ is one, and the FTC another? The FTC guidelines don't seem to veer away from the DoJ's guide I already linked and neither paper is hard to understand IMO. I'm admittedly no lawyer, nor pretend to be one and perhaps you do have legal training. If so, set me straight. http://www.ftc.gov/os/2000/04/ftcdojguidelines.pdf http://www.steptoe.com/assets/attachments/30.pdf
Because your link does not relate to what I said other than the subject matter.
The DoJ policy does not say what the law actually is. I'd rather read actual Sherman Act and other related statutes like Robinson Patman Act. Even when they are so broad and case law is the real key to understand the antitrust law, at least they are better than the DoJ policy.
I hope people here to at least read the standards/rules for antitrust violations before mixing up some terms and think they make any sense.
Even with my limited knowledge, I know that section one violation does not require the consipirator to possess monopoly power. Certainly if you can have all major publishers to "agree" to a certain price mechanism, you will unreasonably restrain the commerce. But that does not mean you need to prove market power or Apple has to be the monopolist. Pendergast is just adding terms to conclude something that is not the law.
Also while it may sound silly, price fixing is a term of art and is illegal per se. Setting price for a new product like blanket license for music composers, on the other hand, is okay but that case does not help Apple.
The manufacturer's ability to set the price that the retailer sells it at (price fixing) is NOT illegal.
That's not the issue here, either.
It's all about collusion. Each individual publisher may not have a monopoly, but by colluding together they would have monopolistic power and could abuse the market. In that case, said price fixing could be considered an abuse, and therefore illegal.
Apple is being accused of facilitating the conspiracy, and thus also guilty.
Because your link does not relate to what I said other than the subject matter.
The DoJ policy does not say what the law actually is. I'd rather read actual Sherman Act and other related statutes like Robinson Patman Act. Even when they are so broad and case law is the real key to understand the antitrust law, at least they are better than the DoJ policy.
Because - my - links - don't - relate - to - what - you - said - other - than - subject - matter ??? I'm sorry but that makes no sense.
Does it matter when it's the DoJ or FTC bringing the suit? If there's not a basis for an anti-trust action then it's easily disposed of. Federal judges know what the Sherman Act is and whether a case filed falls under it's rules.:\
I'm guessing there's something in one or both of those links you didn't like?
The manufacturer's ability to set the price that the retailer sells it at (price fixing) is [...] illegal [if it unreasonably restraints the trade].
That's not the issue here, either.
It's all about collusion. [THE LAW DOES NOT REQUIRE MONOPOLY POWER ALTHOUGH IT WILL CERTAINLY HELP YOU TO PROVE THAT THERE WILL BE UNREASONABLE RESTRAINT under section 1 violation.]
Apple is being accused of facilitating the conspiracy, and thus also guilty.
Because - my - links - don't - relate - to - what - you - said - other - than - subject - matter ??? I'm sorry but that makes no sense.
Does it matter when it's the DoJ or FTC bringing the suit? If there's not a basis for an anti-trust suit then it's easily disposed of. Federal judges know what the Sherman Act is and whether a case filed falls under it's rules.:\
I'm guessing there's something in one or both of those links you didn't like?
I did not read your FTC link which was assessed by Steptoe. That is more relevant. Hope you do read it.
I did not read your FTC link which was assessed by Steptoe. That is more relevant. Hope you do read it.
Ummm. . . .I did. Unbelievably I read all the links before I post 'em. What part do you want to make sure I understood? Does it fall under the Rule of Reason?
Edit: 3.34 and it's subsections seems applicable. What do you think?
Individually, a manufacturer has the right to set the price, and force the retailer to sell at that price.
Not illegal.
What can be illegal is collusion. The reason being is it can effectively create a monopolistic position, and cause just as much harm.
You are arguing semantics.
The WHOLE thing ALWAYS boils down to "restraint of trade", and is often caused by an abuse of market power. Individually, each publisher could not "restrain trade"; colluding together, they would be abusing their combined market power and thus would be restraining trade.
How about you present the actual fact then? From the DoJ slideshow:
"Mossberg wondered why someone ‘should buy a book for $14.99 when you can buy one from Amazon for $9.99 on the Kindle or Barnes & Noble?’ A confident Jobs replies, ‘That won’t be the case.... The prices will be the same.’”
In other words, "The market will work this out; maybe the publishers will choose to charge $9.99 on our platform or maybe Amazon will stop losing money on every single sale and the prices will go up."
.
Jobs said "will" denoting a conviction of what's to come whilst you used a bunch of "maybes".
Jobs said "will" denoting a conviction of what's to come whilst you used a bunch of "maybes".
I don't know what your original point was; his words aren't damning. They could either mean that he knew the prices were going up, or that the prices simply would be the same (MFN clause), either higher or lower.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman
Post the proof or withdraw the claim.
So I need to post an anti-trust case that Amazon lost in regards to their ill-gotten eBook monopoly or I need to withdrawal my opinion about Amazon's anti-competitve tactics? Seriously?!
I've not read or found the case you appear to mention and I'd be happy to read it so please post it. Post something to support this claim, and the claim isn't opinion it is about numbers, that Amazon is losing money on their ebook sales in order to buy marketshare.
That claim isn't like vanilla is the best ice cream. It is supportable by facts. Please post them.
FFS!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
I know several posters here are absolutely certain Amazon loses money on Kindle and book sales, but I don't know where they're getting their facts from. I've seen everything from Amazon taking a loss of $50 every time they sell a Kindle to Amazon making a profit of over $130 average from the sale of one. I guess pick and choose whichever one fits your argument.
Good point. I just found it interesting that the DoJ has about 10 "example" slides in their opening statement that featured an example of Amazon selling eBooks. On every single slide, the price that Amazon pays to the publishers is less than what they charge to consumers. I can't believe that Amazon is losing money on every book they sell, but the DoJ thought it was reasonable enough and common enough to use it for every one of their examples. Maybe these slides are left over from their top secret, pending Amazon predatory pricing case
I not sure you wrote what you intended to.
How can a non-monopoly player be accused of monopolistic practices? The mind boggles.
Even with my limited knowledge, I know that section one violation does not require the consipirator to possess monopoly power. Certainly if you can have all major publishers to "agree" to a certain price mechanism, you will unreasonably restrain the commerce. But that does not mean you need to prove market power or Apple has to be the monopolist. Pendergast is just adding terms to conclude something that is not the law.
Also while it may sound silly, price fixing is a term of art and is illegal per se. Setting price for a new product like blanket license for music composers, on the other hand, is okay but that case does not help Apple.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/157817/apple-heads-to-court-in-unusual-antitrust-trial-over-e-book-prices/40#post_2338015
This is what the DoJ says might constitute anti-competitive practices in violation of the anti-trust provisions in the Sherman Act.
http://www.atg.wa.gov/uploadedFiles/Home/Safeguarding_Consumers/Antitrust_and_Unfair_Trade_Practices/Guide_to_Antitrust_Laws/Primer for Procurement Personnel.pdf
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
How can a non-monopoly player be accused of monopolistic practices? The mind boggles.
In the allegation, Apple is not the monopoly... it's the PUBLISHERS who, by colluding together, that form a monopoly, and then abused their market power. Allegedly.
In the DoJ's case, to put in simpler terms, Apple is being accused of at least being the bank robber's getaway car-driver, or even the mastermind. Not the actual robbers, but still a part of it.
As I've read it, that's the case they're basically trying to make.
While I did not have you in mind when I replied, I think you do not know what you are talking about, seeing you simply citing the DOJ policies.
How so? What agencies would normally raise anti-trust concerns? The DoJ is one, and the FTC another? The FTC guidelines don't seem to veer away from the DoJ's guide I already linked and neither paper is hard to understand IMO. I'm admittedly no lawyer, nor pretend to be one and perhaps you do have legal training. If so, set me straight.
http://www.ftc.gov/os/2000/04/ftcdojguidelines.pdf
http://www.steptoe.com/assets/attachments/30.pdf
Because your link does not relate to what I said other than the subject matter.
The DoJ policy does not say what the law actually is. I'd rather read actual Sherman Act and other related statutes like Robinson Patman Act. Even when they are so broad and case law is the real key to understand the antitrust law, at least they are better than the DoJ policy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loptimist
I hope people here to at least read the standards/rules for antitrust violations before mixing up some terms and think they make any sense.
Even with my limited knowledge, I know that section one violation does not require the consipirator to possess monopoly power. Certainly if you can have all major publishers to "agree" to a certain price mechanism, you will unreasonably restrain the commerce. But that does not mean you need to prove market power or Apple has to be the monopolist. Pendergast is just adding terms to conclude something that is not the law.
Also while it may sound silly, price fixing is a term of art and is illegal per se. Setting price for a new product like blanket license for music composers, on the other hand, is okay but that case does not help Apple.
The manufacturer's ability to set the price that the retailer sells it at (price fixing) is NOT illegal.
That's not the issue here, either.
It's all about collusion. Each individual publisher may not have a monopoly, but by colluding together they would have monopolistic power and could abuse the market. In that case, said price fixing could be considered an abuse, and therefore illegal.
Apple is being accused of facilitating the conspiracy, and thus also guilty.
Because - my - links - don't - relate - to - what - you - said - other - than - subject - matter ??? I'm sorry but that makes no sense.
Does it matter when it's the DoJ or FTC bringing the suit? If there's not a basis for an anti-trust action then it's easily disposed of. Federal judges know what the Sherman Act is and whether a case filed falls under it's rules.:\
I'm guessing there's something in one or both of those links you didn't like?
There I fixed yours.
Because there wasn't one.
I did not read your FTC link which was assessed by Steptoe. That is more relevant. Hope you do read it.
Ummm. . . .I did. Unbelievably I read all the links before I post 'em. What part do you want to make sure I understood? Does it fall under the Rule of Reason?
Edit: 3.34 and it's subsections seems applicable. What do you think?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loptimist
There I fixed yours.
You fixed it wrong.
Individually, a manufacturer has the right to set the price, and force the retailer to sell at that price.
Not illegal.
What can be illegal is collusion. The reason being is it can effectively create a monopolistic position, and cause just as much harm.
You are arguing semantics.
The WHOLE thing ALWAYS boils down to "restraint of trade", and is often caused by an abuse of market power. Individually, each publisher could not "restrain trade"; colluding together, they would be abusing their combined market power and thus would be restraining trade.
Jobs said "will" denoting a conviction of what's to come whilst you used a bunch of "maybes".
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
.
Jobs said "will" denoting a conviction of what's to come whilst you used a bunch of "maybes".
I don't know what your original point was; his words aren't damning. They could either mean that he knew the prices were going up, or that the prices simply would be the same (MFN clause), either higher or lower.