Penguin Books CEO gives mixed testimony in Apple e-books suit

124»

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 67
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    drewys808 wrote: »
    Dear [Everyone], please […] edit my post and then repost it.

    No problem.

    Seriously though, I think he just put the cursor in the wrong place.
  • Reply 62 of 67
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,949member
    solipsismx wrote: »
    No problem.

    Seriously though, I think he just put the cursor in the wrong place.

    Corrected. Looks like an honest mistake to me.
  • Reply 63 of 67
    drewys808drewys808 Posts: 543member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by hill60 View Post





    Apple is an agent, not a buyer.




    Thanks for correcting.  My apologies for jumping to conclusions.


     


    Back to MFN clause...please read it.  It's related to a "buyer" of intermediate goods.  Apple is the Buyer. 


     


    Anyway, I was just clarifying JungMark's original point which was valid.  No sense in beating a dead horse.


     


    Here's the text from FTC:


    "The most commonly used MFN provisions guarantee a customer that it will receive prices that are at least as favorable as those provided to other buyers of the same seller, for the same products or services.  Although at times employed for benign purposes, MFNs can under certain circumstances present competitive concerns.  This is because they may, especially when used by a dominant buyer of intermediate goods, raise other buyers’ costs or foreclose would-be competitors from accessing the market. "

  • Reply 64 of 67
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,949member
    drewys808 wrote: »

    Thanks for correcting.  My apologies for jumping to conclusions.

    Back to MFN clause...please read it.  It's related to a "buyer" of intermediate goods.  Apple is the Buyer. 

    Anyway, I was just clarifying JungMark's original point which was valid.  No sense in beating a dead horse.

    Here's the text from FTC:
    "The most commonly used MFN provisions guarantee a customer that it will receive prices that are at least as favorable as those provided to other buyers of the same seller, for the same products or services.  Although at times employed for benign purposes, MFNs can under certain circumstances present competitive concerns.  This is because they may, especially when used by a dominant buyer of intermediate goods, raise other buyers’ costs or foreclose would-be competitors from accessing the market. "

    Apple wasn't the dominant buyer though, that would be Amazon, and it probably still is. I really haven't tracked the details of this case, but I can understand not wanting to compete in a market where another player has such a drastic preferential pricing. There would be a distinct disadvantage.
  • Reply 65 of 67
    drewys808drewys808 Posts: 543member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post





    Apple wasn't the dominant buyer though, that would be Amazon, and it probably still is. I really haven't tracked the details of this case, but I can understand not wanting to compete in a market where another player has such a drastic preferential pricing. There would be a distinct disadvantage.




    Yes!...and that was JungMark's original point (that Apple was not a DOMINANT buyer).


    As well, some may say that the word "dominant" is a non-issue, but I beg to differ.

  • Reply 66 of 67
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,932member
    drewys808 wrote: »

    Yes!...and that was JungMark's original point (that Apple was not a DOMINANT buyer).
    As well, some may say that the word "dominant" is a non-issue, but I beg to differ.

    It's clearly not a non-issue or the FTC wouldn't mention it. Being a dominant player also isn't a requirement. Note the phrase is set within commas and the sentence will stand-alone just fine without it. Try reading it that way and you'll realize it's not intended to be limited to only dominant players.
  • Reply 67 of 67
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member
    drewys808 wrote: »

    Thanks for correcting.  My apologies for jumping to conclusions.

    Back to MFN clause...please read it.  It's related to a "buyer" of intermediate goods.  Apple is the Buyer. 

    Anyway, I was just clarifying JungMark's original point which was valid.  No sense in beating a dead horse.

    Here's the text from FTC:
    "The most commonly used MFN provisions guarantee a customer that it will receive prices that are at least as favorable as those provided to other buyers of the same seller, for the same products or services.  Although at times employed for benign purposes, MFNs can under certain circumstances present competitive concerns.  This is because they may, especially when used by a dominant buyer of intermediate goods, raise other buyers’ costs or foreclose would-be competitors from accessing the market. "

    Customer purchases iBook listed in Apples store.

    Apple pays the person who listed said iBook 70% of the price they listed it for and retains 30%.

    At what stage in this transaction does Apple become the "buyer".

    Is EBay the "buyer" of all the goods listed in their stores?

    Apple is an agent, pure and simple.

    btw the earlier post resulted due to an error no doubt caused by using my tiny screened iPhone 5, which I hold delicately in my hand, like a thimble.
Sign In or Register to comment.