Your right you are allowed to loose you shirt doing your business as long as it does not hurt competitors which can be easily shown in this case, how many book stores when out of business of Amazon's practices. Also, it illegal to sell to the US government below costs, I would bet Amazon in fact sells to the US government. The reason it is illegal is like buying the business from the government.
From another article about this case (and a mainstream statement of current law):
"In truth, though, anyone complaining about Amazon has a tough row to hoe. Since the 1970s a broad consensus has emerged that the only proper purpose of the antitrust laws is to protect consumers, and low prices are presumed to be the consumer’s highest priority. Under that regimen, gigantic discounters like Amazon seem to be golden.
This case may mark the high-water mark in that worldview, with regulators rushing to the rescue of a near monopolist against the alleged depredations of a new entrant."
Predatory pricing is not illegal in the US per se (it is in France). It's only illegal as a tool to create or maintain a monopoly--and it's basically impossible to prove this in court. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_pricing#United_States So feel free to run a money-losing business. It's legal and strategically foolish.
I don't think Apple did anything wrong in this case, but I also don't want the Feds coming down on Amazon (or Walmart) for selling goods as cheaply as they can.
The problem is they do have a much monopoly and use share holders money to to finance their predatory pricing model to prevent entry into market by other firms. This is what makes it illegal. If Apple was doing this while having little share, it wouldn't matter. Having a 90% of the market and selling below cost is the problem.
It's also not a sustainable business model. Just ask all the computer companies that were around 20 years ago. Walmart gets away with it because they don't have a monopoly share of retail sales.
The problem is they do have a much monopoly and use share holders money to to finance their predatory pricing model to prevent entry into market by other firms. This is what makes it illegal. If Apple was doing this while having little share, it wouldn't matter. Having a 90% of the market and selling below cost is the problem.
That makes sense but... (quoting the same article I just quoted above) "Since the 1970s a broad consensus has emerged that the only proper purpose of the antitrust laws is to protect consumers, and low prices are presumed to be the consumer’s highest priority. Under that regimen, gigantic discounters like Amazon seem to be golden." Basically this legal principle says "the intent of anti-trust is to prevent high prices, so if some idiot wants to lower prices in an effort to someday get a monopoly where they can recoup those losses with monopoly prices, let them try." Since no one has shown an example where this actually happened in recent decades, it's not an unreasonable position. If and when Amazon finally moves to "phase 2" where, as a monopoly they (try to) screw us all over with high prices, new entrants will pop up and bring prices back to competitive market levels.
That makes sense but... (quoting the same article I just quoted above) "Since the 1970s a broad consensus has emerged that the only proper purpose of the antitrust laws is to protect consumers, and low prices are presumed to be the consumer’s highest priority. Under that regimen, gigantic discounters like Amazon seem to be golden." Basically this legal principle says "the intent of anti-trust is to prevent high prices, so if some idiot wants to lower prices in an effort to someday get a monopoly where they can recoup those losses with monopoly prices, let them try." Since no one has shown an example where this actually happened in recent decades, it's not an unreasonable position. If and when Amazon finally moves to "phase 2" where, as a monopoly they (try to) screw us all over with high prices, new entrants will pop up and bring prices back to competitive market levels.
Their shareholders are growing frustrated with them as they have no intention to make a profit. They problem is they are killing a new market and limiting distribution, by preventing entry. There are people who will never buy from Amazon, but would have bought from a different vendor they trust. No real company enters a market when the more they sell the more they go in the hole. This is dangerous for the whole time industry. If Amazon's free cash were to be shutdown, they would be insolvent. If the only seller is Amazon the ebook market is sunk. It takes time to develop the tech to provide those service in mass. They would take quite a few publisher with them.
Their shareholders are growing frustrated with them as they have no intention to make a profit. They problem is they are killing a new market and limiting distribution, by preventing entry. There are people who will never buy from Amazon, but would have bought from a different vendor they trust. No real company enters a market when the more they sell the more they go in the hole. This is dangerous for the whole time industry. If Amazon's free cash were to be shutdown, they would be insolvent. If the only seller is Amazon the ebook market is sunk. It takes time to develop the tech to provide those service in mass. They would take quite a few publisher with them.
But Amazon isn't the only seller in the eBook market, so I absolutely no worries about that happening--now that Apple has a foothold.
The bizarre part is that the Feds went after Apple rather than just sitting this out.
What's that sound? I think it's Bezos trying to write a big check to Judge Jacobs's favorite charity.
Someday I want to be in a position that can be bought out so that when a controversial decision comes up I can hold out for SO MUCH MONEY for a charity or some such. Like, ludicrous amounts of money.
And then just flip ‘em the bird and rule on the side of truth anyway.
I like your thinking, but better not to lower yourself to their position. Be good.
According to The Verge, the case is now 'in the hands of the jurors'.
No, that's a different case. The case that went to the jury is a class action lawsuit against Apple involving DRM practices and how it harmed iPod customers by raising prices. It's one of the dumbest lawsuits I've heard of in recent memory to make it to trial. But, the lesson is still the same. This case should have been dismissed 9 years ago. It should have never survived to get a to trial-by-jury stage. Yet here they are. It's now in the hands of the jury, and you really have no clue how they think.
The case in this thread is about the US Gov't (the DOJ's anti-trust division) lawsuit against Apple regarding Apple's entry into the ebook market and the machinations of how publishers and retailers work together. Apple lost this case last year when the Judge declared Apple liable for the charge of conspiring with 5 of the largest book publishers in shifting ebook publisher-retailer contracts from wholesale to agency style contracts, with the result of increased ebook prices. As opposed to this other case, at least there are some actual legal quandaries in this case. This is an appeals court and a panel of 3 Federal district judges will vote on the outcome.
But Amazon isn't the only seller in the eBook market, so I absolutely no worries about that happening--now that Apple has a foothold.
The bizarre part is that the Feds went after Apple rather than just sitting this out.
That's just it, they were basically the only player beyond the placeholders. When Apple entered with the agency model hundreds of stores came with them. Most gave up after the ruling and Amazon was allowed to continue it's practices. They are back to monopoly status.
They simply used a different LEGAL model than Amazon.
That's it.
And Bronwich should repay every cent he took from Apple with his ridiculous fees. THAT kind of judge ordered extortion should be illegal. I still maintain Cote needs to be investigated and severely reprimanded.
They simply used a different LEGAL model than Amazon.
That's it.
And Bronwich should repay every cent he took from Apple with his ridiculous fees. THAT kind of judge ordered extortion should be illegal. I still maintain Cote needs to be investigated and severely reprimanded.
I agree, Cole needs to be investigated for abuse of her position and Bromwich needs to return every penny unfairly extracted from Apple.
Did it say somewhere that Apple was presenting its side?
Both sides presented their oral arguments today. . . appeal briefs were submitted earlier for the judges to read. The submission is over. Now the judges will consider the case, discuss, and render their decision at some point in the future.
AI doesn't have much of anything about the proceedings. They just started today. Don't know how long it will go.
We will see how it goes. Like I said, while the arguments may be convincing, you never know what goes through the minds of the judges or the jury in these things.
There has been no jury in this case, only Judge Cote. . . and now three appellate Judges. The case has been appealed and they had 80 minutes to argue their cases and the judges could ask questions and make comments on what they thought. That is what this is article is about. . . Judge Dennis Jacobs making comments that indicated his skepticism about the government's arguments. Another Judge also was skeptical. The third judge, a woman, seemed sympathetic to the government's case. No more argument will be allowed. All that is left is the deliberation of the judges and the decision.
I find it interesting the judge made the statement about predatory pricing, which is illegal in the US. He is telling the DOJ they need to prove Amazon was not using predatory pricing practices to prove their case. This could be an interesting case.
I like this statement and this is a Lawyer who obviously not familiar with the law, Predatory pricing is simple to understand when you sell a product at or below your costs, Anyone think Amazon is making money on selling books, actually didn't they loose money last quarter I would say it safe to say they using predatory pricing practices, I know this and will continue to by there as long as they are willing not to make a profit.
If Apple wins does that mean the bookseller can then come back and say they were unfairly prosecuted, since they all paid base on the language in the apples agreements.
I believe the publishers were guilty of collusion because of the method they used when dealing with Amazon, not Apple. Which was why most of them settled. They knew they were guilty. The deal they made with Apple was perfectly legal but the DOJ use it to include Apple as a willing part of the publishers plan of collusion (when dealing with Amazon).
Predatory pricing is not illegal in the US per se (it is in France). It's only illegal as a tool to create or maintain a monopoly--and it's basically impossible to prove this in court. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_pricing#United_States So feel free to run a money-losing business. It's legal and strategically foolish.
I don't think Apple did anything wrong in this case, but I also don't want the Feds coming down on Amazon (or Walmart) for selling goods as cheaply as they
Quote:
Originally Posted by malax
From another article about this case (and a mainstream statement of current law):
You actually want the Fed to come down on Amazon and Walmart if they using Predatory pricing practices, why simple when all the competition is wiped out they can control what you pay. Amazon is walking a fine line, they are just breaking even, and they claiming the reason it the cost to set up the infrastructure which is true but not for 10 yrs.
I notice that Amazon makes it so easy to buy form them and they are already playing games with pricing to keep people coming back. Even if they do not wipe out the competition at some point people will stop looking around and have Amazon as their first choose on shopping without even people noticing they are paying more.
One example, I was searching for something on Amazon and find it under Prime deal and it had one price, double check to see if it was the best price available, so I search on google, interesting enough the same item came up under a google search on Amazon for a lower price and was also a prime deal. They had the same item showing up twice both being fulfilled by amazon for different prices. The lower price on was not easily found doing the search with in Amazon. I seen this a number of times. Their other trick now is to say there is only 5 left so you feel you have to buy now or loose out. Only to have it show up days later with no quantity limited at a lower price.
By the way, Microsoft gives away IE and that is good for consumers until they had 90% of the market and the government finally stepped in.
Good. It seems rather clear that the original judge had pre judged the case and cherry picked evidence. And that Amazon was no saint. It's nice to see that the appeals group isn't alk anti Apple. The other two and the evidence will have to fight to convine this guy. As it should be
You do understand the irony (hypocrisy) of your statement, right? Cheering the appeals court judge for pre-judging a case while at the same time criticizing the judge in the original case for the same thing. I'm not saying Apple should win or lose. But either it's proper for a judge to express predispositions before hearing all of the evidence or it's not proper. You can't have it both ways depending on if you happen to agree with the judge or not.
You do understand the irony (hypocrisy) of your statement, right? Cheering the appeals court judge for pre-judging a case while at the same time criticizing the judge in the original case for the same thing. I'm not saying Apple should win or lose. But either it's proper for a judge to express predispositions before hearing all of the evidence or it's not proper. You can't have it both ways depending on if you happen to agree with the judge or not.
The difference here is that the cases have been presented.
The DoJ had a few months to rebut, which when they did was primarily a rehash of Judge Cote's opinion and strangely, and kinda lamely, didn't address most of Apple's points of law set out in their appeal brief. It struck me as kind of overconfident assuming that they were going to find 3 more judges who thought just like Judge Cote. Then Two economists also wrote an Amicus Curiae brief basically saying the DoJ had its head up its ass and prosecuted the wrong company. Apple also got to rebut the DoJ's rebuttal in another brief. Between each of these steps are a couple months, so whoever argues next has time to prepare their response to what their opponent said. Meanwhile the 2nd Circuit clerks are running around fact-checking the briefs, researching and prepping the 3 Judges selected for the Appeals panel. Then an oral argument hearing is scheduled. The judges are now very familiar with the case, and oral arguments is a chance for judges to ask last minute questions of the lead counsel for plaintiffs and defendants about their positions, and it's the last chance for each side to sum up their best arguments. That happened a week ago. And all 3 judges showed their hands somewhat, and the short of that is that one judge seems to find the conspiracy compelling, 2 judges think some errors were made, and one judge is openly hostile to the DoJ. Now all that's left is for the judges to deliberate and between themselves come up with their final decision. That could take up to six months but 2 to 4 is more usual.
Comments
Your right you are allowed to loose you shirt doing your business as long as it does not hurt competitors which can be easily shown in this case, how many book stores when out of business of Amazon's practices. Also, it illegal to sell to the US government below costs, I would bet Amazon in fact sells to the US government. The reason it is illegal is like buying the business from the government.
From another article about this case (and a mainstream statement of current law):
"In truth, though, anyone complaining about Amazon has a tough row to hoe. Since the 1970s a broad consensus has emerged that the only proper purpose of the antitrust laws is to protect consumers, and low prices are presumed to be the consumer’s highest priority. Under that regimen, gigantic discounters like Amazon seem to be golden.
This case may mark the high-water mark in that worldview, with regulators rushing to the rescue of a near monopolist against the alleged depredations of a new entrant."
It's also not a sustainable business model. Just ask all the computer companies that were around 20 years ago. Walmart gets away with it because they don't have a monopoly share of retail sales.
The problem is they do have a much monopoly and use share holders money to to finance their predatory pricing model to prevent entry into market by other firms. This is what makes it illegal. If Apple was doing this while having little share, it wouldn't matter. Having a 90% of the market and selling below cost is the problem.
That makes sense but... (quoting the same article I just quoted above) "Since the 1970s a broad consensus has emerged that the only proper purpose of the antitrust laws is to protect consumers, and low prices are presumed to be the consumer’s highest priority. Under that regimen, gigantic discounters like Amazon seem to be golden." Basically this legal principle says "the intent of anti-trust is to prevent high prices, so if some idiot wants to lower prices in an effort to someday get a monopoly where they can recoup those losses with monopoly prices, let them try." Since no one has shown an example where this actually happened in recent decades, it's not an unreasonable position. If and when Amazon finally moves to "phase 2" where, as a monopoly they (try to) screw us all over with high prices, new entrants will pop up and bring prices back to competitive market levels.
Their shareholders are growing frustrated with them as they have no intention to make a profit. They problem is they are killing a new market and limiting distribution, by preventing entry. There are people who will never buy from Amazon, but would have bought from a different vendor they trust. No real company enters a market when the more they sell the more they go in the hole. This is dangerous for the whole time industry. If Amazon's free cash were to be shutdown, they would be insolvent. If the only seller is Amazon the ebook market is sunk. It takes time to develop the tech to provide those service in mass. They would take quite a few publisher with them.
Their shareholders are growing frustrated with them as they have no intention to make a profit. They problem is they are killing a new market and limiting distribution, by preventing entry. There are people who will never buy from Amazon, but would have bought from a different vendor they trust. No real company enters a market when the more they sell the more they go in the hole. This is dangerous for the whole time industry. If Amazon's free cash were to be shutdown, they would be insolvent. If the only seller is Amazon the ebook market is sunk. It takes time to develop the tech to provide those service in mass. They would take quite a few publisher with them.
But Amazon isn't the only seller in the eBook market, so I absolutely no worries about that happening--now that Apple has a foothold.
The bizarre part is that the Feds went after Apple rather than just sitting this out.
Someday I want to be in a position that can be bought out so that when a controversial decision comes up I can hold out for SO MUCH MONEY for a charity or some such. Like, ludicrous amounts of money.
And then just flip ‘em the bird and rule on the side of truth anyway.
I like your thinking, but better not to lower yourself to their position. Be good.
According to The Verge, the case is now 'in the hands of the jurors'.
No, that's a different case. The case that went to the jury is a class action lawsuit against Apple involving DRM practices and how it harmed iPod customers by raising prices. It's one of the dumbest lawsuits I've heard of in recent memory to make it to trial. But, the lesson is still the same. This case should have been dismissed 9 years ago. It should have never survived to get a to trial-by-jury stage. Yet here they are. It's now in the hands of the jury, and you really have no clue how they think.
The case in this thread is about the US Gov't (the DOJ's anti-trust division) lawsuit against Apple regarding Apple's entry into the ebook market and the machinations of how publishers and retailers work together. Apple lost this case last year when the Judge declared Apple liable for the charge of conspiring with 5 of the largest book publishers in shifting ebook publisher-retailer contracts from wholesale to agency style contracts, with the result of increased ebook prices. As opposed to this other case, at least there are some actual legal quandaries in this case. This is an appeals court and a panel of 3 Federal district judges will vote on the outcome.
They simply used a different LEGAL model than Amazon.
That's it.
And Bronwich should repay every cent he took from Apple with his ridiculous fees. THAT kind of judge ordered extortion should be illegal. I still maintain Cote needs to be investigated and severely reprimanded.
I agree, Cole needs to be investigated for abuse of her position and Bromwich needs to return every penny unfairly extracted from Apple.
No matter how the appellate court decides, Bromwich has made a lot of easy money
Did it say somewhere that Apple was presenting its side?
Both sides presented their oral arguments today. . . appeal briefs were submitted earlier for the judges to read. The submission is over. Now the judges will consider the case, discuss, and render their decision at some point in the future.
AI doesn't have much of anything about the proceedings. They just started today. Don't know how long it will go.
We will see how it goes. Like I said, while the arguments may be convincing, you never know what goes through the minds of the judges or the jury in these things.
There has been no jury in this case, only Judge Cote. . . and now three appellate Judges. The case has been appealed and they had 80 minutes to argue their cases and the judges could ask questions and make comments on what they thought. That is what this is article is about. . . Judge Dennis Jacobs making comments that indicated his skepticism about the government's arguments. Another Judge also was skeptical. The third judge, a woman, seemed sympathetic to the government's case. No more argument will be allowed. All that is left is the deliberation of the judges and the decision.
I find it interesting the judge made the statement about predatory pricing, which is illegal in the US. He is telling the DOJ they need to prove Amazon was not using predatory pricing practices to prove their case. This could be an interesting case.
I like this statement and this is a Lawyer who obviously not familiar with the law, Predatory pricing is simple to understand when you sell a product at or below your costs, Anyone think Amazon is making money on selling books, actually didn't they loose money last quarter I would say it safe to say they using predatory pricing practices, I know this and will continue to by there as long as they are willing not to make a profit.
If Apple wins does that mean the bookseller can then come back and say they were unfairly prosecuted, since they all paid base on the language in the apples agreements.
I believe the publishers were guilty of collusion because of the method they used when dealing with Amazon, not Apple. Which was why most of them settled. They knew they were guilty. The deal they made with Apple was perfectly legal but the DOJ use it to include Apple as a willing part of the publishers plan of collusion (when dealing with Amazon).
Predatory pricing is not illegal in the US per se (it is in France). It's only illegal as a tool to create or maintain a monopoly--and it's basically impossible to prove this in court. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_pricing#United_States So feel free to run a money-losing business. It's legal and strategically foolish.
I don't think Apple did anything wrong in this case, but I also don't want the Feds coming down on Amazon (or Walmart) for selling goods as cheaply as they
From another article about this case (and a mainstream statement of current law):
You actually want the Fed to come down on Amazon and Walmart if they using Predatory pricing practices, why simple when all the competition is wiped out they can control what you pay. Amazon is walking a fine line, they are just breaking even, and they claiming the reason it the cost to set up the infrastructure which is true but not for 10 yrs.
I notice that Amazon makes it so easy to buy form them and they are already playing games with pricing to keep people coming back. Even if they do not wipe out the competition at some point people will stop looking around and have Amazon as their first choose on shopping without even people noticing they are paying more.
One example, I was searching for something on Amazon and find it under Prime deal and it had one price, double check to see if it was the best price available, so I search on google, interesting enough the same item came up under a google search on Amazon for a lower price and was also a prime deal. They had the same item showing up twice both being fulfilled by amazon for different prices. The lower price on was not easily found doing the search with in Amazon. I seen this a number of times. Their other trick now is to say there is only 5 left so you feel you have to buy now or loose out. Only to have it show up days later with no quantity limited at a lower price.
By the way, Microsoft gives away IE and that is good for consumers until they had 90% of the market and the government finally stepped in.
Good. It seems rather clear that the original judge had pre judged the case and cherry picked evidence. And that Amazon was no saint. It's nice to see that the appeals group isn't alk anti Apple. The other two and the evidence will have to fight to convine this guy. As it should be
You do understand the irony (hypocrisy) of your statement, right? Cheering the appeals court judge for pre-judging a case while at the same time criticizing the judge in the original case for the same thing. I'm not saying Apple should win or lose. But either it's proper for a judge to express predispositions before hearing all of the evidence or it's not proper. You can't have it both ways depending on if you happen to agree with the judge or not.
The difference here is that the cases have been presented.
There's some misconceptions going around about the appeal. First is that it's only just begun--the fact is its all but over. The Appeal formally began almost a year ago with this brief: http://www.scribd.com/doc/209318743/Apple-Appeal-of-E-Books-Ruling
The DoJ had a few months to rebut, which when they did was primarily a rehash of Judge Cote's opinion and strangely, and kinda lamely, didn't address most of Apple's points of law set out in their appeal brief. It struck me as kind of overconfident assuming that they were going to find 3 more judges who thought just like Judge Cote. Then Two economists also wrote an Amicus Curiae brief basically saying the DoJ had its head up its ass and prosecuted the wrong company. Apple also got to rebut the DoJ's rebuttal in another brief. Between each of these steps are a couple months, so whoever argues next has time to prepare their response to what their opponent said. Meanwhile the 2nd Circuit clerks are running around fact-checking the briefs, researching and prepping the 3 Judges selected for the Appeals panel. Then an oral argument hearing is scheduled. The judges are now very familiar with the case, and oral arguments is a chance for judges to ask last minute questions of the lead counsel for plaintiffs and defendants about their positions, and it's the last chance for each side to sum up their best arguments. That happened a week ago. And all 3 judges showed their hands somewhat, and the short of that is that one judge seems to find the conspiracy compelling, 2 judges think some errors were made, and one judge is openly hostile to the DoJ. Now all that's left is for the judges to deliberate and between themselves come up with their final decision. That could take up to six months but 2 to 4 is more usual.