Such a joke that Cote "proved" the DOJs case. Cause they sure didn't. Tons of evidence in favor of Appke but the judge ignored it. Keeps ignoring it even when Apple shows that her buddy is over stepping big time.
This will never happen in the U.S., but at least SOMEONE is willing to slap them.
Amazon is making negative income every year so of course the US wouldn't investigate them. In order for the US to investigate Amazon, Amazon would have to actually be successful at all and turning a profit.
They're plenty successful, they're just not showing a profit.
The EU forced Apple into a settlement over the same issue. Even they wouldn't fight them. They meddle much more in business competition issues than the US does and I don't think most of us here want the US taking the same positions.
IMHO Amazon will do the same as Apple did and reach an agreement with the EU to drop the contracts with the offending "anti-competitive" clauses.
Ah, what a tangled web of a post. Typical. The EU 'forced' Apple? As I recall, Apple and four publishers said that they would not do what they were accused of doing, going forward, and the EU said fine. The EU approached this like an adult. No immature, intrusive idiots there like Bromwich and Cote. 'They wouldn't fight them'? Who wouldn't fight whom? Apple wouldn't fight the EU? If so, see the point above.
The EU 'meddles' much more? See Cote and Bromwich point above. (I know they've really been whacking Google of late, so perhaps that is the source of your disdain).
'Most of us here' don't '..want the US taking the same positions?' Evidence? Speaking for myself, I wish the US could learn a thing or two from the EU on how to take on antitrust issues. (EU's approach to taxation is different, in my mind).
We'll see what Amazon does. They may or may not settle, since book-selling is much more a part of Amazon's core business than for Apple. They may decide to fight it, who knows.
Ah, what a tangled web of a post. Typical. The EU 'forced' Apple? As I recall, Apple and four publishers said that they would not do what they were accused of doing, going forward, and the EU said fine. The EU approached this like an adult. No immature, intrusive idiots there like Bromwich and Cote. 'They wouldn't fight them'? Who wouldn't fight whom? Apple wouldn't fight the EU? If so, see the point above.
The EU 'meddles' much more? See Cote and Bromwich point above. (I know they've really been whacking Google of late, so perhaps that is the source of your disdain).
'Most of us here' don't '..want the US taking the same positions?' Evidence? Speaking for myself, I wish the US could learn a thing or two from the EU on how to take on antitrust issues. (EU's approach to taxation is different, in my mind).
We'll see what Amazon does. They may or may not settle, since book-selling is much more a part of Amazon's core business than for Apple. They may decide to fight it, who knows.
Google is hardly the only one involved in EU antitrust-type investigations or accusations either. There's at least two in the works involving Apple (perhaps three), two involving Amazon and two involving Google that I can think of off the top of my head. That doesn't include lawsuits and/or investigations underway from individual EU member states targeting all three. I assume from your tone you're supporting all the investigations and would like to see the same here in the US. Perhaps with a change in the US administration you might get your wish.
But many others (in this thread alone) have already implied it, so why bother...
PM me the details of the deception so as not to derail this thread.
Notice I nearly always include source links for anything folks might not be aware of so they can decide for themselves. You should consider doing the same as evidence of the way I'm trying to mislead you. Folks here are pretty intelligent and I have faith that they can discern things for themselves when presented with the appropriate facts and background.
PM me the details of the deception so as not to derail this thread.
Notice I nearly always include source links for anything folks might not be aware of so they can decide for themselves. You should consider doing the same as evidence of the way I'm trying to mislead you. Folks here are pretty intelligent and I have faith that they can discern things for themselves when presented with the appropriate facts and background.
Methinks you doth protest too much. If you truly believe what you put there, you wouldn't keep hammering away, and let the "folks" as you say, make their own informed conclusion.
Methinks you doth protest too much. If you truly believe what you put there, you wouldn't keep hammering away, and let the "folks" as you say, make their own informed conclusion.
"Methinks"? Excellent. Here's another opportunity to put that to work. You have the information needed in the links I provided to come to your own conclusions on Apple's settlement over the same anti-competitive concerns and a background for forming an opinion of what Amazon is likely to do.
Now, delete your silly original post. Surprise us. Thanks.
If I delete it your comments about it will make even less sense. The best solution is for the original off-topic comment from Eric to be deleted as well as my response, your responses and Raysz. Then there's no confusion for readers.
Methinks you doth protest too much. If you truly believe what you put there, you wouldn't keep hammering away, and let the "folks" as you say, make their own informed conclusion.
If gatorguy let "folks" make there own decision it wont be a fully informed decision, some people here really do not want to read anything that dissents from the "group think".
In the EU Apple had to change it business model for e-books because the EU mandated it and the possible fine is 10% gross global revenue. Apple agreed to the terms. So far (pending any successful appeal) Apple is guilty in the US and it doesnt matter if anyone believes Apple is innocent here or not. The verdict stands until its reversed
Antitrust laws were created to promote vigorous competition and protect consumers from anticompetitive mergers and business practices.
Anybody that thinks antitrust laws were created to prevent businesses from losing money from their archaic business model or to guarantee themselves a certain profit level are more than ignorant.
Guide to Antitrust Laws
Free and open markets are the foundation of a vibrant economy. Aggressive competition among sellers in an open marketplace gives consumers — both individuals and businesses — the benefits of lower prices, higher quality products and services, more choices, and greater innovation. The FTC's competition mission is to enforce the rules of the competitive marketplace — the antitrust laws. These laws promote vigorous competition and protect consumers from anticompetitive mergers and business practices. The FTC's Bureau of Competition, working in tandem with the Bureau of Economics, enforces the antitrust laws for the benefit of consumers.
It's pretty amusing that Amazon can carry on with their business for the longest duration of time and eat up more than 90% of the eBook market, to the vocal condemnation of writers, publishers and reduction of physical book stores.
Amazon earned that market fair and square by creating their own e-reader with the publishers providing the content.
If the publishers didn't like the deal, they could have walked away instead of signing the agreement.
Would it change your mind if you found out Amazon had told them the same thing apple told GTAT, "Put on their big boy pants and accept the agreement"?
Yet the moment a viable competitor is announced(Apple) they are immediately swatted by the DOJ, then levied with a questionable antitrust monitor in a situation that stinks of both cronyism and double standards.
Apple knew they couldn't compete so they had to cheat.
If Apple thought they were a viable competitor, they wouldn't have colluded with the publishers. They would have sold the exact same ebook Amazon sells for 25%-30% more.
Naturally Apple's requests to have the monitor pruned were denied, of course so, as the person who decides upon that is the one who installed him. Meanwhile other justices have come out with statements of criticism because the situation looks absurd from the inside and out.
Of course it was denied, Apple was guilty.
What's absurd is, the fanbois refusal to acknowledge Antitrust laws were created to protect consumers, not businesses. Antitrust laws were created to promote vigorous competition (which apple knew they couldn't) and protect consumers from anticompetitive mergers and business practices (read: apple's collusion & publishers price fixing).
Amazon earned that market fair and square by creating their own e-reader with the publishers providing the content.
If the publishers didn't like the deal, they could have walked away instead of signing the agreement.
Right. Amazon holds the publisher's physical books as hostage. Sign the ebook agreement or take your books elsewhere.
Antitrust laws were created to protect consumers, not businesses. Antitrust laws were created to promote vigorous competition (which apple knew they couldn't) and protect consumers from anticompetitive mergers and business practices (read: apple's collusion & publishers price fixing).
Antitrust laws also should prevent predatory pricing. Amazon selling ebooks at a loss is a barrier for entry. That's how they had 90% of the market. You want fair competition? Start with fair pricing.
Comments
Such a joke that Cote "proved" the DOJs case. Cause they sure didn't. Tons of evidence in favor of Appke but the judge ignored it. Keeps ignoring it even when Apple shows that her buddy is over stepping big time.
They're plenty successful, they're just not showing a profit.
I didn't know anyone had been claiming a more sophisticated method until you mentioned it. Makes sense now. Thanks.
Now, delete your silly original post. Surprise us. Thanks.
The EU forced Apple into a settlement over the same issue. Even they wouldn't fight them. They meddle much more in business competition issues than the US does and I don't think most of us here want the US taking the same positions.
IMHO Amazon will do the same as Apple did and reach an agreement with the EU to drop the contracts with the offending "anti-competitive" clauses.
Ah, what a tangled web of a post. Typical. The EU 'forced' Apple? As I recall, Apple and four publishers said that they would not do what they were accused of doing, going forward, and the EU said fine. The EU approached this like an adult. No immature, intrusive idiots there like Bromwich and Cote. 'They wouldn't fight them'? Who wouldn't fight whom? Apple wouldn't fight the EU? If so, see the point above.
The EU 'meddles' much more? See Cote and Bromwich point above. (I know they've really been whacking Google of late, so perhaps that is the source of your disdain).
'Most of us here' don't '..want the US taking the same positions?' Evidence? Speaking for myself, I wish the US could learn a thing or two from the EU on how to take on antitrust issues. (EU's approach to taxation is different, in my mind).
We'll see what Amazon does. They may or may not settle, since book-selling is much more a part of Amazon's core business than for Apple. They may decide to fight it, who knows.
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-11-1509_en.htm
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-12-1367_en.htm
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-343_en.htm
Google is hardly the only one involved in EU antitrust-type investigations or accusations either. There's at least two in the works involving Apple (perhaps three), two involving Amazon and two involving Google that I can think of off the top of my head. That doesn't include lawsuits and/or investigations underway from individual EU member states targeting all three. I assume from your tone you're supporting all the investigations and would like to see the same here in the US. Perhaps with a change in the US administration you might get your wish.
Tangled web? I assume you meant to add "deceive" in there somewhere.
Sure, I could have.
But many others (in this thread alone) have already implied it, so why bother...
Notice I nearly always include source links for anything folks might not be aware of so they can decide for themselves. You should consider doing the same as evidence of the way I'm trying to mislead you. Folks here are pretty intelligent and I have faith that they can discern things for themselves when presented with the appropriate facts and background.
PM me the details of the deception so as not to derail this thread.
Notice I nearly always include source links for anything folks might not be aware of so they can decide for themselves. You should consider doing the same as evidence of the way I'm trying to mislead you. Folks here are pretty intelligent and I have faith that they can discern things for themselves when presented with the appropriate facts and background.
Methinks you doth protest too much. If you truly believe what you put there, you wouldn't keep hammering away, and let the "folks" as you say, make their own informed conclusion.
Methinks you doth protest too much. If you truly believe what you put there, you wouldn't keep hammering away, and let the "folks" as you say, make their own informed conclusion.
If gatorguy let "folks" make there own decision it wont be a fully informed decision, some people here really do not want to read anything that dissents from the "group think".
In the EU Apple had to change it business model for e-books because the EU mandated it and the possible fine is 10% gross global revenue. Apple agreed to the terms. So far (pending any successful appeal) Apple is guilty in the US and it doesnt matter if anyone believes Apple is innocent here or not. The verdict stands until its reversed
Then there's no confusion for readers.
Wow. How considerate you are, of AI readers...
Antitrust laws were created to promote vigorous competition and protect consumers from anticompetitive mergers and business practices.
Anybody that thinks antitrust laws were created to prevent businesses from losing money from their archaic business model or to guarantee themselves a certain profit level are more than ignorant.
Guide to Antitrust Laws
Gosh. Not at all. Not only the right side of the bed, but it has been a GREAT day. Despite this interaction. Thanks for asking.
It's pretty amusing that Amazon can carry on with their business for the longest duration of time and eat up more than 90% of the eBook market, to the vocal condemnation of writers, publishers and reduction of physical book stores.
Amazon earned that market fair and square by creating their own e-reader with the publishers providing the content.
If the publishers didn't like the deal, they could have walked away instead of signing the agreement.
Would it change your mind if you found out Amazon had told them the same thing apple told GTAT, "Put on their big boy pants and accept the agreement"?
Apple knew they couldn't compete so they had to cheat.
If Apple thought they were a viable competitor, they wouldn't have colluded with the publishers. They would have sold the exact same ebook Amazon sells for 25%-30% more.
Of course it was denied, Apple was guilty.
What's absurd is, the fanbois refusal to acknowledge Antitrust laws were created to protect consumers, not businesses. Antitrust laws were created to promote vigorous competition (which apple knew they couldn't) and protect consumers from anticompetitive mergers and business practices (read: apple's collusion & publishers price fixing).
Right. Amazon holds the publisher's physical books as hostage. Sign the ebook agreement or take your books elsewhere.
Antitrust laws also should prevent predatory pricing. Amazon selling ebooks at a loss is a barrier for entry. That's how they had 90% of the market. You want fair competition? Start with fair pricing.