Can someone explain the governments logic in this whole thing to me..... The crux of the whole situation, as I see it:
1) Publisher sets price..... nothing much to complain about in re Apple on this
2) Apple negotiated a clause that said that if the Publisher allowed a different seller to sell a given book for a price lower than what it told Apple to sell it for that Apple could lower their price to match said price
3) So the whole situation that Apple fought for and won in the negotiation was the ability to LOWER prices
4) So how is what Apple doing in any way hurting the consumer? Publisher sets price. Is the government actually upset that Apple would want to lower the price if they could?
----------
Don't understand why this case is so hard to solve. All the DoJ have to do is get Apple to remove the clause from their agency agreements that prevents the publishers from selling their eBooks through Amazon at a lower price. If Apple wants to make 30% margin on eBook sales that's fine. If Amazon want to make 5% margin and sell the eBooks much cheaper that's up to them. It's a free market. Ultimately customers will decide who gets their money.
My understanding was that the clause Apple had did not prevent a publisher from selling a book on Amazon or any other store for a lower price. It merely said that if it did, Apple could lower the price on their store as well.
So your solution merely forces Apple to sell for a higher price than it would prefer to sell for. How is that good for consumers?
