Apple Notifies European Publishers of 5-Year Halt to 'Most Favored Nation' E-Book Clause

[EbookReader]

which publishers set retail prices and distributors such as Apple receive a negotiated share of that retail price, similar to how the App Store operates



notice that Apple doesn't say how App Store and Itunes Store operate....because Itunes store for music and movies doesn't operate through agency. Apple use wholesale to sell music, movies. Apple buy these products at negotiated price and sell it at whatever price Apple want.

But since Amazon dominated ebook, Apple didn't want to compete fairly. So the best way to do this is to fix price and forced Amazon to raise its ebook prices.


Steve Jobs described Apple’s strategy in setting the retail price: “We’ll go to [an] agency model, where you set the price, and we get our 30%, and yes, the customer pays a little more, but that’s what you want anyway.”

Of course, the DOJ doesn't like it when companies get together and fix the retail price and file its lawsuit. Same thing happen in EU. Australia and Canada government is also looking into it.

[Glassed Silver]

Originally Posted by swagi

So you actually don't have a Kindle or haven't used the Kindle Software?

Fixed book pricing seems to only apply to hardcopies - or could you detail why the Kindle editions are cheaper?

Well, I don't know what they are doing, maybe they release it as another article just happening to have the same content.

All I know is that ebooks are tied to this law as well.
In the beginning of this year, ebooks got cheaper in Europe on Amazon due to Luxembourg (their country of doing digital business with European customers) lowering the VAT of ebooks to the same reduced percentage (3%) regular books get there.

So publishers (or independents who practically publish themselves) had to quickly adapt, because they got notice from Amazon on Dec 28 - just 3 days ahead of this change.
Those quick to react had their price fixed (meaning the ratio of VAT versus Amazon/publisher split changed).
So publishers and Amazon got more of the cake.

The risk was to receive an adhortatory letter.

And no, I don't buy from Amazon for ebooks.
Never actually bought an ebook to be frank, just the ones that are free/pdfs etc...
I do plan on using an iPad for such things though, but that will mostly be scans of comic books I already have and such.
I have yet to get an iPad even haha

Glassed Silver:mac

[japanime]

Originally Posted by EbookReader

where you get this from?

My company publishes books, both "traditional" paper books and ebooks. My statement is based on firsthand experience with Amazon's digital publishing division.

Amazon pay the wholesale price (example $11) and it doesn't matter to the publisher if Amazon put it on sales for $15, $11 or $8. They would get $11 in each case.

That hasn't been my company's experience. However, we are a small publisher, and independent of the major publishing houses, which may have terms different than ours. We discovered in mid-2011 that Amazon was "price-matching" several of our ebooks, and only paid us based on Amazon's lowered price, not the price we set. The practice continues to this day.

With the price fixing between the publishers, Amazon is forced to take a 30% commission on each sales and can't discount.

Example: ebook price is $14.99 (Amazon takes $4.49 as the agent).

Again, our experience has been different. I'm not saying you are incorrect — what you assert may be true for the major publishing houses. I speak only as a representative of a small publishing company.

[EbookReader]

Originally Posted by japanime

We discovered in mid-2011 that Amazon was "price-matching" several of our ebooks, and only paid us based on Amazon's lowered price, not the price we set. The practice continues to this day.

did you lower the price to your book on another retailer (say B&N)?
or that retailer (say B&N) lower the price?

from my understanding, for indie publisher, the TOS is as followed:

70% royalties for book $2.99 to $9.99 (bandwidth charge of around $0.07 for 0.5MB, the typical size for an ebook)
35% royalties for book $2.98 and under (no bandwidth charge)

If you lower the price of your book at another store, Amazon will assume that this will be your new price and price match. And they will pay you royalties based on this new price.

[ahltorp]

Originally Posted by EbookReader

did you lower the price to your book on another retailer (say B&N)?
or that retailer (say B&N) lower the price?

from my understanding, for indie publisher, the TOS is as followed:

70% royalties for book $2.99 to $9.99 (bandwidth charge of around $0.07 for 0.5MB, the typical size for an ebook)
35% royalties for book $2.98 and under (no bandwidth charge)

If you lower the price of your book at another store, Amazon will assume that this will be your new price and price match. And they will pay you royalties based on this new price.

So if they automatically lower the price to the same as the MFN, why is this legal for Amazon, and not for Apple?

[macs4nw]

Originally Posted by japanime

Meanwhile, Amazon continues to do the very thing that Apple got in trouble for doing. And when Amazon "price matches" and lowers the publisher's list price, the publisher only gets paid based on that lower price.

Exactly the reason why the Agency model is better for the authors and publishers, but not necessarily for the end-consumer. Of course no consumer is going to complain about a lower price, so when Amazon lowers those list prices, they're not going to get into 'trouble', but they're killing the smaller retailers, as well as hurting the authors and publishers.

So if I understand this correctly, the Agency model stands, but without the MFN clause. All fine and dandy, but what happens now after Dec. 2017? Are we going back to the status quo, or do the DOJ and the European Commission expect that the marketplace will have changed/matured enough by then to make the MFN clause all but irrelevant? Someone enlighten me please.

[dru`]

Originally Posted by Morod

Hooray! This should result in less expensive ebooks. That "agency model" is what kept the price of so many ebooks so high.

You only harm yourself with such myopic thinking.

Amazon, because it can afford to undercharge will go back to being the monopoly player in the ebook arena. Competitors like the Nook and iOS devices will suffer. Their prices will rise. This may put BN out of business. It wasn't until the agency model came about that their Nook platform gained significant market share because of ebook price parity.

It's not by coincidence these investigations all started because of complaints by Amazon who chose to use the force gov't rather than see Kindle compete in the marketplace on a level playing field.

[dru`]

Originally Posted by EbookReader

notice that Apple doesn't say how App Store and Itunes Store operate....because Itunes store for music and movies doesn't operate through agency. Apple use wholesale to sell music, movies. Apple buy these products at negotiated price and sell it at whatever price Apple want.

Actually Apple wanted lower prices over all but the content providers demanded variable pricing so they could get more for newer "hot" content. Eventually Apple had to cave or risk losing access to content.

But since Amazon dominated ebook, Apple didn't want to compete fairly. So the best way to do this is to fix price and forced Amazon to raise its ebook prices.

It was Amazon who DID NOT COMPETE FAIRLY. They dominated by predatory pricing. Before the agency model, the BN Nook could not get a toe hold in the e-Reader market; after it rose over 20% market share. The e-Reader space became more competitive and customers benefited even if some readers paid slightly higher prices because they were actually market-based rather than Amazon's manipulated, predatory, subsidized, below wholesale prices.

The agency model prevents harm to authors, to publishers and to ebook competitors and thus to consumers in the long term. It's no surprise Amazon made these complaints to protect its monopoly with phony arguments that its undermining competition for e-readers benefitted consumers because of some lower ebook prices by taking losses going below wholesale pricing.

Can BN or Apple afford that? Apple could if it subsidizes ebook prices out of other things but it shouldn't. BN? They will probably be swept away by Amazon and this truly foolish gov't intervention and fundamental misunderstanding of markets and competition and the behavior of Amazon.

Monopoly positioned Amazon, not just in ebook but print sales as well, harms the publishing industry from content providers to consumers. This was the wrong view to take. The agency model was and is a good model for the ebook world.

[charlituna]

Originally Posted by fishmoose

If this results in more expensive Ebooks in the Swedish iBooks Store I'll be pissed. I just wish we'd find our balls and exit EU.

No reason why it should. The publishers set the price and even without the clauses they could keep the prices the same.

What I find amusing is that everyone is getting up Apple's butt over that clause when Amazon has the same one and had it for years. They even include promos like Starbucks pick of the week giveaways as pricing. For the whole period the codes can be cashed in. But where is the EU, the DOJ on them

----------

Originally Posted by Morod

Hooray! This should result in less expensive ebooks. That "agency model" is what kept the price of so many ebooks so high.

Nothing about the agency pricing was touched". Publishers still set the prices on their books.

----------

Originally Posted by eusceptic

From an self-published author's perspective how this will impact me? If now I have a book at 10 dollars in the store from which I get 7 dollars per book, how would the new measure affect the price of my book?

Previously the rule was basically that Apple had to have the lowest price and if you lowered the price in another store (say Amazon) they had the right to lower it in iBooks

Now, for the next 5 years, this rule is gone. You can charge $10 everywhere or if Amazon offers to highlight your book for two weeks if you will lower the price to $5 exclusively on their site you can.

----------

Originally Posted by EbookReader

notice that Apple doesn't say how App Store and Itunes Store operate....because Itunes store for music and movies doesn't operate through agency. Apple use wholesale to sell music, movies.

Not in all cases. I've seen the deals for some of the movies I've worked on and it was agency. As are the deals for all my indie musician friends that sell in iTunes.

And the App Store is famously on the 30% model

----------

Originally Posted by EbookReader

If you lower the price of your book at another store, Amazon will assume that this will be your new price and price match. And they will pay you royalties based on this new price.

But you said before that Amazon buys wholesale. So it doesn't matter what the selling price is the publisher gets the same amount.

So which is it, wholesale or price based royalties

[EbookReader]

Originally Posted by dru`

You only harm yourself with such myopic thinking.

Amazon, because it can afford to undercharge will go back to being the monopoly player in the ebook arena. Competitors like the Nook and iOS devices will suffer. Their prices will rise. This may put BN out of business. It wasn't until the agency model came about that their Nook platform gained significant market share because of ebook price parity.

It's not by coincidence these investigations all started because of complaints by Amazon who chose to use the force gov't rather than see Kindle compete in the marketplace on a level playing field.

So let's assume that Amazon become a monopoly with 100% market share in ebook and there is no other retailer selling ebook. Google, Apple, Microsoft all gave up and stop selling because it is not profitable.

Amazon is now a monopoly and it is an abusive one. It raises the price of ebook - buy it for $10 and sell it for $16.

What is to stop the like of Google, Apple and Microsoft from undercutting Amazon? (buy it for $10 and selling it for $13)?

And what to stop the DOJ from file an anti-trust lawsuit against Amazon from abusing its monopoly power?

[EbookReader]

Originally Posted by dru`

Actually Apple wanted lower prices over all but the content providers demanded variable pricing so they could get more for newer "hot" content. Eventually Apple had to cave or risk losing access to content.



It was Amazon who DID NOT COMPETE FAIRLY. They dominated by predatory pricing. Before the agency model, the BN Nook could not get a toe hold in the e-Reader market; after it rose over 20% market share. The e-Reader space became more competitive and customers benefited even if some readers paid slightly higher prices because they were actually market-based rather than Amazon's manipulated, predatory, subsidized, below wholesale prices.

The agency model prevents harm to authors, to publishers and to ebook competitors and thus to consumers in the long term. It's no surprise Amazon made these complaints to protect its monopoly with phony arguments that its undermining competition for e-readers benefitted consumers because of some lower ebook prices by taking losses going below wholesale pricing.

Can BN or Apple afford that? Apple could if it subsidizes ebook prices out of other things but it shouldn't. BN? They will probably be swept away by Amazon and this truly foolish gov't intervention and fundamental misunderstanding of markets and competition and the behavior of Amazon.

Monopoly positioned Amazon, not just in ebook but print sales as well, harms the publishing industry from content providers to consumers. This was the wrong view to take. The agency model was and is a good model for the ebook world.

Here's what Apple and the 5 Publishers did (from a post on engadget)

Anti competitive? You really need to read up on the Agency Model that Apple was pushing. An analogy if you will, the Apple gas station sells gas for $6 a gallon. You decide that's too expensive and drive up the street to find it's still $6 a gallon. You drive all over and find it's $6 a gallon anywhere you go because no one else is allowed to compete and sell gas cheaper than Apple. So instead of just competing in the market, they sought to change the market so they didn't have to compete. Which is more anti competitive?

Here's what Amazon did (which you called predatory pricing but it is done by every retailers known to mankind).

Sell bestsellers as loss leaders. (The publishers get paid the full price. If Amazon buy it for $14 and sell it for $9.99, it is Amazon that is taking a $4.01 loss on each sale).
Sell the none-best sellers at profit.
Overall result? According to the DOJ, Amazon has been profitable from selling ebook.

As for B&N, they could do the same thing using loss leaders in order to attract more customers and sell the none-best sellers at profit. If you take a $50 million loss from loss leaders best sellers but gain $100 million in profits from none best sellers, you're making a $50 million profit overall. All those new releases DVD/Blu-ray you see on sales at Wal-Mart, Best Buy, Target etc...they are loss leaders. Believe it or not, these stores lose money on them.

[BaldiMac]

Originally Posted by EbookReader

Here's what Apple and the 5 Publishers did (from a post on engadget)

Anti competitive? You really need to read up on the Agency Model that Apple was pushing. An analogy if you will, the Apple gas station sells gas for $6 a gallon. You decide that's too expensive and drive up the street to find it's still $6 a gallon. You drive all over and find it's $6 a gallon anywhere you go because no one else is allowed to compete and sell gas cheaper than Apple. So instead of just competing in the market, they sought to change the market so they didn't have to compete. Which is more anti competitive?

A horrible analogy. The eBook market doesn't sell just one product ("gas"). They sell hundreds of thousands of different products that compete with each other.

You continue to push the idea that price competition can only legally occur between retailers. That's incorrect.

Here's what Amazon did (which you called predatory pricing but it is done by every retailers known to mankind).

Sell bestsellers as loss leaders. (The publishers get paid the full price. If Amazon buy it for $14 and sell it for $9.99, it is Amazon that is taking a $4.01 loss on each sale).
Sell the none-best sellers at profit.
Overall result? According to the DOJ, Amazon has been profitable from selling ebook.

As for B&N, they could do the same thing using loss leaders in order to attract more customers and sell the none-best sellers at profit. If you take a $50 million loss from loss leaders best sellers but gain $100 million in profits from none best sellers, you're making a $50 million profit overall.

eBook market before Apple: Amazon had 90% of the market
eBook market after Apple: Amazon had 60% of the market and holding (Apple had around 10%)

Which is more competitive?

All those new releases DVD/Blu-ray you see on sales at Wal-Mart, Best Buy, Target etc...they are loss leaders. Believe it or not, these stores lose money on them.

And none of those examples have monopoly power in the respective market.

----------

Originally Posted by EbookReader

So let's assume that Amazon become a monopoly with 100% market share in ebook and there is no other retailer selling ebook. Google, Apple, Microsoft all gave up and stop selling because it is not profitable.

Amazon is now a monopoly and it is an abusive one. It raises the price of ebook - buy it for $10 and sell it for $16.

What is to stop the like of Google, Apple and Microsoft from undercutting Amazon? (buy it for $10 and selling it for $13)?

Seriously? Their ebook stores are all out of business! Are they supposed to just reopen their stores and hope Amazon plays nice long enough to turn a profit.

And what to stop the DOJ from file an anti-trust lawsuit against Amazon from abusing its monopoly power?

Nothing. But I'd prefer to address the problem before all competition goes out of business.

[EbookReader]

Look like giving retailers the ability to discount prices lead to retail price competition and lower prices for consumers.

October: $11.79
This week: $8.09

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeremygr...book-numbered/

Readers upset at paying more than $10 for an ebook could soon rejoice: The days of the $14.99 ebook may be numbered.

When the Department of Justice announced that several publishers had settled a lawsuit that alleged ebook price-fixing, which would eventually give ebook retailers pricing control that they didn’t have before, an Amazon spokesperson said, “This is a big win for Kindle owners, and we look forward to being allowed to lower prices on more Kindle books.”

And lower prices they did.

In the past several months, prices for ebook best-sellers have plummeted, hitting a new low this week. The average price of a top-25 ebook best-seller is now $8.09, down from $8.23 last week and $11.79 in Oct., the last time ebook prices increased.

Part of the reason is the continued success of self-published ebooks, which are usually priced at $2.99 or lower. But another part of it is the discounting of the $14.99 or $12.99 ebook to under $10. It’s a lot of the same books but at lower prices.

In Oct., there were usually anywhere between 12 and 15 ebooks at that higher price point on the best-seller list. Even a month ago, there were about ten. This past week, there were only five books priced $10 and up on the list.

Before: $12.99 or $14.99 at every single stores because the retail prices have been fixed
Today: Retailers like iBookstore, Kindle, Nook, Kobo, Sony, GooglePlay are allowed to compete.

Fixed Price = higher prices for consumers
Competition = lower prices for consumers

[BaldiMac]

Originally Posted by EbookReader

Look like giving retailers the ability to discount prices lead to retail price competition and lower prices for consumers.

October: $11.79
This week: $8.09

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeremygr...book-numbered/




Before: $12.99 or $14.99 at every single stores because the retail prices have been fixed
Today: Retailers like iBookstore, Kindle, Nook, Kobo, Sony, GooglePlay are allowed to compete.

Not sure why you resurrected this thread to state the obvious. We'll have to wait and see how this affects the market in the long term. Hopefully, the market share gains that competitors have made during the agency pricing period against Amazon's market dominance will be maintained.

Fixed Price = higher prices for consumers
Competition = lower prices for consumers

Once again, a vast oversimplification. Competition isn't limited to retail pricing.

[EbookReader]

Originally Posted by BaldiMac

Not sure why you resurrected this thread to state the obvious. We'll have to wait and see how this affects the market in the long term. Hopefully, the market share gains that competitors have made during the agency pricing period against Amazon's market dominance will be maintained.



Once again, a vast oversimplification. Competition isn't limited to retail pricing.

So Amazon lost its market share for ebook because

1) price fixing

or

2) more competitors compete against them (B&N, Kobo, Google, Apple etc...)

Amazon had 90% market share when their only competitor was pretty much just Sony.

Also, what about digital music download market? Doesn't Itunes command 70-80% of it? This has declined overtime because Amazon and Google are now competing?

At one time, Apple had something like 99% of the tablet market share. But due to competition, the market share is declining. Maybe the same thing would happen to Amazon ebook market share when more competitors compete?

[benthewraith]

Originally Posted by dru`

Competitors like the Nook and iOS devices will suffer. Their prices will rise.

Yes, iOS devices are going to suffer because of this. iOS isn't a viable platform for eBook distribution because it's limited to just that, iOS devices. You can't open an iBook on your computer and make annotations now can you? You can't export sentences to Word with a proper citation now can you?

[BaldiMac]

Originally Posted by EbookReader

So Amazon lost its market share for ebook because

1) price fixing

Not price fixing. Agency pricing. Again, you are continually mischaracterizing the actual issues. Agency pricing is not illegal. You'll note that the settlement agreements reportedly only called for a 2 year ban on agency pricing.

or

2) more competitors compete against them (B&N, Kobo, Google, Apple etc...)

Amazon had 90% market share when their only competitor was pretty much just Sony.

Yep.

Also, what about digital music download market? Doesn't Itunes command 70-80% of it? This has declined overtime because Amazon and Google are now competing?

Has it declined significantly?

At one time, Apple had something like 99% of the tablet market share. But due to competition, the market share is declining.

Yep.

Maybe the same thing would happen to Amazon ebook market share when more competitors compete?

Maybe. Like I said, we'll have to see how the market responds to the return to wholesale pricing. If Amazon starts to regain significant market share, I think that is a bad sign. Especially when combined with Amazon's market power in the physical book market.

[EbookReader]

Originally Posted by BaldiMac

Not price fixing.

it's price fixing. Steve Jobs said it as much at the first Ipad launch back in January 2010 where the "PRICES WILL BE THE SAMES."

If it wasn't price fixing, the DOJ and the EU wouldn't have sued Apple and the 5 Publishers for anti-trust violations.


starting at 0:10

At one point Mossberg asks Steve Jobs about the price advantage ($9.99 @ Amazon vs $14.99 @ Apple’s iBooks) that Kindle owners had enjoyed for certain Amazon.com ebook offerings. Jobs tactfully corrects Mossberg.

Mossberg: “[first part is inaudible] why should she buy a book for $14.99 on your device [iPad] when she can buy one for $9.99 at Amazon [inaudible]?”
Steve Jobs: “Well, that won’t be the case.”
Mossberg: “You mean you [iBooks] won’t be $14.99 or they [Amazon] won’t be $9.99?”
Steve Jobs: “The prices will be the same.” '

Steve also said that the publishers will withheld their books from Amazon if Amazon didn't complied. Amazon can fight 1 Big Publisher with 15% market share but it can't fight against all 5 publishers who have more than 50% market share.

[BaldiMac]

Originally Posted by EbookReader

it's price fixing. Steve Jobs said it as much at the first Ipad launch back in January 2010 where the "PRICES WILL BE THE SAMES."

If it wasn't price fixing, the DOJ and the EU wouldn't have sued Apple and the 5 Publishers for anti-trust violations.

Once again, agency pricing is not illegal. The prices were going to be the same at different retailers because the publishers set the prices, not the retailers.

The DOJ sued because of the alleged collusion to implement agency pricing. All you have to do is look at the reported settlement offers to see that the problem was not agency pricing in general. They only outlawed agency pricing for a couple years as a punishment for the collusion.

[EbookReader]

Originally Posted by BaldiMac

Once again, agency pricing is not illegal. The prices were going to be the same at different retailers because the publishers set the prices, not the retailers.

The DOJ sued because of the alleged collusion to implement agency pricing. All you have to do is look at the reported settlement offers to see that the problem was not agency pricing in general. They only outlawed agency pricing for a couple years as a punishment for the collusion.

Steve Jobs quote wasn't about agency pricing, it was about collusion.

"The prices will be the same"

"The publishers will withheld their books from Amazon"

[BaldiMac]

Originally Posted by EbookReader

Steve Jobs quote wasn't about agency pricing, it was about collusion.

No, it wasn't. That would be stupid. Again, prices would be the same on any specific book because the publisher of that book would be setting the price, not the retailer.

The quote about withholding books was just pointing out the obvious leverage that an individual publisher would have to move Amazon and others to agency pricing.

[samcraig]

Personally - if it was collusion then by all means - guilty as charged.

Not that it matters as to guilt or innocence - but the fact is - even this model failed to help Apple achieve success with iBooks. Oh sure remains to be seen and iBooks are far from dead (nor might they ever be). But iBooks is not remotely the success it could or should be. And ultimately I believe that's because if you buy an iBook - it's only good on an iDevice. If you buy a book from another store - you can read it on many different devices.

Additionally - the entry level reading device (although with the mini being introduced) is still rather price compared to other devices out there which are good/great for reading eBooks.

That could change - but right now - for those that really want (just) eReaders - Apple doesn't have a device which is low-cost enough to make iBooks as ubiquitous.

[EbookReader]

Originally Posted by BaldiMac

No, it wasn't. That would be stupid. Again, prices would be the same on any specific book because the publisher of that book would be setting the price, not the retailer.

The quote about withholding books was just pointing out the obvious leverage that an individual publisher would have to move Amazon and others to agency pricing.

1 publisher withholding books from Amazon would be stupid. Their sales would tank big times while that publisher competition would profit.

that why they need the support of the other publishers.

If you read the DOJ suit, other publishers were saying they have MacMillian back. And since they all signed the MFN clause with Apple, they were obligated to "collude" together to bring about the agency pricing + MFN clause.

In that same suit, Apple has stated that they needed at least 3 publisher to join. It won't work with just 1 publisher.

If it wasn't collusion, the DOJ and the EU wouldn't have gone after the publishers and Apple.

[BaldiMac]

Originally Posted by EbookReader

1 publisher withholding books from Amazon would be stupid. Their sales would tank big times while that publisher competition would profit.

that why they need the support of the other publishers.

Yep.

If you read the DOJ suit, other publishers were saying they have MacMillian back.

Okay. That's evidence of collusion.

And since they all signed the MFN clause with Apple, they were obligated to "collude" together to bring about the agency pricing + MFN clause.

Absolutely false. If they all entered into agreements with Apple separately, that is not collusion.

In that same suit, Apple has stated that they needed at least 3 publisher to join. It won't work with just 1 publisher.

Not quite. It was a publisher that requested confirmation that at least 3 other were going to sign agency agreements with Apple. Depending on Apple's unreleased response, this is likely evidence of collusion.

If it wasn't collusion, the DOJ and the EU wouldn't have gone after the publishers and Apple.

That's just silly. I've said from the start that I think it's likely that there was collusion, especially between the publishers. But an investigation isn't proof of illegal activity.

The problem that we are discussing is that you keep pushing the idea that agency pricing agreements are illegal. That's just not true.

[EbookReader]

Originally Posted by BaldiMac

Yep.



Okay. That's evidence of collusion.



Absolutely false. If they all entered into agreements with Apple separately, that is not collusion.



Not quite. It was a publisher that requested confirmation that at least 3 other were going to sign agency agreements with Apple. Depending on Apple's unreleased response, this is likely evidence of collusion.



That's just silly. I've said from the start that I think it's likely that there was collusion, especially between the publishers. But an investigation isn't proof of illegal activity.

The problem that we are discussing is that you keep pushing the idea that agency pricing agreements are illegal. That's just not true.

i never said agency pricing is illegal.

I said price fixing is illegal.

However, agency pricing in the ebook market can't come about naturally without collusion. Amazon can fight 1 publisher, but it can't fight 5 publishers who team up illegally.