As an avid reader, I hope Apple wins this battle. At the core, it's a philosophical argument about what consumer protection means. The DOJ and Cote fixate on the lowest possible prices. Apple's argument is that there needs to be a healthy balance of power between the various players in the industry to protect the market long-term. This may lead to higher prices in the short-term but should protect variety in purchasing options (thus not allowing a single, dominant party to dictate the price points which could potentially rise once the competition has been finished off) and content, and that this serves consumer interests better.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Files Formal Appeal in E-Books Antitrust Case
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Perhaps you could explain what you mean instead of dismissing what could be a nuanced argument without any sort of rebuttal.
This is not just my analysis: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2014/02/17/140217fa_fact_packer?currentPage=all
"In other words, before the feds stepped in, the agency model introduced competition to the market. But the courts decision reflected a trend in legal thinking among liberals and conservatives alike, going back to the seventies, that looks at antitrust cases from the perspective of consumers, not producers: what matters is lowering prices, even if that goal comes at the expense of competition."
It's not a game...
It's not about winning or losing, it's about getting a fair trial and adequate measures. Or about creating a precedent.
It's not about winning or losing, it's about getting a fair trial and adequate measures. Or about creating a precedent.
The other part of that paragraph: "Judge Cotes opinion described Amazons business practices in glowing terms, and she argued, If Apple is suggesting that Amazon was engaging in illegal, monopolistic practices, and that Apples combination with the Publisher Defendants to deprive a monopolist of some of its market power is pro-competitive and healthy for our economy, it is wrong.
When the author can put a quote like that to support that was important is lower prices it is clear that he is just twisting the facts.
The whole quote is:
Very different meaning
http://dearauthor.wpengine.netdna-c...ads/2013/07/Cote-Decision-on-Price-Fixing.pdf
Not really and also not really relevant to my point about the philosophically different points of view on anti-trust law and how it should be applied.
Of course the judge is right in saying that Amazon is not on trial here. And that illegal acts of others are no excuse for illegal acts of oneself.
Apple is contesting it was acting illegally in the first place. And as a supporting argument it is using the fact that its actions resulted in more competition in the industry, not less. So basically saying, how can our behavior be anti-competitive (and thus illegal) if it actually increased competition? The difference between strict application of the letter of the law vs. its intent.
The judge swept that argument away because she has a different point of view of what anti-trust laws should achieve. As did the DOJ that decided to pursue the case, despite it increasing competition. Because let's not forget that the DOJ has discretionary powers in deciding which cases to pursue. It could have easily looked the other way using the argument that while, in its view, technically Apple acted in violation of the law, the outcomes didn't hurt the competitive landscape nor consumer interests.
I would be very interested in the data you used to support that statement. Before the contested events, Amazon owned the e-books market, after the events its market share dropped to around 65%. In other words, more parties effectively selling e-books, rather than just one.
Before the iPad presentation and after B&B entered the market, Amazon share dropped to less than 80%
When the price is forced to he the same in all the stores there is no competition.
I don't know if you don't know what the case is about or you're just ignoring the facts.
I have posted the ruling, if you want you can read it.
Again, agency pricing is not illegal. And price competition among retailers is not the only form of competition.
Last edited:
It was widely reported that Amazon's market share was around 90% before Apple entered the market. I can't find a single reference to verify your claim. What is your source?
I'll let the fact that you first used a drop in market share as a 'proof' for your claimed 'fact' and now the fixed price, slide.
I don't agree with Cote's (and the DOJ's) interpretation of the law. Their arguments are defensible, if you just go by the letter of the law, rather than its intent (it would be a true affront to tax payers if the case and the ruling weren't). I however, think it is short-sighted and ultimately will hurt consumers' interests through solidifying the position of a de facto monopolist.
Well, Google is your friend, as they say....
But one example would be Books On Boards, which closed down and its founder explained that the switch to Agency Pricing "was organized strictly to benefit the big retail players and “devastated,” independent e-book sellers. He pointed to the lingering impact of the switch to agency pricing in 2010, a switch he said severely impacted indie e-book retailers because it removed Big Six titles—the switch was sudden and included major changes in metadata and delivery that severely affected e-book distributors—from his inventory. Indeed LiVolsi said he lost access to thousands of titles, some for more than a year, because of the Agency Model switch, and in the process he said, “we lost 70% of our customers.”
Apple knew that the switch to agency ricing would increase book prices to consumers, too: DOJ: Steve Jobs E-Mails Show That Apple Engaged In E-Book Price-Fixing
Apple is being evil and part of its tactics is to go after Judge Cote personally, which sets a dangerous precedent and should be universally condemned Behind Apple's mutiny against its court-ordered e-books monitor
And if you don't think that agency pricing increased prices, see this: http://www.theverge.com/2014/2/1/5368098/apple-hit-with-840-million-damages-claim-in-ebooks-lawsuit
An anecdote is not proof of anything. Some seller went under. Some sellers did better.Yep. (Nice job switching topics there!)
Personally? No. They are going after her decisions which they obviously disagree with.
Nobody is arguing that prices didn't increase under agency pricing. Not sure why you keep throwing this into the conversation.
You asked for an example, I provided one.
But of course you know better than the Books On Board owner....
Uhm, 'cause just like most consumers, I am p***ed off that I have to pay sometimes double for ebooks (e.g., Rabbit Run used to be $5.77 at BonB, went up to $12.99 after the Apple+Big Six price fixing, now it's $9.99 at the iBooks store).
Last edited by a moderator:
As a counter to your one anecdote, here is the list of comments submitted to the DOJ as part of the settlement process with the publishers. Note that 789 out of 868 comments were opposed to the DOJ's proposal. Including the Author's Guild and many smaller booksellers.
http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/apple/alpha.html
----------
No, that was someone else. I asked you to provide evidence of your claim.
Again, anecdotes aren't evidence.Obviously, I disagree with you.
As a counter to your one anecdote, here is the list of comments submitted to the DOJ as part of the settlement process with the publishers. Note that 789 out of 868 comments were opposed to the DOJ's proposal. Including the Author's Guild and many smaller booksellers.
http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/apple/alpha.html
----------
No, that was someone else. I asked you to provide evidence of your claim.
Obviously, I disagree with you.
Dude, obviously your "evidence" didn't hold much water in any of the proceedings against Apple's tactics, at least in the EU, Australia, NZ, Canada and the US.
So, since the "evidence" thing didn't go their way, now Apple's new tactic is to go after Bromwich and Judge Cote personally.
Yet, you keep claiming anything you don't like is "anecdotal" (no, it's not, there are a bunch of studies like the Stanford one cited above and you yourself admitted a couple of posts up that ebook prices have gone up since Apple's got its deal with the publishers).
Obviously, you disagree with me. Apparently you also disagree with the relevant authorities in much of the developed world, where Apple had to plead and was forced to change its practices.
Last edited:
Way to shift those goalposts!
I didn't call a Stanford study anecdotal. And I never argued that prices didn't go up.Yep. But the only relevant authority to the topic that I was discussing is the ones in the U.S. You'll notice that I haven't commented at all about the rulings outside the U.S.
Oh, OK, who'd have guessed....
But the only relevant US authority, The US District Court, disagrees with you too.
I personally don't really care much about motivations. They are hard to second guess. One could just as easily argue that all Jobs had in mind was to simplify the business using the iTunes music model: simple, standardised price points. These had to be at a for the publishers interesting price point, otherwise there wouldn't be much benefit to them to convert their catalogue to Apple's format as well.
But like I said, it's not motivations or intentions, it's outcomes that I care about. I think a market with a multitude of e-book sellers that sell books at sustainable prices is in the long-term interests of consumers. Even if that means increased prices in the short-term. If Apple and the publishers happen to realise that situation while acting in a completely self-interested way or while putting the interests of consumers first, I don't really care.
Oh, OK, who'd have guessed....
I have no idea what you are implying here.
Absolutely. But reasonable people can disagree on how to interpret the law. That's why we have appeals.