You're that guy. The person who loves to argue. You haven't said anything here other than waving your hands in disbelief. What claims are inaccurate? Here we go...
Ignorant... mmm hmmm. I own an eBook company. You have demonstrated nothing. You just called someone ignorant. That's it. That's the kind of person you are. Just arguing for the sake of arguing. The lips are moving folks but nothing is coming out...
The case shows this. Apple was the ringleader in getting all of the publishers in the case together and onboard with their way of wanting to do business via their "whirlwind" 9 day trip to New York to meet with all of the big publishers. Through witness testimony and written communications, it was demonstrated in court that Apple led the collusion, with Simon and Schuster's CEO as the advocate for Apple.
A small snippet of hundreds of pages of witness testimony, written communication, and the like:
Cue considered [Carolyn] Reidy [S&S CEO] a real “leader” among her fellow CEOs. He was not wrong. As described below, she was instrumental in convincing both Penguin and Macmillan to sign up with Apple when they were wavering. She was in frequent contact with Young, Shanks and Sargent at every critical juncture in the weeks before the Launch. DOJ Motion of Facts and Law, May 14, 2013.
By Friday evening, January 22, Cue was able to report progress. He informed Jobs that he had commitments from Hachette, S&S, Macmillan, and Penguin that they would sign. At this point, Penguin required assurance that three other
Publishers were also signing Agreements. As Cue admits, in these final days the Publishers needed reassurance that they would not be alone in signing an agency agreement with Apple because they feared Amazon’s reaction, reassurance that Cue readily provided. DOJ Motion of Facts and Law, May 14, 2013.
Amazon never had contracts that limited, to such a large extent, what publishers could do outside their store. Apple's mission was to eliminate any other business model but the agency model and increase best seller and new release pricing because they wanted it higher. In other words, to fixate these prices at what were $12.99 and $14.99 as the publishers could set their prices higher. This is the problem in that Apple was forcing the agency model on the industry because they didn't want to compete with the wholesale model. If you or Apple or anyone else thinks Amazon is breaking the law, then get a case together. But Amazon doesn't limit, like Apple tried to do, what you're doing outside their store. You're free to pursue agency agreements, subscription models, etc. Not with the way Apple and the publishers had it.
And if Amazon is so competitive and the "bad guy" why is Kobo supporting the government? Why are we? Why are so many others... why did my friend Dennis Morrin from iFlow Reader, who's now dead, end up hating Apple for ripping is business apart by stopping him from supplying links to his Website?
I'm paying the bills. I know the expenses. I'm in the industry. Amazon isn't the problem for us. Apple was. And that's because they, and the publishers, forced one way of doing business onto the entire industry. This way, had it have continued, it would have flatlined pricing and made the market completely myopic. And now we're realizing our unique business models and it's good for us and good for consumers.
This case isn't about the MFN clause. It's about whether Apple colluded with industry to achieve some illegal thing. But on the MFN clause... We got an Email from the iBooks Team recently that the MFN clause is gone from their contracts in the EU and will follow in the US as well. So in Apple's case, it's not an entirely legal clause because the government has abolished it from their contacts because of their anti-competitive practices. Because of the nature and framework in which it was positioned.
Can't post Apple's iBookstore contract from the trial, but it's referenced in DOJ trial documentation that's publicly available.
Ah... you're wrong. No, Apple didn't have a monopoly when they were trying to get into the eBook business. But a monopoly is defined as: a company or group having exclusive control over a commodity or service eBooks aren't really commodities but I use the term monopoly more loosely in that this is a group that set out to have exclusive control over a service and its related digital products.
But to your point that Apple had no control over the price of eBooks or the way they were sold outside the iBookstore. This is where you've completely missed the point and the point of the trial. The opposite of what you say is what is fact. Apple's iBooks contract forced anyone signing it to not be able to use any other business model other than an agency model outside the iBookstore. This right there is how Apple moved to control the WAY books were sold outside its iBookstore. This also gave them control over the PRICE of books in that they'd never have to compete with price because all of the publishers would be selling on the agency model, taking away the power of retailers to price books. With the MFN clause, apple could exit out of the agency model and become the entity that set the price to match the competition.
The point of the trial is to show that Apple and the publishers colluded with one another to eliminate competition/price competition. This is what the courts showed and Apple was found guilty of collusion. That is, they all got together, agreed to eliminate price competition, and Apple, at the center of it all, had them all sign a contract that ensured their goals would be met. It's called collusion.
Yes, it is true. Demonstrate otherwise.
HarperCollins advised Amazon in writing that it had reached its first agency agreement with Apple. “In the interest of ‘no surprises,’” HarperCollins advised Amazon that it had decided to move all of their New Release e-books to the agency model, and had “reached an agreement with our first agent, Apple” last night. Penguin also called Amazon on January 27, right after the Launch, to explain that it had moved to agency with its “first customer,” referring to Apple.46 Macmillan’s Sargent did not attend the Launch, because as he had told Cue on January 24, “I expect I will be in Seattle or traveling back,” from delivering the news in person to Amazon.
The Publisher Defendants would move as one, first to force Amazon to relinquish control of pricing, and then, when the iBookstore went live, to raise the retail prices for e-book versions of New Releases and NYT Bestsellers to the caps set by Apple.DOJ Document 326
The contract stipulates pricing tiers for new releases and best sellers. $12.99 and $14.99. These tiers are where they wanted this content to sell at. There were certain concessions in the iBooks contract that was a catalyst for pricing to be at these levels for at least 6 months.
The publishers are guilty. They've admitted guilt by volunteering to pay fines to the government. And the DOJ trial against Apple found Apple guilty of colluding with the five largest publishers. Guilty of collusion. You can't collude by yourself...
Coercion/Duress is illegal. Random House could have sued Apple over it. Yes, it's highly illegal.
In law, coercion is codified as a duress crime. Such actions are used as leverage, to force the victim to act in a way contrary to their own interests.
The only trend is your mouth moving with nothing being said. The fact that you ask for links and the things you say and your behaviour illustrates a person who is simply hanging out on the Internet in forums who likes to argue with people. But a person who doesn't have the relevant knowledge, background, or experience otherwise.
Without looking at Google, tell us where all of the court documentation is located.
Price competition did leave, because the convicted group moved to force 1 business model onto the industry. They set the pricing. And as soon as the publishers lowered their prices elsewhere, Apple's pricing would be dumped to match it. The MFN clause on its own is fine. What's not fine is a group of companies forcing 1 business model onto an entire industry, where retailers cede pricing power. This and this alone is what's responsible for price competition elimination, not the MFN clause on its own. You can have an MFN clause but that doesn't mean Apple could compete because it may not be able to lower its price that much and still maintain the business. Or someone on a wholesale model might be able to price lower than the smaller guys because they get better deals on product. Other retailers with lower costs and better pricing deals under a wholesale model may be able to undersell Apple, etc. This is the essence of retail and this is what Apple and the publishers tried to eliminate.
An agency model just with Apple and an MFN clause is one thing. They all went too far forcing this on the industry.
Demonstrate a positive correlation of increased competition after Apple entered the market. Demonstrate a positive correlation that Amazon made more money and increased their market share related to Apple entering the market.
There were and continue to be a lot of forces that act on the eBook market. There was a massive spike in eBook sales exactly when the first Kindle launched and the growth continued. It's not clear that the momentum that eBooks had on their own before Apple entered the market wouldn't have continued without Apple.
Good, so Apple is expendable... and you shouldn't care about their eBook retail business.
Sounds like you are detached from reality. If it's fair, it's fair. The DOJ posted an Email from Steve Jobs which illustrates that they may have changed their linking policy to retaliate against Amazon/industry. It is not right for Apple to cherry pick on developers in certain industries because they want to eliminate competition. That's anti-competitive and the DOJ may be interested in putting a case together over the 30% In-App purchase issue.
Last edited by a moderator:
By the way...
