The law says differently. Like it or hate it. At current - Amazon hasn't done anything illegal. Neither has Penguin/Random House. Apple and the publishers - not so much.
And in markets - 40% can be considered significant. Obviously.
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 E-Book Price Fixing Decision Could See Return of Direct Links from Kindle and Other Apps to Their Stores
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The law says differently. Like it or hate it. At current - Amazon hasn't done anything illegal. Neither has Penguin/Random House. Apple and the publishers - not so much.
And in markets - 40% can be considered significant. Obviously.
Obviously, I disagree. If the law were that straightforward, the world would be a better place.
Well you wrote legally collude. Can you legally murder someone? I'm pretty sure the idea of colluding itself makes it illegal
He said before the trial to which I agree. More than evidence comes into play during the trial. The testimony of the witnesses for instance. Statements like that by the judge make for a better appeal.
But it can still hurt authors in the long run. Amazon does not sell all books cheaper. Mostly the best sellers. It might make people choose books more based on price than other titles not sold at a discount. Not good competition for unknown authors new to the market.
Last edited:
Agreed
Denise Cote thinks she IS the DOJ. Extremely biased, and too unstable to sit on a Federal Bench, IMO.
"Trust the Government. It worked for the Indians".
Denise Cote thinks she IS the DOJ. Extremely biased, and too unstable to sit on a Federal Bench, IMO.
"Trust the Government. It worked for the Indians".
It's not that I like Amazon getting the most out of the deal, but Amazon was definately together with the consumers the most damaged party by Apple's unfair practices, it's obvious that is also going to gain the most if the situation is restored.
Striving for a competitive market cannot come at the cost of awarding Apple (or any competitor) with advantages gained through illegal practices.
Only in your eyes...
You implied that Apple got off harshly and the publishers got off easier. Right? It's because the publishers admitted guilty and settled out of court.
They even didn't admitted guilty in the settlement agreement. Well, like Apple in the EU, they didn't admitted wrongdoing
There's not one single answer that states everyone was right, or everyone was wrong, no. There are a lot of blacks, whites, and greys contained within the whole picture
I would say the situation involving Apple and the publishers together was ultimately illegal though, as they worked together specifically to hobble Amazon and give Apple an advantage. From the evidence, what they did was the very definition of collusion.
It's hard to deny Amazon was anything but the one single market power at the time, one who may or may not have been involved in illegal practices to gain and maintain their position. But this fact doesn't give everyone else carte blanche to do whatever they deem necessary to take down a larger threat. Illegal is illegal, and no matter who was on top after all was said and done, some part of the market would suffer by the end of it.
By "damaged", do you mean "forced to make more money."
Do you have any evidence that they were "damaged" at all? Are we to assume that they would have maintained a 90% market share? If so, why not simply bar Apple from the eBook market for 5 years?
By "damaged", do you mean "forced to make more money."
Do you have any evidence that they were "damaged" at all? Are we to assume that they would have maintained a 90% market share? If so, why not simply bar Apple from the eBook market for 5 years?
well if people stopped or paused in buying ebooks because prices went up - they weren't necc making more money...
eta: I think his punctuation was lacking. I think he's saying the consumer was the damaged party.
Except that there is a legal argument that restraint of trade to counteract market inefficiencies can be legal.
http://www.abajournal.com/news/arti...wyer_files_cartoon_amicus_brief_with_proper_/
Okay, we need EBookReader in here to counter that, cuz I don't know how.
Cartoons make the best arguments.
(EBookReader spent most of his posts arguing that the effects of agency pricing and the MFN clause were proof of Apple's guilt. Something that the judge specifically refuted in her ruling.)
Cartoons make the best arguments.
(EBookReader spent most of his posts arguing that the effects of agency pricing and the MFN clause were proof of Apple's guilt. Something that the judge specifically refuted in her ruling.)
Yeah, purdy pictures always sway me.
Though I did think of one semi counter argument. I guess it depends on the necessity of them going as far as they did. The comic states that certain extreme measures such as horizontal price fixing are allowed if necessary to compete with an entrenched monopsony (which Amazon arguably was), and better for the market overall.
So my questions are: were the results truly better overall, was Amazon damaging the market for ebooks across the board (which I could argue they weren't, because they were only selling recent bestsellers below margin), and was it the only means Apple and the publishers had to offset Amazon's buying power?
There is obviously no exact formula for these things. The DoJ is making a proposal but at some point someone will have to evaluate all of this and decide. Nobody could evaluate exactly how much Samsung's patent infringements "damaged" Apple either, someone had to make an estimate which is still debated today...
Note that this is simply my take of what is the DoJ's thinking. To me the DoJ's goals makes sense, they want to remedy the damages Apple did to the consumers and the competitors. Whether they are proposing the best way to accomplish all of this is another issue.
Yep. Obviously the court was not swayed by the cartoon. I was just pointing out that reasonable, informed people can disagree over the law. Both sides can even be right. Just got to convince the judge that you're more right.
You say, "making a proposal". I say, "taking an extreme position as a negotiating tactic."
She isn't.Denise Cote thinks she IS the DOJ. Extremely biased, and too unstable to sit on a Federal Bench, IMO.
"Trust the Government. It worked for the Indians".
She is part of the Judicial branch of the government.
The DOJ is part of the Executive branch.
I'm pleased to know you're qualified to judge the competency of a person who has been on the federal bench close to 20 years.
So now we have trials just to read the verdict and give out punishment?
I'm sure the judge has not heard all the evidence prior to the trial. Not sure where you got the "Heard all the testimonies from the parties involved" That normally happens during the trial.
I don't know, to some folks on here, it is a matter of life and death; of course we all know it is much more important than that!
Apple makes enough money from iTunes to make it self sustaining and break even. The whole point of iTunes is to make content available for all its products, which makes the most money by selling their hardware.
The Mac App store is a little different as they are making more profit as they sell their own software.
Last edited:
Forced... no.
But I'm sure as soon as Apple starts making Android apps, you will be able to load them on a Kindle.
But of course hell will have frozen over by then.
Remember, Amazon doesn't lock down their tablets. You can sideload all you want.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't selling content through an outside channel within your app a violation of the app guidelines? If the courts want to play games, reject the app. Quit trying to appease the government, because they will never be satisfied.