Apple Found Guilty of Conspiring to Fix Prices in E-Book Trial [Updated]

[charlituna]

This was used as evidence by the DOJ in which Steve Jobs admitted that he fixed prices.

Not really. If the prices were flipped the other way it would the same as what it was, a clue that Apple was going to have pricing consistency via the MFN on prices. Just like Amazon had such a clause.

Nothing really to do with the evil agency model as the judge viewed it.

 

[iGrip]

In the scope of this lawsuit, perhaps that is not germane.

Bingo. In the words of the Judge: "Another company’s alleged violation of antitrust laws is not an excuse for engaging in your own violations of law."

 

[Oletros]

It's not too much of a surprise since the judge pretty much admitted it was a show trial.

When did she "admitted" that?

 

[samcraig]

Why would some invest in entering the market when Amazon could simply lower it's prices again?

You're clearly right. Why would any business enter a market then?

 

[tanyet]

The mere fact that Eddie Cue said there was no collusion is perjury by the fact that Apple lost the case.

Apple has said they will appeal the ruling. Until that time perjury has been committed by Apple's entire counsel and senior management.

If Apple loses that appeal it will (in my opinion) hurt Apple's reputation and do more harm than good.

Apple should lick their wounds and accept the ruling of the case.

It's going to be a long summer for Apple.

Although I'm completely against Apple in this case you clearly don't understand the concept of perjury. You don't perjure yourself by saying I didn't do something. If that were true everybody that was found guilty of anything would be perjurer.

 

[Oletros]

Nothing really to do with the evil agency model as the judge viewed it.

Perhaps because it has nothing to do with agency model, but with price fixing as the OP said.

 

[EbookReader]

Not really. If the prices were flipped the other way it would the same as what it was, a clue that Apple was going to have pricing consistency via the MFN on prices. Just like Amazon had such a clause.

Nothing really to do with the evil agency model as the judge viewed it.

Amazon was forced to raise its $9.99 price to $12.99/$14.99.

"she" the customer had to paid a higher price.

starting at 0:10
Mossberg: 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.” '

What Steve Jobs meant and knew was that the price would be the same at $14.99, not $9.99. Steve Jobs knew he price fixed. He knew that the customer would pay a higher price for "loss leaders" best sellers.

 

[charlituna]

Again from the article: Through their conspiracy they forced Amazon (and other resellers) to relinquish retail pricing authority and then they raised retail e-book prices. Those higher prices were not the result of regular market forces but of a scheme in which Apple was a full participant.

Just because it is from the article doesn't make it true. Men have spent lifetimes in jail over being found guilty in trial for murder and their guilt was reported in article after article, only to have DNA prove they were innocent 50 years later.

Amazon could have said no, could have demanded they keep their wholesale model but come up with some other pricing system for consumers etc.

And not all prices went up. Many went down on Apple's store. Just depends on whether you are looking at new releases, adult v kids, fiction v nonfiction. But one standout is textbooks. Apple barred major publishers from charging the $100+, even $50+ for electronic versions of their textbooks.

 

[Oletros]

And not all prices went up.

Average prices went up.

Amazon could have said no, could have demanded they keep their wholesale model but come up with some other pricing system for consumers etc.

Do you really know what the case is about? Because the ****ing case is publishers FORCING Amazon the Agency model. Amazon could just accept it or don't sell the books from the five biggest publishers

 

[Risco]

I would expect this to be mean tested settlement. Therefore a fine in the billions os very possibel and quite possibly a some kind of restriction on what books they can or cannot sell over the next 5 years.

 

[charlituna]

This is worth a repost.



This is the top comment on this topic @ r/technology.

http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/1fisj9/us_takes_apple_to_trial_over_ebooks_pricefixing/

[–]competitionroolz 2581 points 1 day ago*x2
Hi, all. Long time lurker, first time poster. I am an antitrust lawyer (among other things) and have followed this case closely, because it is interesting.

But it doesn't equal his narrative being correct.

 

[samcraig]

Just because it is from the article doesn't make it true. Men have spent lifetimes in jail over being found guilty in trial for murder and their guilt was reported in article after article, only to have DNA prove they were innocent 50 years later.

Amazon could have said no, could have demanded they keep their wholesale model but come up with some other pricing system for consumers etc.

And not all prices went up. Many went down on Apple's store. Just depends on whether you are looking at new releases, adult v kids, fiction v nonfiction. But one standout is textbooks. Apple barred major publishers from charging the $100+, even $50+ for electronic versions of their textbooks.

They could have said no? Sure. They could have also been refused best sellers.

But this case isn't about what Amazon could or could not do. This case is solely what Apple and the publishers did. You can try and make this about Amazon - but the case isn't about Amazon.

 

[Boston007]

Everyone who is defending Apple ask yourself ONE question right now-

If SAMSUNG or GOOGLE were in the shoes of Apple would you be supporting them as you are now of Apple?

Ask yourself that.

Because you know you would not.

HYPOCRITES

 

[Intarweb]

I don't know if you happened to notice that Apple doesn't have a dominant market share in either computers or smart phones. In fact, Apple has a history of maintaining high prices and high margins, at the expense of market share. In other words, you basically have no idea what you are talking about. I suggest you go read a business book or something.

I guess this was never said...

"I will spend my last dying breath if I need to, and I will spend every penny of Apple's $40bn in the bank to right this wrong," Jobs said in his biography.

"I'm going to destroy Android, because it's a stolen product. I'm willing to go thermonuclear war on this."

Couple that with Apple's patent wars, some legit, some laughable, and yes, Apple wants to destroy the competition.

 

[PollyK]

Apple really seems like that Bully on the playground that likes to dish it out, but cries when you strike back. There's greed and then there's Apple greed.

 

[OllyW]

Apple and the same 5 Publishers settled with the EU after the EU sued for ebook price fixing antitrust.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-13/apple-four-publishers-bid-to-end-eu-price-fixing-probe.html
Apple, Publishers Settle EU E-Books Price-Fixing Probe


So why did Apple settled in the EU but didn't settle in the USA?

The legal systems are not the same. Apple's legal team probably advised them there was no chance of winning the case in EU but there was a possibility of beating the charges in the USA.

 

[IJ Reilly]

I would expect this to be mean tested settlement. Therefore a fine in the billions os very possibel and quite possibly a some kind of restriction on what books they can or cannot sell over the next 5 years.

Doubtful. The plan never went into effect. The real danger is the court's findings being used in private torts. This was the actual damage to Microsoft in their losing battle with the government. The Consent Decree was weak, but the Findings of Fact cost Microsoft hundreds of millions in damages to other companies.

 

[charlituna]

Not ironic at all since Amazon didn't have a monopoly nor were they doing anything illegal.

Or they did and were. If you look at their share etc they had the vast majority and their methods may have been predatory etc. Just because no one sued them doesn't equal them being innocent.

 

[iGrip]

You're talking about WHOLESALE prices. I'm talking about setting the RETAIL price. Publishers should be allowed to set the RETAIL price, just as developers do for Apps.

Should all the dominant developers be allowed to get together to set the retail price that they will all charge?

Should Apple be allowed to act as a go-between to ensure that a critical mass of developers do that, and to further agree that they will force Apple's competitors to accept such a deal, or else get cut off?

 

[wiz329]

Where did she get her law degree at? Night School with Luis Tully?

A publisher setting the price for an eBook in the iBookstore is no different than me, as a developer, setting the price for my app in the App Store.

#EpicFail

Nope.

Its no different than if you colluded together with every single other developer to set a price for every app in the app store.

And that's illegal.

 

[EbookReader]

When retailers are allowed to offer discount to customers, prices dropped.

Imagine that.....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...938fe6-e969-11e2-aa9f-c03a72e2d342_story.html

That’s because the firms that controlled e-book pricing under the Apple model that U.S. District Judge Denise Cote ruled was a conspiracy Wednesday have already settled with the government. And prices for e-books have been dropping as a result, as publishers negotiate new contracts that allow retailers to discount the prices of some books.

Assistant Attorney General William Baer mentioned the changes in a statement after the ruling, saying, “Through today’s court decision and previous settlements with five major publishers, consumers are again benefitting from retail price competition and paying less for their e-books.”

HarperCollins was one of three book publishers to settle charges with the Justice Department when the case was first filed in April, and prices for its books on Amazon began dropping in September. According to a chart tracking e-book prices through April on Digital Book World — a Web site that covers the e-book industry — prices dropped again when other publishers, including Macmillan, Hachette and Simon & Schuster, began allowing retailers such as Amazon to apply their own discounts to books.

 

[Oletros]

Or they did and were. If you look at their share etc they had the vast majority and their methods may have been predatory etc.

The DoJ investigated Amazon and there was no predatory pricing.

Just because no one sued them doesn't equal them being innocent.

Ah, guilty until proven innocent.

 

[iGrip]

As I have said before, DoJ pursued this "to get consumers cheaper books" but that's not their job.

I'm pretty sure the DOJ did not do that, because it is not their job to do that.

Instead, the DOJ pursued this to bring an end to a massive and damaging combination in restraint of trade.

The price level of books is set by the market. It is the job of the DOJ to ensure that a free market is available so that is able to happen.

The DOJ doesn't give a damn if books cost a little or a lot, but only that the market functions in a manner so that they are able to be sold at fair market value.

 

[charlituna]

Ok, sure, the letter of the law gets Apple and not Amazon in this particular suit. Certainly you don't think Amazon's "90% non-monopoly" and clear price depression designed to eliminate competition are non-issues from the larger consumer/market standpoint, do you??

90% is a monopoly. They just haven't been tried and found of getting there illegally. Doesn't make them innocent. Just not caught.

 

[huntercr]

Apple did the world a disservice by having no library

For me having the ibook store exist is one thing, but by purposely ignoring any functionality or API for a lending library, they have ultimately served the publishers and not society.
In this way Amazon is slightly better in this regard.