Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Loses Appeal in E-Books Price Fixing Lawsuit, Ordered to Pay $450 Million Fine

Oletros said:
Amazon ebook division was profitable so yes, there was money to he made.
Click to expand...

I think Amazon was trying to woo people to their e-book reader by having 'affordable content', and take a loss on that content to move their high profit devices. It isn't necessarily illegal as many companies have done the same over the years with a wide variety of devices. What makes this awkward is that Apple tried to, apparently, 'support' the publishers by removing Amazon's ability to artificially lower the price of the content...

A noble gesture, but technically illegal. If my reading is correct, why the former tactic isn't illegal while the later is is rather baffling. But I guess it is legal for a corporation to take a loss, and illegal for them to boost their profits, which makes sense on a few levels...

But anyway...

I was 'gifted' a Kindle Fire HD7, and find it nearly unusable compared to the iPad. I don't know how to get it to be more usable. It seems to be very 'clunky', and not at all intuitive. Or maybe I'm spoiled...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost
PinkyMacGodess said:
I think Amazon was trying to woo people to their e-book reader by having 'affordable content', and take a loss on that content to move their high profit devices. It isn't necessarily illegal as many companies have done the same over the years with a wide variety of devices. What makes this awkward is that Apple tried to, apparently, 'support' the publishers by removing Amazon's ability to artificially lower the price of the content...

A noble gesture, but technically illegal. If my reading is correct, why the former tactic isn't illegal while the later is is rather baffling. But I guess it is legal for a corporation to take a loss, and illegal for them to boost their profits, which makes sense on a few levels...
Click to expand...

They were not taking any loss, son it was not illegal
 
Oletros said:
Amazon ebook division was profitable so yes, there was money to he made.
Click to expand...

It's amazing how often you repeat the same thing without any legal context, precedent, evidence, or methodology. The DOJ said it, so it must be the only possible conclusion. :rolleyes:

Oletros said:
They were not taking any loss, son it was not illegal
Click to expand...
Oletros said:
No, nobody was taking a loss.
Click to expand...

Amazon was taking a loss on most new releases and best sellers.
 
BaldiMac said:
It's amazing how often you repeat the same thing without any legal context, precedent, evidence, or methodology. The DOJ said it, so it must be the only possible conclusion. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...


Hmmmm, who to believe. The DoJ or Baldimac.... :rolleyes:


BaldiMac said:
Amazon was taking a loss on most new releases and best sellers.
Click to expand...

Even if they had made a loss in that division (which I doubt given that the DoJ will have seen the evidence, something you have not done), that's not illegal. It's a loss leader. Making a loss on one line of product as a way to tempt consumers in is what shops do all the time. When Walmart offer a 2 for one, is that illegal? They're making a loss on those items....
 
Gaspode67 said:
Hmmmm, who to believe. The DoJ or Baldimac.... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I'm not asking you to believe me. I simply disagree with the DOJ. Do you believe and agree with everything the DOJ has ever said?

The law has plenty of room for differing interpretations. Amazingly, I believe that the DOJ's and the district court's arguments are completely reasonable. I just disagree with them. As did one of the appellate judges. That's why we have appeals. :)

Even if they had made a loss in that division (which I doubt given that the DoJ will have seen the evidence, something you have not done), that's not illegal. It's a loss leader. Making a loss on one line of product as a way to tempt consumers in is what shops do all the time. When Walmart offer a 2 for one, is that illegal? They're making a loss on those items....
Click to expand...

Again, I disagree with you here on two counts.

1) If eBooks as a whole were losing money for a monopolist with vendor lock in, the DOJ would certainly have stepped in with predatory pricing charges as the pricing would have been viewed as unsustainable and an attempt to corner the market and then raise prices. Hence, the fact that they used the alleged profitability of the division as a justification to dismiss illegal pricing claims during the trial.

2) I also disagree with the DOJ's decision to only consider Amazon's eBook division as a whole. That treats eBooks as a commodity market where any book is the same as any other. The new releases and bestsellers that Amazon did price below cost in order to maintain it's dominant (90%) market share, and then raised prices on, could certainly be looked at on their own for illegal pricing. Coincidentally, these were the books whose prices were raised after Apple entered the market.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost
Cuban Missles said:
I actually read the ruling. I was previously baffled how Apple could have been found guilty. After all, the agency model is simple, the publisher sets the price, not Apple. Apple only get's a commission. And even MFN is standard in many contracts, so that alone was not enough. The problem was that Apple insisted that the publishers had to convert all other ebook sellers to the Agency model and at the last minute changed the wording to MFN with the same intent. It's unfortunate, but they were loose in the negotiations and that's where they got in trouble. The agency model by itself is fine, as it is in the App Store. MFN on its own is fine, but when it was placed in there to specifically force the transition of the competition to the agency model, that was not so fine.

I do think the court is overreaching with bromwich, as the fine would have been enough and maybe nullifying the contracts and forcing them to renegotiate without a MFN clause. The rest seem cruel and unusual IMO.
Click to expand...

I'm with you.

I don't think it was the right decision to uphold this verdict. In my opinion, Apple were not guilty of collusion with the publishers, as there was no evidence to support such an allegation.

It seems likely that the DoJ is in bed with Amazon.
 
Benjamin Frost said:
I'm with you.

I don't think it was the right decision to uphold this verdict. In my opinion, Apple were not guilty of collusion with the publishers, as there was no evidence to support such an allegation.

It seems likely that the DoJ is in bed with Amazon.
Click to expand...
Yes, 160 pages of ruling and there is no single evidence in there. It must be that Amazon bribed the all the people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost and Gaspode67
Oletros said:
Amazon ebook division was profitable so yes, there was money to he made.

Still waiting what Amazon tactics abs what predatory pricing.

Abd I repeat, what more providers?
Click to expand...

I think BaldiMac has done a sufficiently good enough job already of explaining this so what difference will it make if I say the same thing? You're sticking to your guns so it's really pointless.
 
giantfan1224 said:
I think BaldiMac has done a sufficiently good enough job already of explaining this so what difference will it make if I say the same thing? You're sticking to your guns so it's really pointless.
Click to expand...
BaldiMac the only thing he dies us repeating ad nauseum the same debunked ********.

But yes, it us really pointless, even if the SCOTUS or the full en bank appeal would hold the ruling you will repeat the same thing.

So, believe what you want reality is what it is
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gaspode67
Oletros said:
BaldiMac the only thing he dies us repeating ad nauseum the same debunked ********.

But yes, it us really pointless, even if the SCOTUS or the full en bank appeal would hold the ruling you will repeat the same thing.

So, believe what you want reality is what it is
Click to expand...

You mean people will continue to disagree? Color me surprised :rolleyes:. Lawyers will be so happy.
 
Apple was found to be guilty so move on already. I popped in after a long absence from this site just to see what's new and it's the same ppl, saying the same thing to defend a company like they are blood relatives or something. Just sad.....
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gaspode67
thekeyring said:
$450 Million fine?

So in 3 days, Apple have already earned enough to pay it back.
Click to expand...

That's very short sighted given the outcome. Long term they stand to lose much more in sales profits. Further, there is now a precedent set . They've also put them under a microscope for all future content deals.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back