The DOJ didn't find Apple guilty of anything. The court found Apple liable for price fixing. It just has nothing to do with setting a minimum price as you repeatedly stated.
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 to Pay $450 Million to Settle E-Book Price Fixing Case
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The DOJ didn't find Apple guilty of anything. The court found Apple liable for price fixing. It just has nothing to do with setting a minimum price as you repeatedly stated.
Baldi,
you're usually not this ... out to lunch.
But go read the case itself. I'm not saying that all the facts to prove them innocent or guilty are there.
Just that this is what the case was fundamentally about. This was the sticking points the DOJ had against apple and the 5 publishers, and this is what they found Apple guilty of.
I'm not passing judgmenet whether I believe they are right or wrong. This is just the facts of the case. not my judgement.
And All the sources, including if you want to spend the time to read the court documents themselves back that up.
http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/applebooks.html
The problem wasn't that they wanted to go agency model.
the problem wasn't that prices went up
the problem wasn't that there was deals in place by all 5 companies that Apple automatically got the lowest retail price no matter what deals were in place
it was that all 5+ Apple met regularly to discuss this in order to use their collective power to force this upon the rest of the market.
That is collusion
Again, I'm well aware of the DOJs case and the judge's decision. I'm just pointing out that your repeated claims that Apple and the publishers agreed to minimum pricing is completely wrong. The DOJ never alleged such a claim.
All true.
Apple never met with the 5 publishers collectively. There is no evidence that they did anything other than negotiate with each publisher separately.
I can absolutely see the argument that the publishers colluded based on the regular dinners among CEOs. However, there is no evidence that Apple was aware of or participated in this collusion.
Have you read through the emails and other evidence submitted to trial? (i'm just curious, even based on the evidence I do believe it's entirely possible to come to different conclusions.)
In my opinion, after reading a vast majority of them (I have no life admittedly) it is very suspect the involvement that Apple participated in between publishers.
There were even emails where the sender said "i dont feel right going to other publishers".. but they did anyways.
These guys knew what they were doing. They knew that it was either borderline illegal or stepped over the line and they wanted to see if they could get away with it.
They got caught.
What gets Apple in twined is that reading Allt he chains, they wouldn't have colluded if Apple hadn't been pushing them to do it together. The emails and documents all have communications from Apple to each pushing them in this direction.
http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/apple/exhibits/px-0607.pdf
is a great example of how **** went wrong here, Job's himself (if you take this direction of thought) slipped that APple was directly involved in an interview on TV
Last edited:
I've read through a bunch of the evidence and most of the judge's decision.
Those emails were between publishers. As I said, there was even regular dinners among the CEOs. I think there is evidence of collusion between publishers, even if there was not a specific agreement in this case.
Such as? I have seen no email from Apple pushing them to collude.
But you seem to have shifted your argument away from the original statement that I disagreed with regarding minimum pricing.
I think it was Steve's irreverence that caused it. The email quoted earlier in this thread, for instance. And Apple's refusal to settle at the beginning, which is what the pubs did.
Basically what Apple did was ultimately better for the industry (agency model) against what Amazon was doing which would ultimate cause the publishing industry to implode, but they were also kinda skeezy in the way that they said you can't price books below the iBook Store price.
But the minimum pricing comes as part of the deal. By colluding together, the publishers set the retail minimum price they wanted books to sell at.
This is the point of Agency pricing. The publishers set retail price by contract.
There again is nothing terribly wrong with this. Except they used the tactic that if the retailer didn't switch to this model, they wouldn't get deals with any of the big 5.
Collusion amongst the big 5 isn't really at question. that was mostly cut and dry.
The question became what was Apple's involvement. Were they just bystandards to the process or active participants in driving it?
It was hard to say Apple was purely a bystanders when Apple not only talked about everyone going agency model, but had conversations with Publishers encouraging the switch, Prior to any of the publishers going forward with it.
So Apple either had insider information, and were bystanders, or, they were actively involved in it.
But they knew about it, and had active discussions with Publishers (who were found to collude) to help it come to pass.
this is where the judgement comes in. Based on the evidence I read, it is of my opinion that Apple was either and active participant in the 5 colluding companies or was orchestrating it.
http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/apple/exhibits/px-0026.pdf
http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/apple/exhibits/px-0032.pdf
Eddy Cue even admits to having sit downs with 3 publishers to discuss it.
http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/apple/exhibits/px-0050.pdf
And Job's himself was very bad at making statements that could be negatively used.
http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/apple/exhibits/px-0046.pdf
Last edited:
I read this article http://tidbits.com/article/13912 which really helped to explain this whole thing to me.
This is just a snippet:
This is just a snippet:
Same guy (or the company) that put the non-runningest car in the world in my garage when I was sixteen. It was a new vehicle. Starting was optional.
Don't know what he did for birthday gifts but I never bought that breed again. Actually I didn't buy the first one. Parents did. I've been told they are reliable now but still . . .
No Averatec electronics either
Amazon is getting away with worse
You are correct and there's plenty of evidence to back that up. Just look at what Amazon is doing to some book publishers right now. Refusing to sell there books until they get a better cut out of the deal. Apple is not guilty of anything except making ebooks cheaper and more affordable. The DOJ is so full of it and that person they call a judge is a fixed puppet in the whole thing. She had her mind made up before the trial started and even admitted it before the trial. Testimony in the trial even showed this but the judge wouldn't except anything that Apple said. More evidence after has proved that Apple was responsible for ebook prices to fall, not rise when it was selling. It was better for the consumer, not worse.
Can't wait for the appeals so Apple can blow away the DOJ and Coyte and put Amazon in its place.
You are correct and there's plenty of evidence to back that up. Just look at what Amazon is doing to some book publishers right now. Refusing to sell there books until they get a better cut out of the deal. Apple is not guilty of anything except making ebooks cheaper and more affordable. The DOJ is so full of it and that person they call a judge is a fixed puppet in the whole thing. She had her mind made up before the trial started and even admitted it before the trial. Testimony in the trial even showed this but the judge wouldn't except anything that Apple said. More evidence after has proved that Apple was responsible for ebook prices to fall, not rise when it was selling. It was better for the consumer, not worse.
Can't wait for the appeals so Apple can blow away the DOJ and Coyte and put Amazon in its place.
Apple should have paid allot more as withh all these billion dollar companies ripping off the customers. These pocket change fines don't do squat to insure they won't do it again. They will now figure out another way to screw the customers knowing the fines are weak.
Actually, it's trying to protect retail pricing levels to leave margins for publishers and writers...Apple, with it's billions and billions needs to try and take advantage of writers trying to make a living.
Nice.
There's nothing sleazy about it. Requesting a most favored nation clause is perfectly legal and happens all the time. And it's not quite how you depict it. Publishers can sell books at any price, and if they sell to Apple's competitors at a lower price, they would have to extend the same low price to Apple so that Apple can at least match the competitor's price.
Or did Apple want to monopolize e-books themselves? I highly doubt Apple had the industries interests at heart.
Hi Tim!
I didn't Jeff Bezos is on Macrumors either.
----------
The Justice Department is a joke. Going after Apple but sparing Amazon, which is the true monopolist in the e-book industry. Now that Apple has to back down, Amazon has been flexing their muscles even more. And to the Apple-haters, keep cheering for this. Someday it will be you who cry foul for the gigantic monopoly that Amazon enjoys.
Companies act in their own best interests. Expecting anything else is a little delusional. One of the things that came out during the trial was that Apple considered offering Amazon a you stay out of music and we stay out of books deal. That wouldn't have been in anyones best interests except Apple and Amazon.
----------
If Amazon is abusing a monopoly could Apple not just take them to court instead of forming an illegal publishing cartel?
I got an iTunes credit voucher for an earlier eBook settlement. I've bought a LOT of books through the iBook store, and was expecting a bit of money.
That's what I got.
$9.01
But I'm sure that the 'legal team' got away with new Bentley's and Rolex's...
That's what I got.
$9.01
But I'm sure that the 'legal team' got away with new Bentley's and Rolex's...
But think about it from another angle.
You write a book. You get an 'advance' from the publisher. That's not 'free money', it's an 'advance', a loan for the possible selling of your book.
The book starts selling. The publisher makes their money back, and then you start getting payments. Out of the cost of the book, you get a percentage, after 'costs'. I've heard it's possible that a writer gets 2 to 8% of the books sale value. After 'costs', like marketing, legal fees, management fees, fee fees, 'daddy needs a new Gulf Stream jet with the Burl wood interior' fees...
Along comes Apple.
The 'buyer' pays the 'published book price' for essentially a block of binary numbers in a computer somewhere. The costs are fixed, whether they sell 1 or 1,000,000. Amazon comes up with the idea that charging the 'published price' for that block of binary digits is ridiculous. The 'publisher' isn't actually 'publishing' the book, there are no trucks running across the land lugging those cases of books around, no planes ferrying them anywhere. Amazon decides to give 'the little guy a break' and charges less than the 'published price' for that collection of bits.
Apple sees the writer as being 'beaten by the system', and steps in to 'save the day' and 'get the writer more money', which also dovetails into their plan to gouge that writer for 30% OFF THE TOP. Apple doesn't look so altruistic now, do they...
The way I see this is Apple is selling a bunch of bits, for a premium, to all of us.
It would be like having to pay $4,062.80 (without rental car or hotel charges) to see a movie about being at Disney World... Or paying the power company for generating your OWN power through solar or wind power... Or paying McDonald's for the hamburger you grilled on your patio...
Absurd analogies, sure, but how much sense does it make to pay full price for a bunch of bits with no appreciable overhead short of some server space and a blip on the internet.
And the same thing can be said for music too. AND it was being reported that many publishers were happy with Amazon's marketing and sales...
Paying full boat retail for a 'book' that isn't even a book is ridiculous...
----------
There is a movie called 'The Corporation' that people really need to see.
If corporations were people, damn near every one of them would be JAILED or COMMITTED to a mental institution.
They are PSYCHOTIC! They kill people for profit... They poison people as part of 'business decisions' (nothing personal)... They knowingly market defective and substandard products because it's cheaper than fixing them... They cheat on their taxes like it's their main occupation. They deliberately evade and break environmental and monetary regulations with impunity... They own politicians and judges...
Anyone that blindly trusts the motives of a corporation should think about whether they would or could trust Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacey, Ted Kazinsky, Ted Cruz...
Seriously. Apple is in it for the money. It's damn near pure gravy baby...
Pay it with a mountain of 10¢ coins. That'll teach them.
But I am not sure if legal tender applies to fines of this magnitude.
Not sure how many ways there are to say that there was no minimum price agreement. Under agency pricing, publishers could set whatever price they want (below max price caps) for each book they sell.
There is no evidence that this threat was used. In fact, Macmillan switched first by themselves.
http://techcrunch.com/2010/01/31/amazon-caves-to-macmillans-ebook-pricing-demands/
I agree there is more evidence of collusion among the publishers, but it is far from cut and dry.
Cote: "If Apple is suggesting that an adverse ruling necessarily implies that agency agreements, pricing tiers with caps, MFN clauses, or simultaneous negotiations with suppliers are improper, it is wrong. As explained above, the Plaintiffs have not argued and this Court has not found that any of these or other such components of Apples entry into the market were wrongful, either alone or in combination."
Cote: "It is also not illegal for a company to adopt a form click-through contract, negotiate with all suppliers at the same time, or share certain information with them."
What's wrong with meeting with people you are negotiating with?
I have no idea what you think is "very bad" in that message.
I'm not nearly as passionate about this top as most on this thread, but I'll throw out a couple observations, and even an opinion or two.
1) Apple is about the most "evil" company out there when it comes to competition. They continually try to stamp out the little guy, or sue anyone and everyone at a drop of a hat. It's their right to do this, but I always have to scratch my head as many on this forum give them a pass...while at the same time we all know there's a high concentration of "progressive thinkers" on this forum, who are typically more skeptical of "evil companies". This is both an observation and an opinion so take it for what it's worth.
2) I wonder how much of a hard/soft cover book's price is made up of the physical manufacturing cost, shipping cost, and perhaps costs associated with stocking a book on a physical shelf with an expectation of eventually selling the copy.
I ask this last question because I'm curious how much larger of an opportunity to sell books does Amazon provide and how much does it just providing the service it does lower the price for the actual publisher (and ultimately author) of the book? I can tell you from personal experience Amazon single handedly has increased my personal collection of books by hundreds of percent. Granted being in the Internet business I would buy dozens of technical books per year, but I would never buy novels and other types of books prior to Amazon. They've revolutionized the ability to get books into peoples hands, books and quite frankly authors who would have otherwise barely had a shot at selling books.
I believe at the end of the day the most important thing is the consumer wins. With Amazon, I believe the consumer "wins" more frequently than an Apple consumer. I believe Amazon has a long term vision of driving the prices and access to products down (even though they step on the manufacturers/distributors). I believe Apple as a company is the opposite. I believe Apple only cares about Corporate profits. Anywhere I see Apple's influence I see higher prices. I laugh when I see how expensive it is to buy digital movies on my Apple TV compared to other online movie services as an example. Again, I believe Apple marketing execs wake up in the morning and ask themselves the traditional "what can the market bare" for a product, where Amazon marketing execs ask themselves, "how can we bring the price down and bring higher and more convenient access to the consumer?".
1) Apple is about the most "evil" company out there when it comes to competition. They continually try to stamp out the little guy, or sue anyone and everyone at a drop of a hat. It's their right to do this, but I always have to scratch my head as many on this forum give them a pass...while at the same time we all know there's a high concentration of "progressive thinkers" on this forum, who are typically more skeptical of "evil companies". This is both an observation and an opinion so take it for what it's worth.
2) I wonder how much of a hard/soft cover book's price is made up of the physical manufacturing cost, shipping cost, and perhaps costs associated with stocking a book on a physical shelf with an expectation of eventually selling the copy.
I ask this last question because I'm curious how much larger of an opportunity to sell books does Amazon provide and how much does it just providing the service it does lower the price for the actual publisher (and ultimately author) of the book? I can tell you from personal experience Amazon single handedly has increased my personal collection of books by hundreds of percent. Granted being in the Internet business I would buy dozens of technical books per year, but I would never buy novels and other types of books prior to Amazon. They've revolutionized the ability to get books into peoples hands, books and quite frankly authors who would have otherwise barely had a shot at selling books.
I believe at the end of the day the most important thing is the consumer wins. With Amazon, I believe the consumer "wins" more frequently than an Apple consumer. I believe Amazon has a long term vision of driving the prices and access to products down (even though they step on the manufacturers/distributors). I believe Apple as a company is the opposite. I believe Apple only cares about Corporate profits. Anywhere I see Apple's influence I see higher prices. I laugh when I see how expensive it is to buy digital movies on my Apple TV compared to other online movie services as an example. Again, I believe Apple marketing execs wake up in the morning and ask themselves the traditional "what can the market bare" for a product, where Amazon marketing execs ask themselves, "how can we bring the price down and bring higher and more convenient access to the consumer?".
1) The value of a product is not based on it's marginal cost.
2) No one suggested paying the same price for eBooks as paper books. The pricing tiers that the publishers negotiated with Apple for new release eBooks were just over half the price of new release paper books.