First of all, it isn't dramatic, second the price of all publishers didn't increase, so at worst the six others may have seen slower sales if they were really pricing above market, and finally, in another context it could well be evidence that Amazon was engaged in predatory pricing. Based on the reaction of two of the three judges I'd be surprised if this isn't overturned, at least partially.
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 Wins iPod Antitrust Lawsuit, Found Not Guilty of Harming Consumers
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
First of all, it isn't dramatic, second the price of all publishers didn't increase, so at worst the six others may have seen slower sales if they were really pricing above market, and finally, in another context it could well be evidence that Amazon was engaged in predatory pricing. Based on the reaction of two of the three judges I'd be surprised if this isn't overturned, at least partially.
I guess it's good that they weren't found guilty of that. They were found guilty of conspiring with publishers to raise prices. Eddie Cue went from publisher to publisher and coordinated an increase in prices. It was all based on each of those six publishers telling Eddie that they would play along and him telling each in turn that the others were on board. Those are facts not in dispute. Apple claims that is not illegal, but the court disagreed. Whether the appellate court upholds it remains to be seen, but if they overturn it, it will be on a very specific interpretation of the law as the collusion that Apple facilitated is very apparent.
----------
I don't believe there is a threshold that has to be met. The bottom line is Apple colluded with publishers and the price went up. By how much isn't the issue.
It's there. Relax. Denise Cote should be removed from the Bench. The court will reaffirm it.
I literally can't believe we got a correct judgement out of this.
So cool.
This is not directed at you per se, but this sentiment bothers me since it's been all over the internet with recent cases. Who are lay people to decide if a judgement is right or wrong? Obviously, in any case both lawyers (being specifically trained in the law) believe their case to be right and it takes a judge and sometimes a jury to sift through evidence and case law, etc. to make a determination of what the law says.
But all it takes is reading a few internet posts (or watching a video) and people think they can declare an outcome right or wrong. I agree that this seems like a sensible conclusion, but not having seen the evidence and not being a lawyer I can't say for sure.
Last edited:
Cue went from publisher to publisher pushing a new model, not necessarily higher prices which is were ambiguity is introduced for a lot of people. I think you understand it, but many others don't see that division. The price inflation was a side effect of the shifting industry models and while a sign of something, isn't what is most important (according to Apple).
Apple tried very well to push the question: Were the prices of the market artificially low due to the majority share of a single platform?
To which, I agree. But it's easy to see other POVs in this case.
I agree with you. My personal opinion is that Amazon was practicing predatory pricing. But the solution to predatory pricing is to involve the DOJ. And it may be what saves Apple is the claim that they really were after the agency model and the rise in prices was an unintended side effect. But, that may be a hard sell.
The publishers caved because they couldn't afford to fight. Apple is fighting this because they don't think they did anything wrong, and don't want the DOJ taking Amazon's side. There was no collusion here. Amazon offered the wholesale model and Apple offered the agency model. Both models exist in many different markets. The agency model is how the iTunes Store and App Store work. Having a big player with deep pockets like Apple support the agency model worked to the publishing industry's interests, so they embraced it.
----------
No, the answer is to find a market solution, which Apple did. Antitrust law is among the more dubious concepts in law as it is one of the most selectively enforced. If Apple had 90% of the market with the wholesale model and Amazon tried to enter using the agency model, doubtless there would be lots of people saying Apple should be sued for controlling 90% of the market.
It's all about public opinion at this point. Amazon is making it look like, by offering lower prices, they are simply looking out for the consumer. When really, they are simply looking out for themselves. How can they best sell the most ebooks possible? If it takes whining to the government in order to get their way (and they did), then they have no problem doing so. If they have to whine to the public (which they did with Hatchette), then they will.
And the normal consumer simply eats it up, as if Amazon is truly fighting for them, without realizing the long term issues with selling goods at rock bottom prices and pushing out competition.
This is true, but what you are missing is that Apple didn't just offer the agency model. Because if you were the only publisher to move to that model, you would screw yourself because your prices would be higher. The only way to get people to take the risk of moving to the agency model was to get the biggest players to each agree on a certain day to move. And that my friend is collusion. And if the wholesale model was working for publishers, why move to the agency model? It was so that they could set their own prices, and those prices weren't going to be less that what they were currently getting.
I don't really have a dog in this fight, I don't buy digital books, and while I'm an Apple fan, to me it looks like what they did was illegal, but as I posted earlier, I'm just a layperson and am not privy to all the facts.
I'm genuinely surprised at how many people feel this way. I really like Apple devices, but their desire to limit our options and force Apple services is not good for consumers - especially given their inconsistent track record.
Whether or not this particular case had merit, Apple's plan to close and limit the previously device agnostic mp3 player product category was only possible because there wasn't enough push-back.
What if Apple devices stopped supporting Dropbox, Google Drive, OneDrive, etc. and forced iOS users into iCloud Drive? Consumer anger is one of the only remaining weapons against these moves that are legal, but benefit Apple a lot more than the customers.
There should be fairly stiff repercussions for filing of frivolous lawsuits of this nature. It seems that parasites can shoot at Apple but Apple can't shoot back....where is the parasite penalty?
DRM was something that the music industry wanted because they were afraid of piracy, and not without good reason. Given the market realities of the time, it was a necessary phase in order to get the industry on board. Once Apple became dominant, the industry realized that they might well be creating a new behemoth in Apple and decided to drop DRM, ostensibly at the suggestion of Apple, though I'm sure Apple wouldn't have minded if they had decided to stick with Fairplay.
Yep, because an Apple verdict in this one isolated (and frivolous) case immediately negates any and all verdicts against them. What year did you graduate from Harvard Law?
Sometimes, I think we give attorneys more credit than is due. Attorneys are their own customer, serving the needs of themselves first (my opinion). That's why they'll take and argue just about any case, because they generally get paid regardless of the outcome.
In cases where they get paid only if they win, they're also weighing the benefit of having their names attached to a case, in the hope that they get other similar cases, knowing they'll win some and lose others, they always have to be looking for clients - again because they're looking out for themselves first.
So, when lay people read or hear about a case where it's pretty cut and dry who is guilty, or not, it's likely that the gut instinct is correct. Sure, there are cases where the complexities of the law make it difficult to ascertain who is guilty, but there are a lot of cases where it's clear someone did, or didn't do, something and because of the system, it ends up costing both parties more time and money than it should.
I just had a case against a former employee who refused to return company property. Sitting before a judge to mediate, the opposing attorney and her client agreed to conditions that the judge wrote up and everyone signed. Then when the former employee didn't follow through on the agreed upon terms, neither the judge nor his attorney would follow through on imposing the penalties they agreed to, with the judge effectively saying we got "most" of what we wanted and that we should just be happy with that (I wasn't, but wasn't willing to piss away more money on our attorneys). The whole legal system, in my opinion, is about as balanced as the US budget.
Given the unanimous decision. Can some enterprising Lawyer chime in whether there is room for appeal here?
There is another way of looking at it. Apple couldn't be a viable competitor to the dominant player unless it could announce during the iPad launch that it had signed up enough publishers to give it access to a large library of books. Letting Publisher B know that Publisher A had agreed to the agency model was a way to lure them in, and not part of a nefarious plot to raise prices. The agency model shifted the balance of power from Amazon to the publishers, but that is not necessarily anti-competitive.
----------
Yep, because an Apple verdict in this one isolated (and frivolous) case immediately negates any and all verdicts against them. What year did you graduate from Harvard Law?
I didn't say that, but it a high profile frivolous lawsuit prevailed, it would lead to even more. If more companies started fighting these lawsuits, rather than just settling to avoid legal fees, in general we'd see fewer suits.
Actually if you look at your own graphic, it shows that, after a very slight initial bump, the average price for all sellers has been on a long slow slide and is now lower than it was before Apple entered the market.