yup only a price ceiling based on the hardcover sell price. So no ceiling in reality.
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.
Book Pricing Lawsuit Reveals More Details of Apple's Negotiations, Including Steve Jobs Email
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
yup only a price ceiling based on the hardcover sell price. So no ceiling in reality.
Yepp, you caught me. I talk through my hat, not the guy saying whoever asks for a jury trial is guilty. I suppose the relative rarity of full blown bench trials means most people who get sued are guilty. Imagine the burden of guilt carried by Google for going to trial with Oracle over Java IP. They are having not one, but a three phase jury trial. Ouch...
----------
Don't you see the column title "maximum customer price"? If your hardcover is selling at $22, you can only sell your ebook at $9.99 or lower. This means if a publisher thinks their crime novel can sell more by pricing it at lower price than a competitor, they are free to do so.
Ouch is right. I did not say that "whoever asks for a jury trial is guilty." What I actually I said was: Apple knows they stand a much better chance in front of a jury than in front of a judge. If they were really confident of winning (as Microsoft was, BTW), they'd have selected the less costly and cumbersome bench trial. Juries tend to be more sympathetic to defendants than judges. This much is well known. So you be the judge of what that means, so to speak.
Nice spin effort, sorry it didn't work out for you.
I am sorry, but your assertions are baseless.
There are defendants and cases appealing to a jury helps and there are cases where presenting your case to a judge who are more familiar with the intricacies of the law is more helpful. Defendants are free to pick the avenue that gives them a better chance, so no, it is not well known that "Juries tend to be more sympathetic to defendants than judges." There is no such general rule of thumb. For example, there are tons of ink spilled over how patent trolls prefer East Texas, as the juries turn out more sympathetic to IP plaintiffs, not to the defendants.
Let's assume for a moment that you are right and presume that MS was confident in winning with a jury who would be more sympathetic to it, as apparently that is a "well known fact". Then, why did Microsoft pick a bench trial? Just to save a few pennies on the biggest trials of its history? The difference cannot be that much and MS was not hurting for money at the time. They still had to pay for expert witnesses, fight through the discovery phase, file briefs for pre-trial arguments, bring motions to dismiss, motions to exclude etc. etc. Oh, maybe MS thought it could easily win with a jury and its legal team needed a challenge. Or maybe, just maybe, they believed, for whatever reason, they had a better chance with a bench trial and they went in that direction. That is as much a red flag as it would be if they picked jury trial. MS lost, by the way...
Apple says "we won't be selling your books if you sell them to other retailers at a lower price". So if a publisher sells a book to Apple for $7.00, they are free to offer it to Amazon for $8.00, or $7.00, or $6.00 - but if they sell to Amazon for $6.00, then Apple will stop selling it. Seems quite reasonable to me.
Or let's put it another way, a publisher sells book to Apple for $7.00, and Amazon offers them only $6.00. The publisher can refuse Amazon's offer, or accept Amazon's offer and change the pricing for Apple, or accept Amazon's offer and stop selling to Apple.
That's not what you said. What you said was "Trial lawyers will tell you that they ask for jury trials when they are certain that they'd lose if the verdict was handed down by a judge. This is the other red flag in Apple's approach."
While theBB's statement was definitely wrong it's closer to the meaning of what you wrote than your revision above. In what you originally wrote there's nothing about better chances, only the implication that Apple knows they are certain to lose a bench trial.
Last edited:
The ceiling is based on the price of the hardcover, so yes, publishers can sell their books at an even higher price if their hardcovers are more expensive. I hope you don't find that controversial.
However, that does not mean they cannot sell their books at lower prices regardless of the hardcover price. Many half informed online commentary acts as if the publishers signing these contracts have agreed to a "no bestseller below $13" clause. I am just pointing out that it is not true. Publishers are free to compete against each other based on price. That is why this is not an open and shut case for DOJ. Colluding to come up with a price floor is obviously illegal, but coordination for a business model? I don't think the law is clear on that front. There are many ways competitors get together openly on how to standardize their products and operations, the result of which sometimes put up barriers to entry, limiting competition. My guess is that Apple and the hold out publishers will argue that their dealings should be treated no differently and DOJ will argue that these are actually sinister moves that should be punished. They may settle soon or they may drag this out over the next five years all the way up to Supreme Court.
Before: price competition between booksellers like Kindle, Nook, Sony, Kobo etc..
After: no price competition between booksellers
With no price competition, the prices that consumers pay will rise. This whole DOJ lawsuit is about price competition (before) and the lack thereof (after). Best way to get rid of price competition? "The prices will be the same." which Steve Jobs admit to it back in January 2010 in this video
Walt Mossberg: "Why should she buy a book for $14.99 on your device when she can buy one for $9.99 from Amazon or Barnes & Noble?"
Steve Jobs: "That won't be the case."
Walt Mossberg: "You won't be $14.99 or they won't be $9.99?"
Steve Jobs: "The prices will be the same."
Steve Jobs: "Publishers are actually withholding their books from Amazon because they're not happy."
(this video will be another piece of evidence use in trial).
After: no price competition between booksellers
With no price competition, the prices that consumers pay will rise. This whole DOJ lawsuit is about price competition (before) and the lack thereof (after). Best way to get rid of price competition? "The prices will be the same." which Steve Jobs admit to it back in January 2010 in this video
Walt Mossberg: "Why should she buy a book for $14.99 on your device when she can buy one for $9.99 from Amazon or Barnes & Noble?"
Steve Jobs: "That won't be the case."
Walt Mossberg: "You won't be $14.99 or they won't be $9.99?"
Steve Jobs: "The prices will be the same."
Steve Jobs: "Publishers are actually withholding their books from Amazon because they're not happy."
(this video will be another piece of evidence use in trial).
http://www.teleread.com/chris-meado...ns-to-dismiss-class-action-price-fixing-suit/
There’s some fascinating stuff here. For example, from pages 30-31 of the ruling, the judge explains why collusion is so probable. It’s a classic “prisoner’s dilemma” scenario: if each individual publisher hadn’t known it could count on most of its competitors to move to agency pricing as well, it would have made little sense for it to do so alone:
The costs of such a unilateral switch to the agency model would be substantial. The publisher would be selling its eBooks at a higher price than its competitors and would therefore be losing market share. This loss in market share would in all likelihood have been large. Random House gained significant market share from the Publisher Defendants during the months between their adoption of the agency model and Random House’s capitulation. The eBook sales by Random House increased 250 percent in 2010 as it continued to sell them at $9.99. At the same time that an individual publisher would be losing market share, it would be taking in less revenue per sale because of Apple’s 30 percent commission. In addition, the publisher would probably lack the leverage to force Amazon to accept the agency model. Potentially, then, this publisher would be barred from selling its eBooks to Amazon.
Random House: $9.99
the other 5 publishers: $12.99 or $14.99
the beneficiary: Random House. Why? lower prices.
There’s some fascinating stuff here. For example, from pages 30-31 of the ruling, the judge explains why collusion is so probable. It’s a classic “prisoner’s dilemma” scenario: if each individual publisher hadn’t known it could count on most of its competitors to move to agency pricing as well, it would have made little sense for it to do so alone:
The costs of such a unilateral switch to the agency model would be substantial. The publisher would be selling its eBooks at a higher price than its competitors and would therefore be losing market share. This loss in market share would in all likelihood have been large. Random House gained significant market share from the Publisher Defendants during the months between their adoption of the agency model and Random House’s capitulation. The eBook sales by Random House increased 250 percent in 2010 as it continued to sell them at $9.99. At the same time that an individual publisher would be losing market share, it would be taking in less revenue per sale because of Apple’s 30 percent commission. In addition, the publisher would probably lack the leverage to force Amazon to accept the agency model. Potentially, then, this publisher would be barred from selling its eBooks to Amazon.
Random House: $9.99
the other 5 publishers: $12.99 or $14.99
the beneficiary: Random House. Why? lower prices.
If...
If you are an attorney, you should know better than this crap argument. Please tell me you don't practice in the state I live in so that I never "accidentally" end up with you representing me.
If you are not an attorney, I see why.
What I mean specifically: What was said was in response to the fact that ultimately it is the customer that has the privilege of paying for these law suits with higher prices, while attorney's receive the money that the consumer is paying. Now, I have no problem with the profession of attorney, my great-grandfather was one. I also do not have a problem with people being paid for the work they do. *What I do have a problem with is, strategy. The lawsuits are expensive. It is cheaper for Apple to "settle while admitting no wrong doing," than it is to fight. If they fight the suits could drag on for a few years, and cost more than settling. If Apple truly was not in the wrong, but settles, we have created a precedent that can be used later against another company.*
Everything between the asterisks exposes my limited understanding of the legal system. If you are an attorney, and PRACTICE business law, feel free to correct me. I'd love to know the truth of the situation if I am in fact wrong.
If you are an attorney, you should know better than this crap argument. Please tell me you don't practice in the state I live in so that I never "accidentally" end up with you representing me.
If you are not an attorney, I see why.
What I mean specifically: What was said was in response to the fact that ultimately it is the customer that has the privilege of paying for these law suits with higher prices, while attorney's receive the money that the consumer is paying. Now, I have no problem with the profession of attorney, my great-grandfather was one. I also do not have a problem with people being paid for the work they do. *What I do have a problem with is, strategy. The lawsuits are expensive. It is cheaper for Apple to "settle while admitting no wrong doing," than it is to fight. If they fight the suits could drag on for a few years, and cost more than settling. If Apple truly was not in the wrong, but settles, we have created a precedent that can be used later against another company.*
Everything between the asterisks exposes my limited understanding of the legal system. If you are an attorney, and PRACTICE business law, feel free to correct me. I'd love to know the truth of the situation if I am in fact wrong.
The same way it always turns out. A big fat payoff for lawyers and next to no change for the consumer
It does not matter what I am!
Even though he put a smiley face after his comment, it still perpetuates the well financed campaign of ignorance towards a profession that is attacked for reasons having nothing to do with the merits of the issue.
Once class action lawsuits are limited (and yes, in the name of so-called "tort reform" they are being limited) no one gets any satisfaction and the original wrong-doer gets to retain the "big, fat payoff."
In any event, I do not need to debate the issue:
If you have not seen the excellent documentary, "Hot Coffee" (available on DVD), you owe it to every maligned consumer (and injured person due to some wrong-doer) to do so. It makes the point far better than I ever could... Tell you what: if you scan/email me a copy of your receipt of the purchase of that DVD, say from Amazon, I'll send you $1 by paypal to help defray its cost!
PS: Why did you have a "5" call if you live in Colorado?
Last edited:
Actually, Jobs was spot on in regards to book piracy. Book piracy is rampant right now it just isn't something everyone is currently doing so perhaps we don't hear that much about it. You can find just about any book, current or otherwise, through torrents or usenet. I think Jobs' effort at addressing this concern is valid and probably well received by the major publishers.
The noose gets tighter...
http://kindleworld.blogspot.com/2012/05/federal-judge-refuses-to-toss-out-class.html
Couldn't be happier.
It's funny that one of the last thing Job's did was unintentionally hurt his own company, by way of his mouth.
Apple should just cave.
They built up their bookstore like they wanted, now its time for prices to get back to normal for everyone.
http://kindleworld.blogspot.com/2012/05/federal-judge-refuses-to-toss-out-class.html
Couldn't be happier.
It's funny that one of the last thing Job's did was unintentionally hurt his own company, by way of his mouth.
Apple should just cave.
They built up their bookstore like they wanted, now its time for prices to get back to normal for everyone.
Highlights of the States Attorneys General Amended Complaint
http://dearauthor.com/features/industry-news/doj-lawsuit-update-where-windowing-becomes-important/
WOW.
Lot of emails passing back and forth.
http://dearauthor.com/features/industry-news/doj-lawsuit-update-where-windowing-becomes-important/
WOW.
Lot of emails passing back and forth.
I've read through this. But I am puzzled by the enthusiasm that some have for the case against Apple and the publishers.
Prior to the agency model, Amazon was selling bestsellers at a $4 loss. They were able to do this by (apparently) subsidizing these sales with profits from Kindle or other parts of their business. As a result they had a 80% to 90% market share in ebooks, indicating that no one else was able to effectively compete against them.
So, how was this situation better for competition?
Easy.
Why I am enthused,
1st, eBooks shouldn't cost $14.99. With Apple's deal, very few are priced a penny under that.
-And Apple went to the big publishers to specifically price fix books.
-To make it more expensive to consumers.
-To not allow a retailer to sell it a penny less then each other.
-Apple colluded with the big publishers to tell consumers what they will pay, not what the market dictates.
Now, my question to you... why would anyone be on Apple's side in this matter?
It absolutely blows my mind that Steve Jobs, on tape, basically said, let the fanboys eat cake, and everyone here laps it up.
How do you know that? What are the costs associated with producing a print book compared with an ebook? I think that gasoline should cost $1/gallon. But that's not how things work in economics. Supply and demand come into play.
That's not been proven yet. If they are found guilty then they will pay. But honestly, I haven't seen much evidence showing that they are guilty
I think that this is the real issue inflaming everyone. True, Amazon's bestsellers were cheaper. But they were losing $4 a book doing this. Where do you think those $4 came from? Amazon had to be selling other things at higher prices. So if you only bought ebooks from Amazon, you were paying less. But if you bought other things as well, then you probably were not.
This is not illegal. Have you ever tried to buy a Marantz receiver online?
Again, this is what the court case is about. We will see. But there really is not much evidence that has been shown that shows that Apple is guilty.
Who's on Apples side? I'm just asking some questions. I just don't understand why everyone thinks that Amazon is looking out for them while Apple is not.
Everyone seems to be crying that Apple and the publishers are being anticompetitive. But there was very little competition in ebooks prior to all of this. In fact, Amazon was systematically running all other booksellers out of business by their practices. How is this good for consumers?
Since you asked,
I didn't get my license in Colorado. There hasn't been a needed to change your call based on location for at least fifteen years (that I'm aware of).
I didn't get my license in Colorado. There hasn't been a needed to change your call based on location for at least fifteen years (that I'm aware of).
Based on what, exactly? You have an economic analysis that proves this? Are you saying they should cost more?
The fact that there are books priced under that weakens your argument.
Or they talked to the big publishers because, they had the largest market share and Apple knew that they needed a minimum market share to achieve financial viability, because, you know, Apple duz research 'n stuff...
Because when things are more expensive, more people buy more of them... wait, that wasn't what every economics professor I've ever heard speak on the subject said...
But you just said this WAS happening.
Because you said so, and made HUGE FLAWED leaps in logic to get there, I'm with you...
How about being on the side that tries to figure out what happened here, if it was truly unlawful, and what should be done about it.
What blows my mind is the sharks circling...
I was just attacking the argument...
Actually it does. An attorney should know better than to use an argument like that, hence the statement.
I agree with you in principle. REAL tort reform is absolutely necessary. What I'm trying to say is, weak arguments don't get you where you are going.
And, based on your recommendation, I will watch that documentary. It sounds interesting. Who knows, a brick like me may even learn something.
73
Actually it does. An attorney should know better than to use an argument like that, hence the statement.
I agree with you in principle. REAL tort reform is absolutely necessary. What I'm trying to say is, weak arguments don't get you where you are going.
And, based on your recommendation, I will watch that documentary. It sounds interesting. Who knows, a brick like me may even learn something.
73