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.
DOJ Says Publishers Are Again Colluding in Objecting to Proposed Apple Penalty in E-Book Case
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
So, it's ok for Apple to build something for $100 and sell it for $650, but it's not ok for Amazon to buy a book for $10, and sell it to me for $7? Screw that. I'm in Amazon's court all the way on this one. And I doubt Apple would go out of business if Amazon sold the book for less than it paid. Apple just would get it's gouging 30%, if it's selling less books due to Amazon.
There is nothing wrong with selling at below cost to try and make it up on profits from other items. All video game consoles out now (ps3, xbox360, wii u) sell at below cost and make it up on licensing fees for games.
Amazon is not "taking the loss" for a while. Amazon sells below cost only a selected few items (loss leaders) but it's overall profitable in the ebooks business, so it's not violating any antitrust law.
When they start to actually engage in predatory pricing (selling below cost overall) then the DoJ will have a case. In the meantime Apple can try to actually compete, maybe offering better prices operating on thinner marings. Apple being the underdog could actually sell below cost overall, "taking the loss" since it has a market share small enough to make antitrust claims unrealistic.
I know that DOJ "proved" collusion, but I still think, if this were a reasonable doubt situation, that they did not prove Apple was the ringleader. They sure as hell proved that the Apple model allowed this collusion of the publishers to take place, I just don't think it is anything more than circumstantial.
Colluding because they all oppose this? I know they are lawyers and they have to say things like that, but come on!
If I do something that negatively effects 5 of my friends (be it ethical or not), and all 5 friends object, I'm not going to assume that the 5 people are "colluding" against me. I'm going to assume they take a stance against things that negatively effect them. What that assumes is that in a void where the other publishers didn't exist and communication doesn't exist, that each publisher would happily take this negative business proposition without objection, which just doesn't seem likely.
If I do something that negatively effects 5 of my friends (be it ethical or not), and all 5 friends object, I'm not going to assume that the 5 people are "colluding" against me. I'm going to assume they take a stance against things that negatively effect them. What that assumes is that in a void where the other publishers didn't exist and communication doesn't exist, that each publisher would happily take this negative business proposition without objection, which just doesn't seem likely.
Perhaps that would be a predatory pricing. The problem with your argument is that it is factually incorrect (and this was pointed out many times on MR). Amazon's book selling business is profitable on its own.
And everyone claims that it's so terribly wrong for amazon to do this.
You need to remember, with the model that Amazon does use. No matter the price Amazon sold their book at, the publisher got the money that they were contracted for.
if they agreed to pay the publisher 5.99 for each book sold. then sell each book at .99 on their site. Amazon is liable still for the 5.99 to the publisher. Amazon themselves are taking the $5 hit to their profits.
this is not something that can be maintained inevitably for all time. Amazon knows that. They are temporary price sales that are only meant to get you onto their site.
They are also not the only company nor industry that does this. As you mentioned, the console makers. the Xbox and PS3 all sold for significant losses up front to get you in their marketplace, so that you spent your money on gaming titles. That is where their profit is.
Look at steam sales for gamers. The competition can't compete with these short lived sales that get you onto steams purchasing site.
The overall benefit to the loss leader is the consumer. it means the ability to purchase more for your dollar which in turns get you purchasing more overall. its a net positive.
The ebook market had been running like this for years before Apple stepped into the market. There were many ebook sales places besides amazon who were surviving based on this model.
Apple just didnt like the profit margins and decided that they were going to change the game. They wanted their 30%+, because, it's apple. And when you look at their financials at the end of the year, their average markup and profit margin is aimed to be over 40%. following the existing market for ebooks would hurt this margin, and Apple couldn't have any of that.
So apple changed the game, and used their market strenght and saavy to "bully" the Publishers to change. I'll give Apple a lot of credit that they really went about it very smartly and impressively.
but to do so, they had to collude with the publishers.
Collusion in the USA, and many many countries is illegal.
What I read was that Amazon's ebooks business is profitable, so it should not be making up the loss-leaders' losses with unrelated products, but with other ebooks. If as you say they make up the losses with unrelated product that would indeed be predatory pricing. Do you have any reference which backs up your claim?
Then maybe you missed the part about a whole list of corporations (some not particularly friendly to Apple) petitioning the White House for the veto. The veto was only in response to a ban originating from FRAND patents. Most companies do not want the precedence of a ban based on FRAND patents.
I would like to see them treat these things equally rather than grant soft treatment to companies that spend massive amounts on lobbying. That would include banks.
As a consumer, I don't need to be protected. If I think Apple charges to much for books, I'll go to Barnes & Noble to buy a book or get a Kindle. I have choices. It's not like Apple is the only place I can buy a book.
Maybe I misunderstood what you posted. Did you mean they avoided multimillion dollar fines by settling? I don't recall reading anything about plea bargaining (standing witness to avoid punishment).
From the DoJ's postings for the two I previously linked to:
DoJ said:
DoJ said:
Reasonable Doubt only applies to criminal cases. In Civil cases it's based on preponderance of evidence. Doubts don't apply here.
You can do that thanks to the DoJ. Without the DoJ the only price would be Apple's price, so if Apple were to charge too much for your tastes (actually, the publishers through the agency model) you would have no option because you would have found the same price anywhere else.
So as a consumer you actually did need to be protected because your choices were being taken away.
So we could remove the POTUS from office. He's more vulnerable than Bill Clinton ever was, I don't understand why the house hasn't even tried.
This is extortion. Literally.
http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/extortion.html
State DA's? Grand juries?
This case would get a bunch of them re-elected.
It would be nice to see a states attorney charge the AG with extortion. It will never happen, but it would be nice (and right).
How does it change your world if I buy it directly through the kindle app? Is that you Tim?
The whole notion of a government agency participating in a civil action is nonsensical. The participation of the government makes it a criminal action. Calling it civil is just a game to reduce the burden of proof.
It could be seen as dumping or as a loss leader.
If Amazon's trying to kill competition with low prices, then it's dumping.
If Amazon's trying to attract Kindle sales through low E Book prices, then it could be viewed as a loss leader.
I guess someone will have to sue Amazon for us to find out which is which.
After awhile you have to wonder how many tax dollars went into this circus and instead of doing this why could money be spent on lowering food, gas prices and health care costs... All I can say is well done DOJ, I love seeing my tax dollars being wasted.
Apple will eventually probably end up suing the US gov sooner or later because I'm sure Apple doesn't mind dragging this out for another 2-3yrs. Because eventually someone in the gov going say hey we just spent 500 million tax dollars to maybe get 500 million back to prove a point..
Apple will eventually probably end up suing the US gov sooner or later because I'm sure Apple doesn't mind dragging this out for another 2-3yrs. Because eventually someone in the gov going say hey we just spent 500 million tax dollars to maybe get 500 million back to prove a point..
TO be fair, it is open now. Apple just requires in app purchases to pay Apple 30%. Amazon chooses not to sell their product through their app because they don't like the terms being offered to them.
----------
Problem is the only entities with standing in a dumping case would be competitors and publishers. Both of whom would be accused of collusion if more than one of them sued Amazon.
That's definately not the case, they have the right to sue whoever they want. The problem is more backing up the claims. A predatory pricing accusation is not going to fly if Amazon's ebooks business is overall profitable, that's really the key issue.
What is wrong with the American government?
What the heck is going on in American? The government has seemed to have lost its mind in everything it is doing as of late. Let's hope your Supreme Court is still clear thinking.
What the heck is going on in American? The government has seemed to have lost its mind in everything it is doing as of late. Let's hope your Supreme Court is still clear thinking.