E-Books Judge Pledges to Avoid Unnecessary Intrusion Into Apple's Business

[Nunyabinez]

Judge Cote seems to think that the simple knowledge that Apple (and everyone else) had that the publishers wanted to raise prices was enough to show that they would know that the publishers planned to leverage Apple to force a pricing change on Amazon. For me, the problem with this argument is that it doesn't actually leave a way for Apple to successfully enter the market. Because any successful strategy by Apple would have provided leverage for the publishers.

The publisher were always free to raise their prices. The problem was, that if one publisher raised their prices and the other's didn't, that publisher would get screwed. By his own admission (goggle the DOJ slide deck for quotes and email) Eddy Cue went from publisher to publisher assuring them that everyone else was going to move simultaneously, as he had their commitment.

It was very difficult because each one wanted to be certain that all the others were really going to make the move before they would commit, a modern prisoner's dilemma. But Eddy got them one by one to promise that if the others would all do it, they would too.

In the slide deck there is a slide that shows how on a certain date, all the publisher's prices jumped up significantly. I don't know how else you can define facilitating a collusion that results in higher prices than that.

Had Apple just opened a book store and the publisher's took advantage of that opportunity, then I agree, Apple would be in the clear. But Eddy Cue masterminded the whole thing. That's where they broke the law.

 

[BaldiMac]

The publisher were always free to raise their prices. The problem was, that if one publisher raised their prices and the other's didn't, that publisher would get screwed.

Nope. Publishers were always free to raise wholesale prices. And they did. However, Amazon refused to increase retail prices.

By his own admission (goggle the DOJ slide deck for quotes and email) Eddy Cue went from publisher to publisher assuring them that everyone else was going to move simultaneously, as he had their commitment.

It was very difficult because each one wanted to be certain that all the others were really going to make the move before they would commit, a modern prisoner's dilemma. But Eddy got them one by one to promise that if the others would all do it, they would too.

In the slide deck there is a slide that shows how on a certain date, all the publisher's prices jumped up significantly. I don't know how else you can define facilitating a collusion that results in higher prices than that.

Everything you are describing here can be attributed to simultaneous negotiations with all the publishers which the judge confirmed as legal.

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 Apple’s entry into the market were wrongful, either alone or in combination."

Likewise, sharing certain information with other publishers during negotiations is also legal.

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."

Had Apple just opened a book store and the publisher's took advantage of that opportunity, then I agree, Apple would be in the clear. But Eddy Cue masterminded the whole thing. That's where they broke the law.

I disagree. Any business strategy that would have allowed Apple to profitably operate an eBook store would have provided leverage for the publishers to raise prices. And, according to Judge Cote, Apple's knowledge that publishers would leverage their otherwise legal business strategy to raise prices was where the violated antitrust law.

 

[spacepower7]

----

 

[spacepower7]

Of course not, but chances are better than good that an entirely different judge will come to the same conclusion.

30 state attorneys brought the case to the attention of the DOJ, with Judge Cote ended up agreeing with their conclusion after viewing the evidence against them. Yeah, I know quite a few people here believe the woman is a biased idiot, and they're bound to win the case if they get a more "fair" judge, but...

...these things just don't happen because someone in the DOJ doesn't like Apple, or because Obama is out for petty revenge against against one of Americans most wildly successful corporations (despite stepping in himself to veto that recent patent kerfuffle against Samsung). It happened because the evidence was damning, and Apple's lawyers apparently weren't able to defend their actions.

They'll get their retrial, but I believe the most they'll get out of it are more lenient penalities levied against them.

Thanks for the good reply, the only smart one that quoted me.

We really have to understand the antitrust law, with the rulings and interpretations.

We also have to acknowledge the FUD on both sides. 30 State Attorneys want to become Attorney General or attain some other higher office. Anyone that ignores that has no expeirence in politics or is a fool.

What most readers here don't understand is that when it comes to evidence, it's not like a criminal or murder trial. There is no "reasonable doubt" clause. It's more like, is it likely or could have happened, rather than did it happen. That means a lot of assumptions without leaway for innocence.

I could write pages on the antitrust and law of this case but don't have time...

The Federal Appeals courts usually have 3 judges.

I'll have more when I have time.