You are presuming that I think the publishers wanting to set the prices of their books is price fixing. I'm still trying to figure out the publishers agreeing with each other. Of course if one publisher makes it's products available on new platforms other publishers will want to also so as not to be outdone by their competition. People agree to things all of the time but aren't actually guilty. It's just that the legal costs of fighting and the potential for losing are higher. I would've rather see some action related to Amazon's role in creating this situation....the part where they punished book publishers for not going along with their demands. Could you imagine if Apple pulled what Amazon did in the book publishing industry? People would be crying holy hell.
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.
Federal Judge Grants Class Action Status to E-Book Pricing Lawsuit
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
This whole trial has been sham. Judge Denise Cote has shown that she's simply not fit to preside over this case.
Between the fact that she deemed Apple guilty before the trial even began and the fact that she hired her friend, Michael Bromwich, to conduct a flatly unconstitutional inquisition against Apple, Cote has demonstrated that she's on a witch-hunt.
She needs to be thrown off the case.
Between the fact that she deemed Apple guilty before the trial even began and the fact that she hired her friend, Michael Bromwich, to conduct a flatly unconstitutional inquisition against Apple, Cote has demonstrated that she's on a witch-hunt.
She needs to be thrown off the case.
When I first got Mavericks, I checked out iBooks and noticed immediately that just about all books I read were slightly more expensive to buy than either Kobo or Kindle books.
Even books that are free from those two were 99¢ from Apple. Why would I want to buy them from Apple in the first place then?
Even books that are free from those two were 99¢ from Apple. Why would I want to buy them from Apple in the first place then?
This is exactly why Apple tried price fixing of the books. They knew they wouldn't be able to compete with Amazon, so it's why they decided to do what they did.
That was until Amazon declared war on publishers.
This whole ebook thing is a joke. Amazon is the 800 lb bully that singled out each publisher and threatened their business unless they signed one-sided contracts... But legally that's ok because amazon didn't collude with anybody.
So a dozen publishers went to Apple to help them deal with the bully that had been taking their lunch money... Suddenly that's terrible because its "illegal collusion?" The courts are entirely out of touch.
The only thing Apple was doing wrong, was refusing to sell a product at a loss even though they were profitable. Amazons keeps no profits, so they can deliberately push the "race to the bottom". Amazon is betting OTHER PEOPLE'S money to take profit away from their suppliers... Very "Walmart" of them.
I'm sure they can compete with Amazon in selling ebooks. The glaring difference is Apple would like to make money at it.
One of the CEOs (MacMillan?) made it quite clear why they setttled. A loss would have destroyed the company. If only one publisher decided not to settle, the DOJ threatened to assign almost all damages (minus the settlement amounts) to the one publisher. Just like they are doing to Apple. $500+ million
The poster I replied to stated that "the publisher have no choice but to settle because they lack the deep pockets required to fight this case for years". That is not true, the publishers had all the resources to afford defending themselves until the end: as you explained they considered the risk of losing as excessive, which means they considered it a realistic outcome. The poster I replied to also criticized the court for not tossing out the case for being "meritless". If the publishers were not confident of winning it and considered losing a realistic outcome it means the the case was not "meritless", or at least not clearly so.
Said that, I actually disagree in putting the publishers and Apple on the same level: in my personal opinion I have no doubts that the publishers colluded and engaged in price-fixing, but I'm not so sure of Apple's responsibility as "ringleader"
I'm not sure if you are just trying to split hairs or make a larger point.
http://www.tor.com/blogs/2013/02/a-message-from-john-sargent
Any possibility, realistic or not that they would lose the case was too much of a risk. As he pointed out, it was a civil trial with a low burden of proof.
I agree with you here.
That's my opinion as well. Unfortunately, should Apple fail in their appeals, they will be responsible for 80+% of the damages simply for not settling.
It is unfortunate. But that was there decision. "Simply" for not settling isn't (in my opinion) genuine though. The case is far from simple. Their decision was strategic.
And while I am not sure what % I would attribute to their involvement - I firmly believe based on the evidence presented that they were instrumental in the situation. I am not saying they orchestrated it. But I do believe they put things in motion and created an environment. But I have no idea what % that "amounts" to in liability.
By "simply for not settling", I was trying to get across the point that they are assuming whatever damage liability that would have been assigned to the publishers had they all gone to court. I think it's ridiculous that their potential fine goes up because the publishers settled.
I think its an example of the DOJ using their discretion to assign that "percentage of involvement" through the settlements to extort settlements from the remaining parties. It worked on Macmillan. They were willing to fight until the other publishers began to settle and their potential damages skyrocketed.
On the flip side and obvious perhaps (not that this would be "ethical") perhaps it was the DOJs "mission" to punish the parties involved with a smaller slap on the wrist and liability/admission to make sure this didn't happen again. But if one or more of publishers or Apple chose to fight - they saw that as reason enough to punish them harder for failing to admit their wrong doings.
I am not saying that's what happened or if I think that's what happened. But it's possible the DOJ wasn't trying to be as soft as they could until Apple poked the bear...
But that's exactly my point. The DOJ used the settlements to punish the remaining parties when that is not its role. In a civil trial, the only fines should be damages (which can be tripled). The DOJ used the settlements to essentially add a massive penalty on top of the triple damage.
For example, take a scenario where there are only five publishers (no Apple) with equal liability for $100 million in damages ($20 million each). If they all go to court and lose and receive the max fine, they would each have to pay $60 million (triple damages). However, if the DOJ allowed 4 of the publishers to settle for $10 million, then the last publisher is now responsible for $260 million! More than 4x the fine for the exact same situation. That's crazy.
The ironic(?) thing being is that the DOJ was forcing them to collude to settle?
The biggest irony/hypocrisy to me is the fact that the DOJ approved the merger of Random House and Penguin, the top two publishers in the world. The new company controlling more than 30% of the eBook market. The 5 publishers that allegedly colluded (which did not include Random House) controlled just under 40%.
I only once in my life needed to talk to a lawyer. And he told me "I've lost cases that I was sure I would win, and I've won cases that I was sure I would lose. It's just luck". Losing a court case is _always_ a realistic outcome. Even in criminal cases, where the rule is "innocent unless proven guilty", lots of innocent people have lost their court cases.
"Meritless" depends on your point of view. If you are a publisher and you know for a fact that you haven't done any the things that you are accused of, the case would to you have no merit. That doesn't mean you can't lose it.
----------
If you look at UK audio books, they destroy Amazon.
If this actually goes to completion it may not be that tragic since Apple is already paying out under other settlements. So once they take out those payments there may not be much left they have to pay.
Rather like the whole IAP thing where 'haven't already gotten a refund' is a qualifier
Rather like the whole IAP thing where 'haven't already gotten a refund' is a qualifier
Apple could be fined over $500 million. The settlements with the publishers (that are currently being paid out through eBook retailers including Apple) supposedly around totaled $50 million.
Basically, since Apple didn't settle, they are on the hook for triple the total damages from all five publishers minus the settlement amounts.
Yeah, sure, if we talk in layman terms, but the poster I replied to was criticizing a court's decision not to dismiss a case: basically "meritless" in this context doesn't mean "I believe they are not guilty", it means "I believe it's not reasonably possible that they did what they are accused to" or "even if they did what they are accused to, there is no chance for it to lead to something illegal".
Is this the case with the accusations against the publishers? To me it's pretty clear that the case had merit in the above mentioned sense, which doesn't mean the publishers were in fact guilty, only that the accusations are not fundamentally groundless.
----------
The reimbursments should total $166M, just to be precise. The main issue you mention still stands.
Good catch. Not sure where I got the $50 million from. Maybe the initial settlement with the states.
Could be doesn't mean they will be. Especially when it is pointed out that everyone already got their money back. Given folks are suing over this notion they overpaid if they got their "excess" money back what do they have to sue about.