Justice Department Presents Opening Arguments Against Apple in E-Book Price Fixing Trial

[BaldiMac]

Really? Do you not know how to click on and read the link I provided?

I read the link. Nowhere did it claim that "Apple is stating they were always against the agency model and fought against it."

 

[vikingjunior]

I love hearing from Apple fanboys who don't know ANYTHING about the LAW.

Amazon did NOTHING illegal, NOTHING.

Just like your beloved APPLE reducing their taxes was NOT illegal.

Apple colluded with Publishers to keep ebook prices HIGH.

The customer could NOT just go to Amazon and buy the ebook for less. The publishers were setting the price by forcing Amazon to sell it at a certain price or not offering it to them at all.

BEFORE Apple got involved I was buying ebooks that cost less than the physical books. After Apple got involved the prices of ebooks skyrocketed and now are higher than their physical counterparts.

I hope Apple loses and losers BIG.

They STIFLED competition.

Thank you for finally explaining what this is all about.

 

[samcraig]

Finally read the full PDF - I'd say it looks pretty damning for everyone involved.

And the collusion would only work if at least 4 Major Book Publishers agree to it. Penguin indicated that it won't go along unless 3 other Major Publishers also sign up.

Imagine only 1 major publisher goes agency ($12.99/$14.99) and 5 major publishers do not ($9.99), that 1 major publisher would lose a lot of market share.....Before long, it would switch back to wholesale.

That's why it is crucial that at least 4 of the 6 major publishers are on board.



From DOJ opening statement/slides
http://www.scribd.com/doc/145486131/U-S-v-Apple-Et-Al-Opening-Slides

"You are absolutely correct: we've always known that unless other publishers follow us, there's no chance of success in getting Amazon to change its pricing practices."

--------------

Penguin CEO David Shanks: "My orders from London. You must have the fourth major or we can't be in the announcement."

Apple Eddy Cue: "Hopefully this is not an issue but if it is I will call you at 4pm. It would be a huge mistake to miss this if we have 3."

No change here, he is waiting for the others to sign. We have executables ready to sign but he wants an assurance that he is 1 of 4 before signing.

Once previous two are signed, I will head to their offices to get this one signed




Penguin CEO David Shanks: "We would never meet with Barnes and all our competitors. The Government would be all over that. We would meet separately with Indigo being the facilitator and go between. That is how we worked with Apple and the government is still looking into that."





Image

 

[kas23]

I read the link. Nowhere did it claim that "Apple is stating they were always against the agency model and fought against it."

"Apple’s attorney Orin Snyder argued that far from being a conspirator with publishers, Apple was on the opposite site of the negotiating table, fighting hard against them and completely unaware of whatever discussions they were having between themselves …"

The publishers colluded between each other to switch to the agency model - which is actually true because they admitted so in their settlement with DOJ. DOJ believes Apple pushed the publishers into this model and facilitated the collusion. Apple's saying they pushed them (Apple) to accept this model.

I can't help you anymore than that. An SAT prep course maybe?

 

[samcraig]

"Apple’s attorney Orin Snyder argued that far from being a conspirator with publishers, Apple was on the opposite site of the negotiating table, fighting hard against them and completely unaware of whatever discussions they were having between themselves …"

The publishers colluded between each other to switch to the agency model - which is actually true because they admitted so in their settlement with DOJ. DOJ believes Apple pushed the publishers into this model and facilitated the collusion. Apple's saying they pushed them (Apple) to accept this model.

I can't help you anymore than that. An SAT prep course maybe?

Apple (at least based on the PDF mentioned before) acted much like the owners of male chickens who fight. "We just put them in a ring - we didn't make them fight..."

I am not a lawyer. I can't comment on whether Apple IS guilty or not - but based on that document - whether or not what they did was illegal - it looks to me damn close.

 

[kas23]

Apple (at least based on the PDF mentioned before) acted much like the owners of male chickens who fight. "We just put them in a ring - we didn't make them fight..."

I am not a lawyer. I can't comment on whether Apple IS guilty or not - but based on that document - whether or not what they did was illegal - it looks to me damn close.

I agree. They're playing the "it wasn't us, it was them" card right now. It's amazing that there's a profession that gets paid to come up with the best lies.

 

[BaldiMac]

"Apple’s attorney Orin Snyder argued that far from being a conspirator with publishers, Apple was on the opposite site of the negotiating table, fighting hard against them and completely unaware of whatever discussions they were having between themselves …"

The publishers colluded between each other to switch to the agency model - which is actually true because they admitted so in their settlement with DOJ. DOJ believes Apple pushed the publishers into this model and facilitated the collusion. Apple's saying they pushed them (Apple) to accept this model.

No. Apple is the one that proposed the agency model. They never claimed that the publishers pushed them into it.

What Apple claimed to be unaware of was discussions between the publishers that amounted to the alleged collusion.

 

[samcraig]

What Apple claimed to be unaware of was discussions between the publishers that amounted to the alleged collusion.

But Cue sent exact same emails to all the publishers throughout some of the negotiations. Surely they can't claim they were unaware that the companies were "in talks." It would be incredibly ignorant to assume.

 

[BaldiMac]

But Cue sent exact same emails to all the publishers throughout some of the negotiations.

I'm not sure what that proves. If I want the same thing from different people, why wouldn't I send them the same email?

Surely they can't claim they were unaware that the companies were "in talks."

That's what they claim. I'll bet lawyers are going to argue a distinction between what Apple "knew" and what Apple may have "guessed" and what Apple was a part of.

 

[samcraig]

That's what they claim. I'll bet lawyers are going to argue a distinction between what Apple "knew" and what Apple may have "guessed" and what Apple was a part of.

Have you examined all the documentation from page 28 on in this document: http://www.scribd.com/doc/145486131/U-S-v-Apple-Et-Al-Opening-Slides ?

If so - there are numerous "damning" implications that Apple was not only aware of talks amongst the publishers about pricing but also they were throwing them into the ring to get what they wanted. If it's not collusion itself (which I guess it might not be) it could be proven to be conspiring to collude.

 

[PracticalMac]

This is the point that seems to confuse most people. The publishers were making money off ebooks even when Amazon were selling them at razor thin margins. The old system worked something like this...

Publisher sells single license of an ebook to Amazon at $7.99 per copy.

Amazon turns around and sales books anywhere from, say, $6.99 to $12.99 depending on the title.

The publishers were already paid for their books. They've been making money off ebooks since the very beginning. The problem they had with Amazon's pricing is that they'd sell ebook editions for a good deal less than what the paper books were selling for in stores. It was cutting into their profits there.

But the thing is, ebooks should cost less than paper books, since no physical materials are used, and hosting a server costs far less than the materials and shipping costs required to getting a paper book into someones hand.

The publishers wanted to have their cake and eat it too. Unfortunately for them, the convenience of digital goods made it hard for them to do so. They complained, Amazon didn't listen (and why should they), and eventually colluded to drive the price of ebooks up to roughly the same price as paper books.

That is issue right there, undercutting the PPB.
In some ways it can be considered "dumping", companies selling below cost to kill the competition.

Borders went bankrupt and Barns and Noble would be too if it was not for Nook.

Advertising and distributing costs money and especially time, that is what book stores do. If a writer has to spend their money and time to advertise and promote, you will see a lot less books on the market.

 

[Renzatic]

That is issue right there, undercutting the PPB.
In some ways it can be considered "dumping", companies selling below cost to kill the competition.

No, it's not dumping.

You know how you can usually download an album off of iTunes for less than you can pick up the same album on a CD at a store? It's the exact same thing. Would you say Apple is dumping music to gain an unfair advantage in the music industry because you can buy your three favorite songs off an album for $3, instead of having to go out and buy the entire thing for $15?

 

[samcraig]

No, it's not dumping.

You know how you can usually download an album off of iTunes for less than you can pick up the same album on a CD at a store? It's the exact same thing. Would you say Apple is dumping music to gain an unfair advantage in the music industry because you can buy your three favorite songs off an album for $3, instead of having to go out and buy the entire thing for $15?

I don't know. But aren't Google and Amazon often cheaper to buy MP3s?

I'm not a big purchaser of music as I get sent copies and/or downloadable tracks direct from the labels. Not that I care much about that either since there's very little I enjoy listening to that's "new" music. Much prefer the older stuff...

 

[Renzatic]

I don't know. But aren't Google and Amazon often cheaper to buy MP3s?

I dunno about whole albums, but individual tracks are priced about the same. 99 cents for the old stuff, and a buck 29 for the new on iTunes, Amazon, and Google Music.

I'm not a big purchaser of music as I get sent copies and/or downloadable tracks direct from the labels. Not that I care much about that either since there's very little I enjoy listening to that's "new" music. Much prefer the older stuff...

First off...how the hell did you manage to do that? :O

Second, I realized a long time ago that the music you liked when you were a teenager is about what you're gonna like for the rest of your life. I could say my musical tastes have expanded a little bit since then, but it's all based around that core I used to listen to back from 93 to 98.

And yeah, I'm old enough to say stuff like "kids these days...". I mean what the hell, people? That crap you listen to? It's all freaking House and cheesy Europop dance music you corny bastards! I tune in to one of the top 100 hits stations on the radio, and it almost sounds like 90's rock never happened. Like everyone decided bands like Culture Beat were the future or something.

...yeah, I'm cantankerous.

 

[LethalWolfe]

That is issue right there, undercutting the PPB.
In some ways it can be considered "dumping", companies selling below cost to kill the competition.

A retailer selling an item(s) below cost isn't against the law. If it was just about every retail store would be found guilty. Best Buy sells new release CDs below cost and it's not illegal. Walmart sells new release DVDs/Blu-rays below cost and it's not illegal. It's a commonly used sales tactic called loss leading. Just about every large retailer does it (especially on Black Friday). Even small retailers do it. For example, it's pretty common for bike shops to offer lifetime tuneups to any bikes you buy from them. They are willing to give you an otherwise paid service for free to keep you coming back in hopes that you'll buy more goods/services from them which will offset the costs they eat for giving you a free tune up.

Advertising and distributing costs money and especially time, that is what book stores do. If a writer has to spend their money and time to advertise and promote, you will see a lot less books on the market.

I'd expand on that and say it's commonly part of what publishers and retailers (which may or may not be book stores) do. When people say they can't wait for labels/publishers/studios/networks to die it's a typically a sign they don't know what those entities do.

And yeah, I'm old enough to say stuff like "kids these days...". I mean what the hell, people? That crap you listen to? It's all freaking House and cheesy Europop dance music you corny bastards! I tune in to one of the top 100 hits stations on the radio, and it almost sounds like 90's rock never happened. Like everyone decided bands like Culture Beat were the future or something.

Creed. Nickelback. Blind Mellon. Limp Bizkit. 90's rock should never have happend.

I still enjoy the bands I enjoyed as a teen but my musical tastes have certainly expanded. I think most teens, myself included, tend to use music as a way to help define who they are and that limits their openness to different kinds of music. As I've gotten older I just try to like what I like regardless of outside influences.

 

[Renzatic]

Creed. Nickelback. Blind Mellon. Limp Bizkit. 90's rock should never have happend.

I can agree with that...except for Blind Melon. They were pretty decent.

I still enjoy the bands I enjoyed as a teen but my musical tastes have certainly expanded. I think most teens, myself included, tend to use music as a way to help define who they are and that limits their openness to different kinds of music. As I've gotten older I just try to like what I like regardless of outside influences.

I wouldn't say I'm totally stuck in the 90's, but it does make up the core of what I listen to. Sure, I can enjoy new stuff. I do it all the time. But if I hear anything that at least leans on the style and structure to what I listened to back in the day, I'm almost guaranteed to like it (well...provided it's good, of course).

 

[LethalWolfe]

I can agree with that...except for Blind Melon. They were pretty decent.

Ugh, can't stand them and that stupid bee costume from the music video... of course part of it could stem from them talking crap about Dream Theater back in the day.

 

[samcraig]

I can agree with that...except for Blind Melon. They were pretty decent.



I wouldn't say I'm totally stuck in the 90's, but it does make up the core of what I listen to. Sure, I can enjoy new stuff. I do it all the time. But if I hear anything that at least leans on the style and structure to what I listened to back in the day, I'm almost guaranteed to like it (well...provided it's good, of course).

How's YOUR band - Android and the Hot Pockets?

 

[Renzatic]

How's YOUR band - Android and the Hot Pockets?

We lived up to our names and ended up getting too fat to play our instruments.

Selling out never tasted so good.

Ugh, can't stand them and that stupid bee costume from the music video... of course part of it could stem from them talking crap about Dream Theater back in the day.

You hated the bee girl? Jesus, man...

 

[PracticalMac]

No, it's not dumping.

You know how you can usually download an album off of iTunes for less than you can pick up the same album on a CD at a store? It's the exact same thing. Would you say Apple is dumping music to gain an unfair advantage in the music industry because you can buy your three favorite songs off an album for $3, instead of having to go out and buy the entire thing for $15?

Yes, should have said Predatory Pricing.

Of course a digital distribution is cheaper then physical, that is not what I am taking about.

I read somewhere that Amazon "buys" the book from publishers for say (example) $9.99, but then sells for $7.99. (cant find it now, nuts).
Not only cheaper then physical books, but cheaper then other distributors. End result kills off other distributors, prevents anyone from trying to build a competing business, and eventually creates a monopoly.

 

[jsolares]

Yes, should have said Predatory Pricing.

Of course a digital distribution is cheaper then physical, that is not what I am taking about.

I read somewhere that Amazon "buys" the book from publishers for say (example) $9.99, but then sells for $7.99. (cant find it now, nuts).
Not only cheaper then physical books, but cheaper then other distributors. End result kills off other distributors, prevents anyone from trying to build a competing business, and eventually creates a monopoly.

It's not even predatory pricing, besides it's been shown by the DOJ that Amazon is making money from ebook sales.

 

[BaldiMac]

It's not even predatory pricing,

Why not?

besides it's been shown by the DOJ that Amazon is making money from ebook sales.

Overall. But they discount many best sellers below the wholesale price. And best sellers are what get people in the door.

 

[samcraig]

Why not?



Overall. But they discount many best sellers below the wholesale price. And best sellers are what get people in the door.

But the publisher is still getting 100% of what they are asking for regardless. Apple's model actually had the publishers making less than 100%.

 

[BaldiMac]

But the publisher is still getting 100% of what they are asking for regardless.

That's absolutely true. But it has nothing to do with predatory pricing.

Apple's model actually had the publishers making less than 100%.

Apple's model had the publishers setting their own price.

 

[samcraig]

That's absolutely true. But it has nothing to do with predatory pricing.



Apple's model had the publishers setting their own price.

Not really - if you look at the documents - they were pretty influential at a cap. $12.99 - 14.99. 70% of that range goes from just over 9 to just over 10. So for any publisher getting on board - they weren't really going to be making more - most likely less with the model.

I do have to ask - have you read the full PDF linked earlier with all the evidence, emails, etc?