Let's stipulate from the outset that Apple is not going to suffer any damage after losing big
to the government in the e-book price-fixing case. Yes, a few codgers
may decide on principle not to buy iPads as a personal statement of
protest, but those are the same cranks who picket at the slightest smell of bacon from a bacon restaurant.
But just because Apple may get off without paying a steep price in the
public's eyes, the evidence submitted at trial paints a picture of a
scheming company clearly on the wrong side of the law. The court has not
yet scheduled a hearing to address proposed remedies.
The decision handed down Wednesday by Federal Judge Denise L. Cote found Apple guilty of orchestrating a conspiracy to cut out e-book competition and raise prices. (Here's a link to the full text of Cote's decision if you want to read along. It's worth spending the time.) Her reading of the evidence showed Apple demanding, as a precondition of its entry into the market, that it would not have to compete with Amazon on price.
"Thus, from the consumer's perspective -- a not unimportant perspective in the field of antitrust -- the arrival of the iBookstore brought less price competition and higher prices," Cote wrote.
Apple, which said it plans to file an appeal, did not budge from its repeated assertions of innocence since the Justice Department filed a lawsuit last spring over e-book pricing.
"Apple did not conspire to fix e-book pricing and we will continue to fight against these false accusations," said Apple spokesman Tom Neumayr. "When we introduced the iBookstore in 2010, we gave customers more choice, injecting much needed innovation and competition into the market, breaking Amazon's monopolistic grip on the publishing industry. We've done nothing wrong and we will appeal the judge's decision."
Good luck with that. Given the detail Cote produced chronicling how Apple colluded with five big publishers on e-book pricing, even Clarence Darrow would be at a disadvantage getting this verdict overturned. The publishers, who examined the same evidence, settled with the government before the case went to trial. Not Apple, which maintained all along that it was just trying to do the right thing by customers.
If this case does wind up getting reheard, Apple will make that same pitch. But any appeals court still will have to accept the facts submitted into evidence. And they paint an unflattering picture. According to Cote:
In the end, Apple's lawyers couldn't talk away the statements by its former leader. Today's storyline points to Apple as the ringleader, both facilitating and encouraging what was a collective and illegal restraint of trade. Hardly the sort of description that we've come to associate with Silicon Valley's most iconic company.
The decision handed down Wednesday by Federal Judge Denise L. Cote found Apple guilty of orchestrating a conspiracy to cut out e-book competition and raise prices. (Here's a link to the full text of Cote's decision if you want to read along. It's worth spending the time.) Her reading of the evidence showed Apple demanding, as a precondition of its entry into the market, that it would not have to compete with Amazon on price.
"Thus, from the consumer's perspective -- a not unimportant perspective in the field of antitrust -- the arrival of the iBookstore brought less price competition and higher prices," Cote wrote.
Apple, which said it plans to file an appeal, did not budge from its repeated assertions of innocence since the Justice Department filed a lawsuit last spring over e-book pricing.
"Apple did not conspire to fix e-book pricing and we will continue to fight against these false accusations," said Apple spokesman Tom Neumayr. "When we introduced the iBookstore in 2010, we gave customers more choice, injecting much needed innovation and competition into the market, breaking Amazon's monopolistic grip on the publishing industry. We've done nothing wrong and we will appeal the judge's decision."
Good luck with that. Given the detail Cote produced chronicling how Apple colluded with five big publishers on e-book pricing, even Clarence Darrow would be at a disadvantage getting this verdict overturned. The publishers, who examined the same evidence, settled with the government before the case went to trial. Not Apple, which maintained all along that it was just trying to do the right thing by customers.
If this case does wind up getting reheard, Apple will make that same pitch. But any appeals court still will have to accept the facts submitted into evidence. And they paint an unflattering picture. According to Cote:
Some consumers had to pay more for e-books; others bought a cheaper e-book rather than the one they preferred to purchase; and it can be assumed that still others deferred a purchase altogether rather than pay the higher price. Now that the [publishers] were in control of pricing, they were also less willing to authorize retailers to give consumers the benefit of promotions.Also, consider how e-book prices rose after the opening of the iBookstore. Apple tried to argue that prices actually dropped over the following couple of years. That argument failed to persuade. Again, from Cote's decision:
Apple's experts did not present any analysis that attempted to control for the many changes that the e-book market was experiencing during these early years of its growth, including the phenomenon of disintermediation and the extent to which other publishers decided to remain on the wholesale model. The analysis presented by the Plaintiffs' experts as well as common sense lead invariably to a finding that the actions taken by Apple and the Publisher Defendants led to an increase in the price of e-books.Steve Jobs wasn't around to defend himself but the document trail he left behind helped clinch Apple's guilt in Cote's eyes. She noted that Jobs told News Corp.'s James Murdoch that he understood the publishers' concerns that "Amazon's $9.99 price for new releases is eroding the value perception of their products . . . and they do not want this practice to continue," and that Apple was thus "willing to try at the [$12.99 and $14.99] prices we've proposed." That was yet another sign of Apple's determination to collude with the publishers as they schemed on how to jack up e-book prices, according to Cote.
Jobs's purchase of an e-book for $14.99 at the Launch, and his explanation to a reporter that day that Amazon's $9.99 price for the same book would be irrelevant because soon all prices will "be the same" is further evidence that Apple understood and intended that Amazon's ability to set retail prices would soon be eliminated.Also, Jobs subsequently told biographer Walter Isaacson how the publishers "went to Amazon and said, 'You're going to sign an agency contract or we're not going to give you the books.'" Jobs was referring to Macmillan CEO John Sargent's trip to Seattle to deliver "an ultimatum to Amazon," she wrote.
In the end, Apple's lawyers couldn't talk away the statements by its former leader. Today's storyline points to Apple as the ringleader, both facilitating and encouraging what was a collective and illegal restraint of trade. Hardly the sort of description that we've come to associate with Silicon Valley's most iconic company.
Member Comments
the
whole point is, they did something illegal and got their butts handed
to them for it. how much trust would you have in an individual that was
accused of, and found guilty of, theft? but you'll keep trusting an
obviously untrustworthy company? now, i'm not saying every company
isn't guilty of some kind of wrong doing, but this one was found guilty
in a court of law.
as an aside, jobs' term "value perception" says it all. the perception of value where there is little. this can be used to describe anything apple makes, and says a lot of what jobs thought of apple customers.
as an aside, jobs' term "value perception" says it all. the perception of value where there is little. this can be used to describe anything apple makes, and says a lot of what jobs thought of apple customers.
@jghangin Oh
please lets take your take on "value perception" all the way to it's
logical conclusion. Information wants to be free. Once an e-book is in
an ebook format, there is virtually no value in it. Why are we
charging more than a very, very, very minuscule amount to distribute it?
A much more logical way to look at this is that Amazon was dumping ebooks to block competition. There was a time when selling below cost to block competition was seen as illegal. Why has that changed?
A much more logical way to look at this is that Amazon was dumping ebooks to block competition. There was a time when selling below cost to block competition was seen as illegal. Why has that changed?
Judge
Cote commenting on all the witnesses that supported Apple's point of
view. She didn't let even one of them get away without being labeled
untrustworthy. How much better to support a faulty decision than simply
stating that you didn't believe a word the defendant was saying. Can you
blame the judge for ruling against Apple when all testimony supporting
Apple lacks credibility ?
Shameful, absolutely cowardly and shameful ! Especially when she starts quoting from Mr. Turvey !
This Opinion has already described several instances in which testimony given by Cue and Sargent was unreliable. Other witnesses who were noteworthy for their lack of credibility included Moerer, Saul, and Reidy. Their demeanor changed dramatically depending on whether Apple or the Plaintiffs were questioning them; they were adamant in denials until confronted with documents or their prior deposition testimony; instead of answering questions in a straightforward manner, they would pick apart the question and answer it narrowly or avoid answering it altogether. Thus, the findings in this Opinion are informed by the documentary record, the circumstantial evidence, including an understanding of the competitive landscape in which these events were unfolding, and that portion of each witness’ testimony that appeared reliable and credible.
Shameful, absolutely cowardly and shameful ! Especially when she starts quoting from Mr. Turvey !
This Opinion has already described several instances in which testimony given by Cue and Sargent was unreliable. Other witnesses who were noteworthy for their lack of credibility included Moerer, Saul, and Reidy. Their demeanor changed dramatically depending on whether Apple or the Plaintiffs were questioning them; they were adamant in denials until confronted with documents or their prior deposition testimony; instead of answering questions in a straightforward manner, they would pick apart the question and answer it narrowly or avoid answering it altogether. Thus, the findings in this Opinion are informed by the documentary record, the circumstantial evidence, including an understanding of the competitive landscape in which these events were unfolding, and that portion of each witness’ testimony that appeared reliable and credible.
The
facts say, not an opinion, that Apple was in the wrong. While I respect
your point of view on this, I have been following it since the
beginning. All Apple had was saying "No we didn't". No real proof. The
prosecution had EVERY OTHER COMPANY admitting to it.
So lets say you about 4 friends rob a bank. When caught, your 4 friends rat everyone else out. No matter how much you say you had nothing to do with it, you are going to jail because 4 other people say you were part of it.
So lets say you about 4 friends rob a bank. When caught, your 4 friends rat everyone else out. No matter how much you say you had nothing to do with it, you are going to jail because 4 other people say you were part of it.
They should just call it a day but their hubris won't let them.
Amazon hit the sweet spot with $9.99 for eBooks. While that is more expensive than the now $7.99 mass-cut paperbacks (and I'm old enough to remember when they were $4.99), people agreed to pay it because unlike those mass-cuts you could read it infinitely (technology & digital restriction management management issues aside). I have paperbacks I have purchased at least 3-4 times over because they have worn out. Once I buy an eBook I can read it over and over and over without damaging it over time.
Additionally, the overhead for eBooks becomes non-existent over time with sales as you only have to create one it's done so over time the overhead per unit goes down and eventually becomes infinitesimal compared to the profit. An eBook would probably take no more than 5 hours to lay out (even less if you have standard templates in InDesign or similar and know how to use style loops). So even at like $125/hr it is a static $600 overhead on a book versus infinite profit as there are no print runs that need to be done, no shipping to a distribution center, etc. So if the publisher makes takes in $15/book after 40 copies are sold they've broken even. Sell 1,000 and they just took in $14,400 with an overhead of less than $1/book.
Third, the Agency Model hurts authors as they went from a cut of the full wholesale price (which we now know was MORE than the $9.99 price) and instead gave them a percentage of 70% of the sale price. Say a book wholesaled at $15 and they got 33%. They would get $5 in royalties. If that book sold for $15 under the Agency model, they would get only $3.50 because the returns to the publisher would only take in $10.50 after the store cut.
Amazon hit the sweet spot with $9.99 for eBooks. While that is more expensive than the now $7.99 mass-cut paperbacks (and I'm old enough to remember when they were $4.99), people agreed to pay it because unlike those mass-cuts you could read it infinitely (technology & digital restriction management management issues aside). I have paperbacks I have purchased at least 3-4 times over because they have worn out. Once I buy an eBook I can read it over and over and over without damaging it over time.
Additionally, the overhead for eBooks becomes non-existent over time with sales as you only have to create one it's done so over time the overhead per unit goes down and eventually becomes infinitesimal compared to the profit. An eBook would probably take no more than 5 hours to lay out (even less if you have standard templates in InDesign or similar and know how to use style loops). So even at like $125/hr it is a static $600 overhead on a book versus infinite profit as there are no print runs that need to be done, no shipping to a distribution center, etc. So if the publisher makes takes in $15/book after 40 copies are sold they've broken even. Sell 1,000 and they just took in $14,400 with an overhead of less than $1/book.
Third, the Agency Model hurts authors as they went from a cut of the full wholesale price (which we now know was MORE than the $9.99 price) and instead gave them a percentage of 70% of the sale price. Say a book wholesaled at $15 and they got 33%. They would get $5 in royalties. If that book sold for $15 under the Agency model, they would get only $3.50 because the returns to the publisher would only take in $10.50 after the store cut.
@Belinus
Except that your concept of overhead doesn't take into account things like editing, design, art and just assumes that the sole costs of the book are footed by the author. Publishers have always historically spent a large amount simple making a book publishable and marketable, so it's well within reason to expect them to attempt to recoup costs. Yeah, an ebook cuts out the printing and shipping costs. It doesn't circumvent editors, artists, designers, or any of the other things that publishers provide, which tend to eat up just as much (if not more for some cases) then the shipping and printing by the end of things.
Secondly, you're making the assumption that the 9.99 ebook price is competing against mass markets (which are actually about 9.99, not 7.99), which is incorrect. The 9.99 ebook price is competing against hardcover and trade paperback prices (about $26 and $15 respectively), and the initial runs there are generally where the publishers try to make enough money both to support their overhead as well as build new talent. By the time the title is in the publisher's backlist or mass market format (generally a year or more from the initial publication) the initial spike for ebooks has long since passed.
Basically, your idea about costs only works in the case of a wholely self-published ubermensch that has no need for editing, beta writers, art costs, and can do all of their own layout and design work without looking like a high schooler's powerpoint presentation.
Except that your concept of overhead doesn't take into account things like editing, design, art and just assumes that the sole costs of the book are footed by the author. Publishers have always historically spent a large amount simple making a book publishable and marketable, so it's well within reason to expect them to attempt to recoup costs. Yeah, an ebook cuts out the printing and shipping costs. It doesn't circumvent editors, artists, designers, or any of the other things that publishers provide, which tend to eat up just as much (if not more for some cases) then the shipping and printing by the end of things.
Secondly, you're making the assumption that the 9.99 ebook price is competing against mass markets (which are actually about 9.99, not 7.99), which is incorrect. The 9.99 ebook price is competing against hardcover and trade paperback prices (about $26 and $15 respectively), and the initial runs there are generally where the publishers try to make enough money both to support their overhead as well as build new talent. By the time the title is in the publisher's backlist or mass market format (generally a year or more from the initial publication) the initial spike for ebooks has long since passed.
Basically, your idea about costs only works in the case of a wholely self-published ubermensch that has no need for editing, beta writers, art costs, and can do all of their own layout and design work without looking like a high schooler's powerpoint presentation.
@superdeadfish
That is with publishing new works. And even then publishers do not
publish eBooks exclusively but rather concurrently with a print edition.
At least if they are smart it's concurrent.
In fact, that same $600 cost to laying it out in InDesign would cover both because, if the file is done right which I assume it is, the document simply reflows to the new size and the styles take care of the rest. Then all you have to do is export however many editions you need (i.e. Kindle, Kindle Fire, ePub, etc.)
And the initial spike isn't over because there are a lot of works by authors well established whose back catalogs are not available as eBooks (at least in the US, but they are in the UK). I am sure I am not the only one who wants eBooks of physical books I own.
In fact, that same $600 cost to laying it out in InDesign would cover both because, if the file is done right which I assume it is, the document simply reflows to the new size and the styles take care of the rest. Then all you have to do is export however many editions you need (i.e. Kindle, Kindle Fire, ePub, etc.)
And the initial spike isn't over because there are a lot of works by authors well established whose back catalogs are not available as eBooks (at least in the US, but they are in the UK). I am sure I am not the only one who wants eBooks of physical books I own.
@Belinus @superdeadfish
The spike I was referring to was initial sales of the ebook versus when the title's physical copy actually enters mass-market format. Again, you're missing that the publisher's costs are just whatever it takes to lay out the file format, but also the editors, proofreaders and art and design teams involved in marketing a product. A book released by a major publishing house is often the result of the efforts nearly a dozen or so people working, each of which draws a salary, occupies an office, etc. This results in the amount each book costs per unit being more than just the ink and paper that it gets printed on.
The spike I was referring to was initial sales of the ebook versus when the title's physical copy actually enters mass-market format. Again, you're missing that the publisher's costs are just whatever it takes to lay out the file format, but also the editors, proofreaders and art and design teams involved in marketing a product. A book released by a major publishing house is often the result of the efforts nearly a dozen or so people working, each of which draws a salary, occupies an office, etc. This results in the amount each book costs per unit being more than just the ink and paper that it gets printed on.
Not
sure why this is a newsflash. Apple has been as greedy and arrogant a
company as any other - perhaps more so since their market spend the
better part of the era between the 70's and 90's as a niche compared to
the IBM/Microsoft ecosystems. They have been such since the Apple III,
Apple Lisa, and others eclipsed far better competing machines in price
by many thousands of dollars, and Jobs wore those absurd price
differences like a medal of honor.
You can't even say Apple "became" what it despised in Microsoft because the only reason Apple wasn't that way all along is because their own arrogance and inflexibility on price and hardware/software licensing disallowed them the influence over resellers and other vendors to match Microsoft's market coverage.
Soon as they solved that problem by dumping Motorola and adopting x86 architecture, they were on their way. And now that they've established a monopoly on a product with adoption wide enough to actually notice, the first thing they've done is use it to exploit, intimidate, and manipulate.
I knew they had it in them. They rarely disappoint.
You can't even say Apple "became" what it despised in Microsoft because the only reason Apple wasn't that way all along is because their own arrogance and inflexibility on price and hardware/software licensing disallowed them the influence over resellers and other vendors to match Microsoft's market coverage.
Soon as they solved that problem by dumping Motorola and adopting x86 architecture, they were on their way. And now that they've established a monopoly on a product with adoption wide enough to actually notice, the first thing they've done is use it to exploit, intimidate, and manipulate.
I knew they had it in them. They rarely disappoint.
@Zc456
I've always been nervous with Apple's "Walled Garden" philosophy.
I know that there was a lot of angst from App developers in the early days. Many of the felt that they had to walk on egg-shells for fear that Apple could pull their app for any odd reason. There was even examples of app pulls that bordered on anti-competitive.
I think as of late, Apple has been forced to ease up on the App Store Nazi shenanigans. And maybe this eBook price-fixing flub is a part of that. Microsoft learned their lesson years ago with the huge Anti-Trust case with the US government and the EU. Sometimes it takes a good slap on the wrist (and a hefty financial penalty) to teach big companies to not be total d**kwads.
Competition breeds faster innovation. Just look at today's mobile market. You see fierce competition between Apple, Google, and smaller players like Microsoft, BlackBerry, even Firefox, clawing for marketshare. And this has created some amazing innovation.
Price-fixing is the antithesis of open competition.
I've always been nervous with Apple's "Walled Garden" philosophy.
I know that there was a lot of angst from App developers in the early days. Many of the felt that they had to walk on egg-shells for fear that Apple could pull their app for any odd reason. There was even examples of app pulls that bordered on anti-competitive.
I think as of late, Apple has been forced to ease up on the App Store Nazi shenanigans. And maybe this eBook price-fixing flub is a part of that. Microsoft learned their lesson years ago with the huge Anti-Trust case with the US government and the EU. Sometimes it takes a good slap on the wrist (and a hefty financial penalty) to teach big companies to not be total d**kwads.
Competition breeds faster innovation. Just look at today's mobile market. You see fierce competition between Apple, Google, and smaller players like Microsoft, BlackBerry, even Firefox, clawing for marketshare. And this has created some amazing innovation.
Price-fixing is the antithesis of open competition.
@tbrand7
Um... HELL NO!
Price fixing is anti-competitive. There have been a few high-profile cases of this in the display-panel and memory-card industries, just to name a couple more. It's always bad for the consumer, the industry, and against the law.
There's no ifs ands or buts here. Apple screwed the pooch on this one.
Um... HELL NO!
Price fixing is anti-competitive. There have been a few high-profile cases of this in the display-panel and memory-card industries, just to name a couple more. It's always bad for the consumer, the industry, and against the law.
There's no ifs ands or buts here. Apple screwed the pooch on this one.
No
they should fight it all the way to the bitter end, with all the
appeals they can muster. There is nothing wrong with the agency model
and having it blocked in anyway is really the Justice Department
conspiring with Amazon to eliminate a perfectly legal business practice
from being used that really only helps Amazon.
First off no company in the history of business ever has signed a deal with another company for any product without actually talking to them. The graph showing they called back and forth is about the dumbest piece of evidence ever presented as "proof" of doing something wrong. I can guarantee that Amazon never made a single deal without talking to the other party at least once if not many times before an agreement was reached either. Hell you just have to look at the months and months of negotiations that Google, Apple, Netflix and Amazon go through with media companies for movie and TV deals.
Secondly why it is wrong for the publishers and authors of books to have the same kind of store as music and apps are enjoying where they get to set their own prices on items they place up for sale? Anyone should be able to open such a store at any time for any product even if it means higher prices in some cases. It is not the public's "right" to have continuously falling prices. Saying that you can't have the price go up on something without crying foul is just plain stupid.
Third and most importantly is the fact that purchasers of books are paying for the creative process, the work of literary art, the imagination of the author and so forth just as a person buying a painting by a known artist, or a sculpture, or a movie etc. In no other category but e-books do people say that the work of art is worth no more that the cost of distributing the item. Which by the way is not free or even close to free as so many people falsely claim. There is no great reduction in price from Amazon for digital films, TV seasons and so on, so why are e-books treated differently? The publishers are giving you a value added benefit of your choice of delivery mechanisms. The digital method does not need to be a fraction of the cost of all the other methods. That is ludicrous.
First off no company in the history of business ever has signed a deal with another company for any product without actually talking to them. The graph showing they called back and forth is about the dumbest piece of evidence ever presented as "proof" of doing something wrong. I can guarantee that Amazon never made a single deal without talking to the other party at least once if not many times before an agreement was reached either. Hell you just have to look at the months and months of negotiations that Google, Apple, Netflix and Amazon go through with media companies for movie and TV deals.
Secondly why it is wrong for the publishers and authors of books to have the same kind of store as music and apps are enjoying where they get to set their own prices on items they place up for sale? Anyone should be able to open such a store at any time for any product even if it means higher prices in some cases. It is not the public's "right" to have continuously falling prices. Saying that you can't have the price go up on something without crying foul is just plain stupid.
Third and most importantly is the fact that purchasers of books are paying for the creative process, the work of literary art, the imagination of the author and so forth just as a person buying a painting by a known artist, or a sculpture, or a movie etc. In no other category but e-books do people say that the work of art is worth no more that the cost of distributing the item. Which by the way is not free or even close to free as so many people falsely claim. There is no great reduction in price from Amazon for digital films, TV seasons and so on, so why are e-books treated differently? The publishers are giving you a value added benefit of your choice of delivery mechanisms. The digital method does not need to be a fraction of the cost of all the other methods. That is ludicrous.
@kotikalat
Your reply is essentially meaningless, as his post is about the agency model that was at the core of this. It's entirely possible not to be an Apple fanboy but still see this as an incredibly foolish decision that probably won't survive an appeal -- the agency model has been perfectly fine for other retail in the past, and the Justice department -- and by extension Cote's-- primary reasoning rests on a flimsy understanding of the technology and a very slanted reading of a handful of emails.
Your reply is essentially meaningless, as his post is about the agency model that was at the core of this. It's entirely possible not to be an Apple fanboy but still see this as an incredibly foolish decision that probably won't survive an appeal -- the agency model has been perfectly fine for other retail in the past, and the Justice department -- and by extension Cote's-- primary reasoning rests on a flimsy understanding of the technology and a very slanted reading of a handful of emails.
@DHeadOH -
Seriously? I know your image of the perfect American company has been
tainted by this verdict, but you are behaving like its a personal
assault on you, its not. You should keep one important factor in mind.
There is not a business on the face of the planet that has not
broken some law or at least stretched it way beyond what a jury or judge
would find permissible.
But that's ok because you can still buy what you want from your favorite company and feel good about yourself and what your doing. Its just that they can no longer attempt to sell themselves as the shining example for the industry to follow anymore without the giggles and laughter following. So go forth and do as you may, the sun will still come up every single morning for the foreseeable future.
But that's ok because you can still buy what you want from your favorite company and feel good about yourself and what your doing. Its just that they can no longer attempt to sell themselves as the shining example for the industry to follow anymore without the giggles and laughter following. So go forth and do as you may, the sun will still come up every single morning for the foreseeable future.
I
am not really understanding any of your comments to my post. I am not
defending Apple here. I am saying that Amazon and the Department of
Justice are actually colluding to take away a basic business practices
that have existed for years prior to this Apple scandal for the sole
benefit of Amazon.
You people that are jumping on the Apple fan-boy wagon with your replies are simply proving that you lack reading comprehension and that you are Anti-Apple beyond the point of reason.
You people that are jumping on the Apple fan-boy wagon with your replies are simply proving that you lack reading comprehension and that you are Anti-Apple beyond the point of reason.
@superdeadfish Read the transcript. It specifically states that
"The Plaintiffs do not argue, and this Court has not found,
that the agency model for distribution of content, or any one of
the clauses included in the Agreements, or any of the identified
negotiation tactics is inherently illegal. "
Doesn't seem like a creative reading of the situation to me
"The Plaintiffs do not argue, and this Court has not found,
that the agency model for distribution of content, or any one of
the clauses included in the Agreements, or any of the identified
negotiation tactics is inherently illegal. "
Doesn't seem like a creative reading of the situation to me
@DHeadOH There
is nothing wrong with Apple adopting the agency model in their deal
with publishers. The problem is that they convinced the publishers to
force it on Amazon too.
Amazon was paying the publishers the wholesale price that the publishers stated. So stop trying to say that the publishers and authors weren't being paid for their work. The paper book market worked the same way: Retailers pay a wholesale price and then decide what to set the retail price to. Did anyone cry foul when B&N and Borders started to deeply discount the NYT bestsellers?
Amazon was paying the publishers the wholesale price that the publishers stated. So stop trying to say that the publishers and authors weren't being paid for their work. The paper book market worked the same way: Retailers pay a wholesale price and then decide what to set the retail price to. Did anyone cry foul when B&N and Borders started to deeply discount the NYT bestsellers?
@cbscowards @DHeadOH
If you read it. She says that although Apple didn't force the publishers to do it, the deals made it so it happened, that there really was no other alternative. That's pretty creative to prove collusion. Because Apple made the same deal with all of them, that they were forced by MFN to honor the lowest price, that because of this Apple colluded to force them to force Amazon to the agency model. And Apple knew this so therefore is illegal. Yeah creative interpretation.
If you read it. She says that although Apple didn't force the publishers to do it, the deals made it so it happened, that there really was no other alternative. That's pretty creative to prove collusion. Because Apple made the same deal with all of them, that they were forced by MFN to honor the lowest price, that because of this Apple colluded to force them to force Amazon to the agency model. And Apple knew this so therefore is illegal. Yeah creative interpretation.
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire