dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
549
share rss forum feed


Nezmo
The name's Bond. James Bond.
Premium,MVM
join:2004-11-10
Coppell, TX
kudos:1

Apple Loses e-books Case

»money.cnn.com/2013/07/10/technol···iid=Lead
--
My Gallery
Formerly Nezmo



digitalfutur
Sees More Than Shown
Premium
join:2000-07-15
BurlingtonON
kudos:2

Apple was the only company that refused to settle with the government. Being lawsuit-happy doesn't always result in victories, and the losses tend to be more widely publicized.
--
Logic requires one to deal with decisions that one's ego will not permit.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing - Edmund Burke.



HiVolt
Premium
join:2000-12-28
Toronto, ON
kudos:21
reply to Nezmo

And now what? a slap on the wrist?
--



Alcohol
Premium
join:2003-05-26
Climax, MI
kudos:4
Reviews:
·Comcast

said by HiVolt:

And now what? a slap on the wrist?

No. Apple intentionally did something illegal. It'll be a huge fine and the market will change.
--
I found the key to success but somebody changed the lock.


BellBoy
Steven Paul Jobs 1955-2011
Premium
join:2001-02-20
Los Angeles, CA
reply to Nezmo

Hope the gov't is happy now...punish a company that is trying to bring jobs back to the US for supposedly fixing prices on fucking books. Wow...that could have destroyed the world if Apple was left to run wild.

Meanwhile the creators of our chief export--bad debt, the banks and financial firms, get off scot free with everything. Still no charges brought for the Great Recession/Depression of the 2000's. Sigh.
--
"When the day comes that anyone can bend our country's laws and lawmakers to serve selfish, competitive ends, that day democratic government dies." -- Preston Tucker, June 1948



donoreo
Premium
join:2002-05-30
North York, ON

said by BellBoy:

Hope the gov't is happy now...punish a company that is trying to bring jobs back to the US for supposedly fixing prices on fucking books.

It does not matter what the price fixing was on, doing so it illegal.
Expand your moderator at work


Squirrelly

join:2000-10-24
Harrisburg, PA
reply to Nezmo

Re: Apple Loses e-books Case

I don't really think it was price fixing though. How is this any different than music on the iTunes store, is that next?

What do you guys think?


Badonkadonk
Premium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
kudos:5

This is probably a bit of a hostile environment in which to have a meaningful discussion, since it likely wouldn't be very complimentary to Apple.


Riamen
Premium
join:2002-11-04
Calgary
reply to Squirrelly

said by Squirrelly:

I don't really think it was price fixing though. How is this any different than music on the iTunes store, is that next?

What do you guys think?

The difference is Apple was trying to fix prices in ALL stores not just their own. It was an attempt to eliminate price competition. No way I'm going to defend Apple on this, throw the book at them (no pun intended).


pianotech
Pianotech
Premium
join:2002-12-30
New Castle, PA

When the iPad was released, books were selling for less in the Kindle book store. Apple pressured publishers to raise the price. If you remember, some publishers became unavailable on the Kindle store because of it because Amazon didn't want to accept the new price structure that the publishers worked out with Apple.

Apple of course didn't want another company to have a price advantage over them. Colluding to raise and/or control prices is illegal under our antitrust laws, as it should be. Competition benefits everyone.
--
General class working toward Extra. Love the digital modes!



haroldo

join:2004-01-16
united state
kudos:1
reply to Nezmo

quote:
Guilty of Competition
The feds find a judge to bless their anti-Apple antitrust claims.
A conspiracy to increase prices that results in lower prices is either incompetent or it isn't a conspiracy. Take Apple's entry into the digital books market with the iPad, which led to more consumer choice, competition and innovation, as well as lower e-book prices. That reality has not deterred a federal antitrust vendetta against Apple, now joined by Judge Denise Cote.
The federal district judge ruled Wednesday that Apple had colluded in 2009 and 2010 to fix e-book prices with a cartel of the major publishing houses. Her 160-page decision was expected, given that prior to the bench trial—before any testimony had been presented—she had already pronounced her "tentative view" that Apple was a criminal conspirator.
That does not make her reasoning any more coherent. As proof of Apple's malfeasance she notes that the company "did not want to begin a business in which it would sustain losses" and "hoped to launch a new content store that was both profitable and popular." Next up, indictments for every other successful American company...
quote:
...Judge Cote was credulous enough to buy it, but we trust the Second Circuit or even the Supreme Court will squelch this threat to competition and efficient markets.
»online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142···650.html

Badonkadonk
Premium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Dish Network

1 edit

The appeal will be interesting to watch.

»business.time.com/2013/07/10/app···y-trial/

Apples participation in the scheme — which the tech giant boastfully called an Akido move, after the Japanese martial art – was crucial, the judge found, because without its help, the publishers would not have had the leverage they needed to pressure Amazon to move to the agency model. Apple and the publishers frequently coordinated their efforts to increase the pressure on Amazon and decrease the likelihood that Amazon would retaliate — an outcome each Publisher Defendant feared if it acted alone, Judge Cote found.

In the end, however, Judge Cote did not find Cues testimony on this issue credible, she wrote in her decision. Judge Cote found Cues testimony particularly brazen, given emails between the publishers and Apple that made clear that the publishers would pressure Amazon to move to the agency model. And she pointed to an exchange that Apples late CEO Steve Jobs had with a reporter on the day the iPad was launched. Asked by the reporter why consumers would pay $14.99 to Apple to purchase an e-book that was selling at Amazon for $9.99, Jobs replied, Well, that wont be the case. The reporter then asked, You mean you wont be 14.99 or they wont be 9.99? Jobs paused, and with a knowing nod responded, The price will be the same.

With that statement, Judge Cote wrote in her decision, Jobs acknowledged his understanding that the Publisher Defendants would now wrest control of pricing from Amazon and raise e-book prices, and that Apple would not have to face any competition from Amazon on price. Shortly thereafter, faced with a unified front from the major publishers, Amazon realized it had no choice but to accept agency agreements, and prices for e-books soon went up. The increases at Amazon within roughly two weeks of moving to agency amounted to an average per unit e-book retail price increase of 14.2% for their New Releases, 42.7% for their NYT Bestsellers, and 18.6% across all of the Publisher Defendants e-books, Judge Cote found.