DOJ Calls for Apple to End Book Deals, Link to Rival Bookstores(allthingsd.com)
allthingsd.com
DOJ Calls for Apple to End Book Deals, Link to Rival Bookstores
http://allthingsd.com/20130802/doj-calls-for-apple-to-end-book-deals-link-to-rival-bookstores/
10 comments
Seems a weird solution, given they aren't the gorilla in the ebook market - but what comes to mind when reading this, are the battles Microsoft had with regulation. I wonder if this is the beginning of the same era for Apple.
> Seems a weird solution, given they aren't the gorilla in the ebook market
While some of the remedies are related to the market that was affected by the illegal actions they were found to have engaged in, the remedies as a whole aren't limited to the ebook market, and it seems more concerned with Apple using its mobile position and related retail platforms to facilitate similar publisher schemes in other markets to the one it engaged in in the e-book market.
Which, IMO, is what you'd expect of a company that wasn't found to be leveraging a monopoly or otherwise abusing power as a dominant player in one market, but instead was found to have used a significant-but-not-necessarily unique position in one market to provide a pivotal role in a price-fixing conspiracy among producers in another market.
While some of the remedies are related to the market that was affected by the illegal actions they were found to have engaged in, the remedies as a whole aren't limited to the ebook market, and it seems more concerned with Apple using its mobile position and related retail platforms to facilitate similar publisher schemes in other markets to the one it engaged in in the e-book market.
Which, IMO, is what you'd expect of a company that wasn't found to be leveraging a monopoly or otherwise abusing power as a dominant player in one market, but instead was found to have used a significant-but-not-necessarily unique position in one market to provide a pivotal role in a price-fixing conspiracy among producers in another market.
"...the remedies as a whole aren't limited to the ebook market, and it seems more concerned with Apple using its mobile position and related retail platforms to facilitate similar publisher schemes in other markets to the one it engaged in in the e-book market..."
Wait...
So Amazon bought all their eBooks on the wholesale model, basically, they pay a fixed price for the book, maybe $5 and sell the book for whatever... including selling for a loss if they choose.
Apple came along and said we will sell for whatever the publisher of the book wants us to sell for... and then we will take a percentage of that.
Now forgive me for my shameless selfishness here...
but that immediately calls to mind the App market to me.
So I have a question...
Would "...in other markets..." mean that Apple could conceivably be barred from letting me sell my App for whatever price I wanted on the App store? Or does it mean that they would just have to provide a link to my app on another store that would be selling my app at a loss?
I hope that's not true. In this case, that would mean that Apple, Amazon and Google would get to set the price at which one could sell one's app, since they own the store, and I would be just the publisher.
Well... technically, they couldn't set the price I could sell my app at, they could only refuse to buy my app and put it on their store for anything but their "wholesale" price.
I hope none of this applies to the app market.
Sigh.
Maybe I should have gone for that Law degree.
Wait...
So Amazon bought all their eBooks on the wholesale model, basically, they pay a fixed price for the book, maybe $5 and sell the book for whatever... including selling for a loss if they choose.
Apple came along and said we will sell for whatever the publisher of the book wants us to sell for... and then we will take a percentage of that.
Now forgive me for my shameless selfishness here...
but that immediately calls to mind the App market to me.
So I have a question...
Would "...in other markets..." mean that Apple could conceivably be barred from letting me sell my App for whatever price I wanted on the App store? Or does it mean that they would just have to provide a link to my app on another store that would be selling my app at a loss?
I hope that's not true. In this case, that would mean that Apple, Amazon and Google would get to set the price at which one could sell one's app, since they own the store, and I would be just the publisher.
Well... technically, they couldn't set the price I could sell my app at, they could only refuse to buy my app and put it on their store for anything but their "wholesale" price.
I hope none of this applies to the app market.
Sigh.
Maybe I should have gone for that Law degree.
I've read articles saying that Amazon's App store does this. i.e. if they see you selling your app cheaper for iOS, they can go pricematch it. Or, if you give it away for free, Amazon can do the same thing an pay you nothing (since a percentage of zero is zero). AFAIK, Apple won't do the same thing, they'll just reject your app if it uses the wrong APIs or competes with a market they want to own in the near-term.
Perhaps, but it's an insane solution in a competitive environment where the other major players have actual monopolies and are using predatory pricing to enter other markets.
Apple has clearly overreached, but this kind of remedy is not about restoring competition.
Apple has clearly overreached, but this kind of remedy is not about restoring competition.
> Apple has clearly overreached, but this kind of remedy is not about restoring competition.
This is about Apple using its retail outlet to advance and profit from a conspiracy among publishers to jointly set the terms on which they sold to retailers, including retail price fixing as the key focus. Insofar as it is about "restoring competition", its about restoring the need for publishers to each seek separately to make the best deals with retailers, rather than unilaterally imposing common terms. (This affects retail prices, but its not about retail competition.)
The remedies which benefit other retailers aren't about restoring competition, per se, they are about remedying the harms done by Apple's unlawful activity to other market participants. In Amazon's case, that also happens to reward the incumbent major player, but then, Amazon was the primary target of the illegal conspiracy. So this is not inappropriate.
As to your allegations against Amazon, if one assumes they are true, they might be a basis for anti-trust action against Amazon, but they aren't an argument for limiting the remedies imposed on Apple for conspiring with publishers in a price-fixing scheme.
This is about Apple using its retail outlet to advance and profit from a conspiracy among publishers to jointly set the terms on which they sold to retailers, including retail price fixing as the key focus. Insofar as it is about "restoring competition", its about restoring the need for publishers to each seek separately to make the best deals with retailers, rather than unilaterally imposing common terms. (This affects retail prices, but its not about retail competition.)
The remedies which benefit other retailers aren't about restoring competition, per se, they are about remedying the harms done by Apple's unlawful activity to other market participants. In Amazon's case, that also happens to reward the incumbent major player, but then, Amazon was the primary target of the illegal conspiracy. So this is not inappropriate.
As to your allegations against Amazon, if one assumes they are true, they might be a basis for anti-trust action against Amazon, but they aren't an argument for limiting the remedies imposed on Apple for conspiring with publishers in a price-fixing scheme.
I think the conspiracy is really correcting a wrong. The publishers felt they made a mistake giving Amazon so much leverage, so early in the development of e-commerce. To assume that all e-commerce should develop in the open web model is ludicrous. This has to be obvious to some in Washington.
"The publishers" is not a group of happy friends. They are in the same market, they should be each others greatest enemy. The moment thats not the case, you can be sure there will be an anti-trust investigation. Anti-trust isn't about whats right or wrong or visionary or faulty, it's not even about whose responsibility it really is, if their actions created a situation where competition subsided and prices raised, theres damage and fault.
> The moment thats not the case, you can be sure there will be an anti-trust investigation.
That was the case, there was an investigation. All the publishers quickly settled because they were caught colluding to use Apple to force Amazon to switch sales models.
That was the case, there was an investigation. All the publishers quickly settled because they were caught colluding to use Apple to force Amazon to switch sales models.
You need to read the emails cited in the case. Apple was acting as ring leader, the publishers didn't get the idea and then used Apple.
[deleted]
[deleted]
If the remedies are structural ones designed to cripple Apple's ability to compete on a level playing field, they certainly is an argument for limiting them.
If Apple is forced to sell Amazon's books, Amazon should be forced to sell Apple's books on the e-ink Kindle.
The argument that Apple did something wrong therefore a destructive remedy is justified is absurd because it harms consumers even further by damaging the competitive market even more.
If Apple is forced to sell Amazon's books, Amazon should be forced to sell Apple's books on the e-ink Kindle.
The argument that Apple did something wrong therefore a destructive remedy is justified is absurd because it harms consumers even further by damaging the competitive market even more.
Don't be fooled, Apple sells a lot of eBooks, but I don't think anyone has numbers. Apple has a lot of power in the market right now, and has already shown to be willing to abuse it in ways worse than MS ever did in the 90's. They don't have the market power to be subject to anti-trust laws, if they were, I can imagine it being worse than the Microsoft judgment.
Having that said, it's really a different case than eBook price fixing. It's almost like they're giving them a punishment for a different case...
Having that said, it's really a different case than eBook price fixing. It's almost like they're giving them a punishment for a different case...
Do you have any numbers on Apple's eBook sales? I always figured they were even smaller than Nook, or at least outnumbered by Amazon most of 10:1.
I'd say it's closer to 1:1 or 2:1 considering what Iv'e seen in the wild. Other systems can advertise books right in iTunes like a single app. Kindle has to be discovered via Amazon's site so it really only appeals to existing customers. Apple has way more brand recognition.
Really? They both play this kind of stuff close to the chest. As far as I know Amazon has never released sales numbers for the Kindles, at least Apple tells us that.
Anecdotally I use Kindle ecosystem, as do some of my friends and family. I don't know anyone who uses iBooks, so that's probably skewing my viewpoint.
I guess they did at least make a name for themselves with textbooks, at a minimum.
EDIT: According to All Things Digital, during the trial one of Apple's people estimated their market share at 20% [1]. That's way higher than I would have guessed.
[1] - http://allthingsd.com/20130613/apples-e-book-market-share-is...
Anecdotally I use Kindle ecosystem, as do some of my friends and family. I don't know anyone who uses iBooks, so that's probably skewing my viewpoint.
I guess they did at least make a name for themselves with textbooks, at a minimum.
EDIT: According to All Things Digital, during the trial one of Apple's people estimated their market share at 20% [1]. That's way higher than I would have guessed.
[1] - http://allthingsd.com/20130613/apples-e-book-market-share-is...
This just goes to show you the power Apple has over the market with their platform. They enter a new market and now they own 20% of it and are signing price fixing deals with every publisher a year later.
You gotta love antitrust regulators that work hard to further entrench the dominant competitor.
Get your External Antitrust Monitor resumes up on LinkedIn kids, xmas is coming early this year.
Get your External Antitrust Monitor resumes up on LinkedIn kids, xmas is coming early this year.
That's because being the dominant competitor is not illegal. Price fixing and colluding to drive competitors out of the market by extending a powerful position in one market into another market is illegal.
I haven't claimed that Amazon did anything illegal or that Apple didn't. The claim I'm making is that the remedy for Apple's transgression needn't be a gift to Amazon. And while the DoJ could decide to look into Amazon's own actions for various reasons, does anyone seriously think a proper penalty might include the DoJ enabling a "Buy at Barnes & Noble" button on Amazon.com?
Yeah, imagine if Amazon included apps that let you buy books from the competitors right on their own tablets!! It would be inconceivable!!
http://www.amazon.com/Kobo-Inc-eBooks/dp/B004SIEZ8I/ref=sr_1...
http://www.amazon.com/Kobo-Inc-eBooks/dp/B004SIEZ8I/ref=sr_1...
Because a decision Amazon makes is totally like when the government forces it to do something!
I read your post. The point I was trying to make was that Apple did something illegal and got busted for it. Amazon either hasn't done anything illegal, or hasn't gotten busted. The judgement for Apple isn't to help Amazon, it's to pay back the damaged they have done to their competitors. Since it was deemed that Apple hurt Amazon, Nook, etc, they now have to pay that back by hurting themselves.
What would be Apple's punishment? A fine? That's hardly going to deter the world's most valuable company. What they did hurt their competitors. The punishment is that they now have to help their competitors regain what they lost. This is not unprecedented by any means. In the two cases where Microsoft was deemed to have an illegal monopoly, they had to give their competitors access to their proprietary APIs (US v Microsoft, a gift to Apple and Linux vendors) and include downloads to competing browsers (EU vs Microsoft, a gift to Google, Mozilla, and Opera).
What would be Apple's punishment? A fine? That's hardly going to deter the world's most valuable company. What they did hurt their competitors. The punishment is that they now have to help their competitors regain what they lost. This is not unprecedented by any means. In the two cases where Microsoft was deemed to have an illegal monopoly, they had to give their competitors access to their proprietary APIs (US v Microsoft, a gift to Apple and Linux vendors) and include downloads to competing browsers (EU vs Microsoft, a gift to Google, Mozilla, and Opera).
I think most of the punishments they set up for Apple are perfectly reasonable and on top of those I'd go ahead and yeah I'd add a huge fine. IDK on the amount, something at least as large as everything they've made on books and then tripled or perhaps based on the avg price of ebooks before and after times the volume i.e. what consumers paid based on the price increases Apple was responsible for.
I think the record companies (et al) might want the ability to raise Apple's prices without the governement ok-ing it so that item maybe could be modified with their input.
I think the Amazon gift is silly. You say "What they did hurt their competitors." but that's not what Apple is accused of. Apple is accused of hurting consumers while Amazon profits actually increased. You bring up Microsoft but Apple does not have a monopoly on ebooks like Microsoft did in browsers. Not even remotely. They aren't even the largest competitor. By a mile.
I think the record companies (et al) might want the ability to raise Apple's prices without the governement ok-ing it so that item maybe could be modified with their input.
I think the Amazon gift is silly. You say "What they did hurt their competitors." but that's not what Apple is accused of. Apple is accused of hurting consumers while Amazon profits actually increased. You bring up Microsoft but Apple does not have a monopoly on ebooks like Microsoft did in browsers. Not even remotely. They aren't even the largest competitor. By a mile.
Was IE dominant in the browser space in 2007? It feels like Chrome or Firefox had surpassed them by then. Microsoft still got hit because it was the Most Favored Browser on the most dominant OS platform.
Again, having a monopoly isn't illegal. Abusing a monopoly to force unfair competition in a new market is illegal. Apple isn't taking the hit because they're dominant in ebooks, but because they're not playing fair with ebooks when it comes to the mobile device market where they are a strong player.
Again, having a monopoly isn't illegal. Abusing a monopoly to force unfair competition in a new market is illegal. Apple isn't taking the hit because they're dominant in ebooks, but because they're not playing fair with ebooks when it comes to the mobile device market where they are a strong player.
What exactly did Apple's competitors lose?
Why is this being downvoted? It's clearly true.
>allow for two years rival e-book retailers like Amazon and Barnes & Noble to provide links from their e-book apps to their own e-bookstores without paying any fee or commission to Apple on sales made through them.
This doesn't exactly seem fair to all the other companies who would still have to give up 30% commission over to Apple but can't raise their price (e.g. Netflix, Dropbox, etc).
This doesn't exactly seem fair to all the other companies who would still have to give up 30% commission over to Apple but can't raise their price (e.g. Netflix, Dropbox, etc).
> This doesn't exactly seem fair to all the other companies who would still have to give up 30% commission over to Apple but can't raise their price (e.g. Netflix, Dropbox, etc).
The term at issue is a remedy for harms done by Apple's role in the ebook publisher price fixing scheme, which isn't relevant to Netflix, Dropbox, etc.
Insofar as the kind of thing Apple did here would be relevant to app makers in markets other than the ebook market, those app makers are beneficiaries of the provisions of the propsed remedy that exist to prevent Apple from engaging in schemes that are similar to the ebook scheme in other markets.
The term at issue is a remedy for harms done by Apple's role in the ebook publisher price fixing scheme, which isn't relevant to Netflix, Dropbox, etc.
Insofar as the kind of thing Apple did here would be relevant to app makers in markets other than the ebook market, those app makers are beneficiaries of the provisions of the propsed remedy that exist to prevent Apple from engaging in schemes that are similar to the ebook scheme in other markets.
I could understand why apple would get a 30% of scamware f2p shit recoded flash games that couldn't exist without their ripoff platform. But why should they get 30% of book sales when they don't even care about piracy or make any serious efforts to stop it?
Those firms weren't injured by Apple's participation in a conspiracy (that we know about).
Amazon wasn't harmed one iota yet now they get freebies from the DOJ. In fact the only people "harmed" by this are the very people who get nothing. Mind you this is the same DOJ that sees nothing wrong with the NSA, FBI and their ilk recording our emails, browser history, phone calls and whatever else they feel like collecting. But sure, Amazon isn't making a profit lets give them some.
I've heard quite a bit about this case over the past month or so, but don't understand it.
Can someone explain what Apple 'fixing' e-book prices means and how that is illegal?
Can someone explain what Apple 'fixing' e-book prices means and how that is illegal?
Amazon used to buy all their eBooks on the wholesale model; the same one used for print books. They would buy the books from the publisher at a fixed price (say $10 each), and then sell them at whatever price they wanted. Amazon often sold the books at/below cost to get people to buy Kindles.
So when Apple decided to start the iBook store, all the publishers decided to use that as an opportunity to band together and force Amazon to use the agency model, which is how Apple sells apps (publishers set the price, Apple gets a cut).
The had the effect of causing book prices to go up (because, again, Amazon often sold at or below cost). Because Apple was the new player whose contracts caused this, they got in trouble.
Many people find this quite questionable. Prices will go up with this settlement because publishers get more control. Amazon had a de facto monopoly, which Apple actually broke up. Also, this wasn't Apple's idea, it was the publishers.
Of course, Apple was more than happy to take advantage of the situation, so they weren't exactly innocent.
It's a really a strange case.
So when Apple decided to start the iBook store, all the publishers decided to use that as an opportunity to band together and force Amazon to use the agency model, which is how Apple sells apps (publishers set the price, Apple gets a cut).
The had the effect of causing book prices to go up (because, again, Amazon often sold at or below cost). Because Apple was the new player whose contracts caused this, they got in trouble.
Many people find this quite questionable. Prices will go up with this settlement because publishers get more control. Amazon had a de facto monopoly, which Apple actually broke up. Also, this wasn't Apple's idea, it was the publishers.
Of course, Apple was more than happy to take advantage of the situation, so they weren't exactly innocent.
It's a really a strange case.
Why do people keep bringing Amazon into this? It's like asking a criminal on his philosophy to life. It simply doesn't factor into the law. Amazon is not a party to the case, and it is not a defense.
They fixed prices, and theres no situation where this yields a upside to customers. And in fact, it didn't. That's why they had to pay up, and Apple, failing to come to terms with the DOJ, will now have to pay much much more dearly for ever bringing this into a court.
They fixed prices, and theres no situation where this yields a upside to customers. And in fact, it didn't. That's why they had to pay up, and Apple, failing to come to terms with the DOJ, will now have to pay much much more dearly for ever bringing this into a court.
Amazon's position in the market before this case is one of the things that makes it interesting. If Apple went to into a competitive market and pulled this it would be pretty clear cut. But instead they went into a market dominated by a de facto monopoly. In fact many people believe that Amazon should have been investigated for it's practices in the 'pre-iBooks' era.
> They fixed prices [...]
This is something I'm not sure about. From what I've read it sounds like all the publishers already wanted to do this and Apple was just the perfect opportunity to force the issue.
But as I said above, Apple clearly knew this was the case and used it to their advantage. They didn't set out fix prices, but they weren't against it.
> And in fact, it didn't.
This is a little odd too. Because of the agency model and the most favored nation contracts, prices went up. But if prices were artificially low before hand, was this a harm to consumers or a correction that would have happened eventually anyway?
There are some interesting twists in this case that make it a lot less clear-cut than most price fixing schemes. Apple probably deserves some kind of punishment for their behavior. On a personal level I'd really like the ability to buy books in the Kindle app, that seems like a fair punishment. I love my Kindle, but I do think Amazon might have been abusing their monopoly.
Of course the publishers were all guilty as hell, but they settled quickly. If they had tried to fight this too, I wonder if we'd hear as much about Apple. They're the only ones left standing and fighting.
> They fixed prices [...]
This is something I'm not sure about. From what I've read it sounds like all the publishers already wanted to do this and Apple was just the perfect opportunity to force the issue.
But as I said above, Apple clearly knew this was the case and used it to their advantage. They didn't set out fix prices, but they weren't against it.
> And in fact, it didn't.
This is a little odd too. Because of the agency model and the most favored nation contracts, prices went up. But if prices were artificially low before hand, was this a harm to consumers or a correction that would have happened eventually anyway?
There are some interesting twists in this case that make it a lot less clear-cut than most price fixing schemes. Apple probably deserves some kind of punishment for their behavior. On a personal level I'd really like the ability to buy books in the Kindle app, that seems like a fair punishment. I love my Kindle, but I do think Amazon might have been abusing their monopoly.
Of course the publishers were all guilty as hell, but they settled quickly. If they had tried to fight this too, I wonder if we'd hear as much about Apple. They're the only ones left standing and fighting.
It's funny that you can monopolize a market as long as you lose money doing it. I wonder what would happen if Amazon then raised ebook prices to 19.99.
What's wrong with publishers getting more control? Don't they pay authors? We're not talking about scientific journal publishers here. Who's forcing them to reduce their prices?
Legally nothing. But the eBook market didn't start to take off until Amazon started to force it. We have every reason to believe that publishers will price eBooks in a way that minimizes disruption to their traditional paper business and keep profits higher than the real equilibrium.
We've seen the music industry do it (avoiding selling to keep album sales up). We've seen the game industry do it (change the same for downloads as physical copies to keep retail happy). We've seen the movie industry try to prevent disruption many times (anti-VCR, pro-Divx, anti-Netflix, etc).
We've seen the music industry do it (avoiding selling to keep album sales up). We've seen the game industry do it (change the same for downloads as physical copies to keep retail happy). We've seen the movie industry try to prevent disruption many times (anti-VCR, pro-Divx, anti-Netflix, etc).
The full version of what they were found to have done wrong is at: http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f299200/299275.pdf
TL;DR version, the court found "that the Publisher Defendants conspired with each other to eliminate retail price competition in order to raise e-book prices, and that Apple played a central role in facilitating and executing that conspiracy."
TL;DR version, the court found "that the Publisher Defendants conspired with each other to eliminate retail price competition in order to raise e-book prices, and that Apple played a central role in facilitating and executing that conspiracy."
This is my understanding of the situation:
Traditionally, book publishers sell to stores at a wholesale price. Stores then mark up the price a bit and sell it to the end consumers.
Amazon then started selling books for prices below the wholesale price, deliberately taking a loss.
The publishers got scared that this would destroy all non-Amazon channels, giving Amazon inordinate power over them.
So they got together with Apple and set up a scheme where the publishers would all use the "agent" model. Instead of selling the books to Apple for a fixed wholesale price, they would set the prices however they liked, and Apple would take a cut of 30%.
The publishers would then all refuse to sell to Amazon unless Amazon switched to the agent model.
That, however, is pretty straight-forward collusion and against the law.
Traditionally, book publishers sell to stores at a wholesale price. Stores then mark up the price a bit and sell it to the end consumers.
Amazon then started selling books for prices below the wholesale price, deliberately taking a loss.
The publishers got scared that this would destroy all non-Amazon channels, giving Amazon inordinate power over them.
So they got together with Apple and set up a scheme where the publishers would all use the "agent" model. Instead of selling the books to Apple for a fixed wholesale price, they would set the prices however they liked, and Apple would take a cut of 30%.
The publishers would then all refuse to sell to Amazon unless Amazon switched to the agent model.
That, however, is pretty straight-forward collusion and against the law.
How many non-intrinsically expensive ebooks had reasonable wholesale prices above $10?
What I've read is that the "below the wholesale price" didn't happen a lot until publishers started raising that price after Amazon created the market. Now, maybe the latter discovered they couldn't afford below $10 wholesale prices, but the method they used to deal with the problem as, as you noted, "straight-forward collusion", and as I add, that harmed the consumer; add the two together and you get a slam dunk anti-trust case.
What I've read is that the "below the wholesale price" didn't happen a lot until publishers started raising that price after Amazon created the market. Now, maybe the latter discovered they couldn't afford below $10 wholesale prices, but the method they used to deal with the problem as, as you noted, "straight-forward collusion", and as I add, that harmed the consumer; add the two together and you get a slam dunk anti-trust case.
In very brief, Apple and a half dozen publishers engaged in a white line price fixing conspiracy, all the publishers pled guilty, and naturally their counterparty was found guilty. A price fixing conspiracy that causes damage to consumers is white line illegal in the US; in this case, the prices of many ebooks went up by quite a bit.
Which leads straight to all but one of the remedies, like terminating all those deals with the publishers and for 5 years refraining from striking any vaguely similar deal with publishers. And extending this sort of thing to other media, seeing as how they are now a convicted (and unrepentant) price fixer.
As for the remaining remedy ... don't know about the legal basis for it, but Amazon was the main target of all the parties in the price fixing conspiracy.
There's a bit more detail here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._litigation#eBook_pri...
Which leads straight to all but one of the remedies, like terminating all those deals with the publishers and for 5 years refraining from striking any vaguely similar deal with publishers. And extending this sort of thing to other media, seeing as how they are now a convicted (and unrepentant) price fixer.
As for the remaining remedy ... don't know about the legal basis for it, but Amazon was the main target of all the parties in the price fixing conspiracy.
There's a bit more detail here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._litigation#eBook_pri...
"in this case, the prices of many ebooks went up by quite a bit"
But no one was coerced into buying those books. Where's the crime?
But no one was coerced into buying those books. Where's the crime?
Nobody is ever really coerced into buying airline tickets, but if Expedia sat the CEOs of the major U.S. airlines down and convinced them to all agree to raise prices, that would still be price fixing and illegal under the Sherman Act.
The crime is that businesses are not allowed to get together and raise prices in concert like this.
Wow, this opens up the market a LOT. Fortuitous timing for B&N's ailing Nook division?
Puts this in a whole new light: http://qz.com/87184/the-steve-jobs-emails-that-show-how-to-w...
HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5752212
HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5752212
Anyone have insight into what sort of timeline this is on? How long Apple could drag this out until books disappear from iTunes and consumers are stuck with the Kindle iOS app and it's non-native text selection bullshit?
I don't think it prevents them from recontracting immediately with the publishers, just they can't get most favored nation.
"entering new e-book distribution deals which would free it from having to compete on price"
"entering new e-book distribution deals which would free it from having to compete on price"
This was interesting "without paying any fee or commission to Apple on sales made through them."
It is interesting because I see it as a request to keep Apple from enriching itself but abolishing the fee entirely makes for a really harsh sanction. We'll see what, if anything, the court decides is reasonable.
It is interesting because I see it as a request to keep Apple from enriching itself but abolishing the fee entirely makes for a really harsh sanction. We'll see what, if anything, the court decides is reasonable.
It's sad and terrible to see the last, best vestige of old media being constrained by supposed innovation.
I can't wait to see links to iTunes on the Amazon web site one day.
“Plaintiffs’ proposed injunction is a draconian and punitive intrusion into Apple’s business, wildly out of proportion to any adjudicated wrongdoing or potential harm. Plaintiffs propose a sweeping and unprecedented injunction as a tool to empower the Government to regulate Apple’s businesses and potentially affect Apple’s business relationships with thousands of partners across several markets. Plaintiffs’ overreaching proposal would establish a vague new compliance regime—applicable only to Apple—with intrusive oversight lasting for ten years, going far beyond the legal issues in this case, injuring competition and consumers, and violating basic principles of fairness and due process. The resulting cost of this relief—not only in dollars but also lost opportunities for American businesses and consumers—would be vast.”
http://allthingsd.com/20130802/apple-slams-feds-proposed-e-b...