Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 2nd Aug 2013 15:30 UTC
Apple
Apple Inc deserves a five-year ban from entering anti-competitive e-book distribution contracts and should end its business arrangements with five major publishers with which it conspired to raise e-book prices, federal and state regulators said on Friday.

The U.S. Department of Justice and 33 U.S. states and territories proposed those changes after U.S. District Judge Denise Cote in Manhattan last month found in a civil antitrust case that Apple played a "central role" in a conspiracy with the publishers to raise e-book prices.

The DoJ also requires that competitors such as Amazon and Barnes & Noble be allowed to include links to their own stores in their iOS applications, which Apple had prohibited.

Permalink for comment 568853
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Everyone is wrong
by atsureki on Sun 4th Aug 2013 12:00 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Everyone is wrong"
atsureki
Member since:
2006-03-12

Bluff? Because you do not understand what is happening hardly means it is a bluff.


"This article explains why Amazon is NOT putting other online sellers of eBooks out of business."

It did not. It's either a bluff or a blunder, take your pick.

Your original post is about a legal case, and now you are attempting to move the goal posts so that it is an ethical case of right versus wrong.


Fair enough, I'll simply say that I'm more interested in what's wrong than I am in what's illegal. In any case, you've still said nothing about predatory pricing laws that excludes Amazon from culpability there. Maybe you want to actually quote something, because I've already wasted enough time reading whole articles that don't contain the point you say they do.

Currently, the customer is best served by the wholesale model and Amazon negotiating with publishers via the Robinson-Patman rules to lower prices on eBooks which cost far less to produce than what they are charged to the customer. Apple and the agency model were forcing eBooks up to $14.99 and above from the regular $9.99 and below prices via Amazon and other sites.


How long is "currently"?
When do we see the results of this "negotiating"?
How does costing "far less to produce" help other retailers keep up with Amazon's artificially low prices?
Since when is below wholesale "regular"?

That is very good for the consumer. Using the same example of O'Reilly under the Apple agency model deal, Apple would set the price,


Not what the agency model is. Source: your link.

the publishers would have to raise it high enough to cover Apple's 30% off the top charge,


Industry standard book retail margin is 50%. Apple charges less. Source: your link.

Selling the Kindle that they produce at a loss has no direct legal relevance to the concept of dumping with regards to eBook prices that Amazon provides customers. They do not publish the eBooks. They sell them retail after negotiating wholesale pricing with the actual publishers.


They charge less than wholesale. You keep ignoring the single most important part. They charge cost for the hardware, and below cost for the content. Their entire ebook business is a dumping operation.

You keep mentioning that Amazon isn't the publisher, but you've cited nothing that makes that relevant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_pricing
Do you see anything on that page about having to be the manufacturer? Because I see a lot of retailer examples. Again, maybe quote something.

They can afford to take a loss on the hardware and lower the retail price of the book because they still realize a HUGE profit from the sale of all of their media from hard copy books to games to other digital downloads.

This is not dumping. This is not illegal. As my statement said, if and only if Amazon turns around and grossly raises prices plus if and only if Amazon is deemed a monopoly (the only source for eBooks which is laughable), then and only then could they begin to be investigated for violations of the anti-trust act.


It sounds like you're talking about a standard of evidence. Super. So if you're right, then the law is useless, because by the time that happens, B&N is already long out of business.

It is highly profitable for them to provide eBooks to customers at the $9.99 price point.


False. Source: your link.

Amazon did not use the DoJ. Period. Amazon was never involved with this case. That is simply factual wrong.


Apple says otherwise.

http://paidcontent.org/2012/08/15/apple-bashes-amazon-and-proposed-...

"For example, many expressed concerns about the possibility that the Government has unwittingly placed a thumb on the scales in favor of Amazon, the industry monopolist. Amazon was the driving force behind the Government’s investigation, and it told a story to the Government that has yet to be scrutinized. Amazon talked with the Government repeatedly throughout the investigation, even hosting a two-day meeting at its Seattle headquarters. In all, the Government met with at least fourteen Amazon employees—yet not once under oath. The Government required that Amazon turn over a mere 4,500 documents, a fraction of what was required of others."
-Footnote 6 of the embedded memo.

(See, now, that's how citing is done. My link is relevant, I told you where to look, and I even quoted the part that matters.)

For you to claim that the real price of an eBook is $14.99 to $20.99 versus $9.99 is ludicrous.


I never gave an example of a "real price", but I did use that term, and what I meant by it was either a publisher-dictated agency price or a profitable retail price. In other words, anything other than Amazon's system of charging below wholesale; anything that is tenable or sustainable for a legitimate retailer, not funneling profits from unrelated businesses, to charge.

That the publishers are being greedy as a general rule is irrelevant to whether Apple or Amazon or both are undermining retail competition.

(I did us both the favor of removing all your ad-hom static. Maybe you can take care of that yourself next time.)

Reply Parent Score: 3