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.

Thread beginning with comment 568908
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: Everyone is wrong
by TM99 on Mon 5th Aug 2013 07:47 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Everyone is wrong"
TM99
Member since:
2012-08-26

Yet again, you don't seem to be understanding this.

It is ok for Amazon to sell below RPP, MSRP, or whatever the hell you want to call it. They can sell below wholesale price IF they want to. They are NOT breaking any laws to do so. Many businesses do this including the examples I gave you in the previous posts - NewEgg and Tiger Direct. I can provide hundreds of others. As long as they are paying the wholesale price that the publishers ask for, then they are just fine. B&N are not paying one price from the publisher and Amazon another.

B&N is a bad choice for your argument because they sell many of the same items including this little eBook reader called the Nook. Perhaps you have heard of it?

MFN status in this case did mean exclusivity with the Apple store because Amazon, B&N, the GooglePlay Store, etc. all used the wholesale model. They were being pressured to change what has been done so that Apple and publishers involved could set the price higher. That is what is a direct violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. Apple & these publishers acted like the Mafia. They made deals that others couldn't refuse. It is illegal. Period. Look it up if you need more 'facts'.

I provided links already that can get you going on looking up the actual DoJ lawsuit and the original class action lawsuit.

Finally, here is what you are just not understanding. There is absolutely no problem with Amazon doing what they are doing even if eventually leads to becoming a monopoly. That is considered a normal aspect of market place economics. The problem occurs if and only if the monopolist abuses their position. The Sherman Anti Trust Act among other laws defines what is ok and what is not ok for a monopolist to do. A cursory study of the Microsoft vs DoJ will educate you more on this area of business. There was never a problem with Microsoft becoming a monopoly. The problems began when they abused that monopoly.

Businesses in the capitalistic model of market place economics that we have in America are allowed to compete very aggressively. We have very few laws really to define what is not ok. In Apple's case with this lawsuit, they broke one of those few sets of rules. They did it arrogantly and abusively - much like Microsoft did in the 1990's. Once a business achieves monopoly status, then they must follow a much more strict set of rules on their business behavior. If Amazon achieves a monopoly in eBook sales, then they will be held to that standard. At this point in time, they are not a monopoly. There are literally hundreds of places online to purchase eBooks from.

Most importantly at this point, customers are still better served by the wholesale model. Customers are also getting a much better price for eBooks from Amazon given their production costs. And as long as Amazon, even if they become a monopolist, continue to provide eBooks at these types of prices which are good for consumers, they are not ethically or legally breaking any rules of 'good' or 'bad'.

Reply Parent Score: 4