Slashdot Mirror
Justice Department Calls Apple the "Ringmaster" In e-book Price Fixing Case
An anonymous reader writes "Back in April 2012, the U.S. Justice Department filed an antitrust lawsuit against Apple and a number of publishers for allegedly colluding to raise the price of e-books on the iBookstore. As part of its investigation into Apple's actions, the Justice Department collected evidence which it claims demonstrates that Apple was the 'ringmaster' in a price fixing conspiracy. Specifically, the Justice Department claims that Apple wielded its power in the mobile app market to coerce publishers to agree to Apple's terms for iBookstore pricing."
Such activities involve a pretty large number of people. It's interesting how they collectively can keep it a secret for a pretty long time.
It's even amazing that the "fixed" prices are not essentially different than Amazon or Alibris or BN. Very clever price fixing indeed.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Not defending Apple's pricing
Yes you are, don't lie. Their behaviour is disgusting. They should be banned for their anti-capitalist, anticonsumer (again) behaviour. Cook should go to Jail.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartel
Sounds like Amazon's monopoly was broken. What's the problem with that again?
Amazon gained its market share by competing on price, Apple got forming a cartel with publishers using price-fixing.
Amazon had a monopoly which they used to abuse the publishers. Apple made separate deals with each publisher (which is not collusion or price-fixing) which broke Amazon's monopoly.
This is exactly how the market is supposed to work. Where once there was one eBook provider, there are now four major providers. Apple is not even the biggest one! How can that be a monopoly or even a trust?
The bottom line is non-apple customers are being hurt by this, including children.
Seriously, how can you say something like this with a straight face? That's straight-up trolling.
Aside from being Apple, which you hate irrationally, what exactly is your complaint? What do you think Apple did that was wrong? They used an existing model, which is legal. They broke a monopoly, which is not only legal, but generally considered beneficial. They brought eBooks to more people.
And in the end, Amazon is still the top eBook seller, so Apple didn't even take a controlling share of the market. So what did they do wrong?
It's worth noting that all of the publishers have settled with DoJ without a fight.
It's worth noting that Apple hasn't. You do realise the publishers may have colluded without Apple's involvement.
The collusion and price fixing was not between the publishers.
That's one of only two places where it has to be. Either the publishers get together and agree on a fixed price, or the distributers all get together and agree on a fixed price. Without one or the other, you can't really have collusion or price fixing. Also, laughably, you actually need a fixed price for price fixing (it's right there in the term!).
Please, try again.
So the real question is, how is this price-fixing?
Apple used their dominance in the mobile app market to fix their price as the lowest price, if you want to sell in the iBookstore you must give Apple the lowest price and nobody is allowed to sell it for a lower price than Apple.
That's not a fixed price.
As far as using "their dominance in the mobile market", there's so much wrong there I'll just make a list:
1. Apple does not have an app monopoly (required for this to be illegal)
2. App "dominance", even monopoly, has no bearing on book sellers (how is Apple supposed to leverage this against them?).
3. Even assuming they have a monopoly (they don't, but just for argument's sake), in what way did they exploit this?
4. It's funny how supposedly "Android is winning", but somehow Apple is a monopoly.
5. Publishers could have easily not gone with Apple's offer. Amazon was eBook monopoly at the time (which is exactly why they went with that deal, to leverage against Amazon!), and are still the dominant eBook seller (60% market share).
6. There are still books exclusive to Amazon, so clearly this deal isn't as hard core as you make it sound.
This was just a shrewd business deal which gave power back to the publishers and busted the Amazon monopoly (which they were actually abusing against other book sellers, and even the publishers themselves!).
Are you really that stupid? Price fixing is when a MINIMUM price to the public for A PARTICULAR ITEM has been set.
Apparently so, since that's not price fixing. Price fixing is setting a fixed price. Not a "MINIMUM" (does all caps make it true or something?). Also, it requires collusion between either the suppliers or the distributors (in order to manipulate either the supply or the demand to enforce the fixed price), neither of which happened.
Book publishers are well within their rights to set a minimum price for their products.
Please, try again.
You need to be more of a shill. It's only super obvious, not quite the hyper obvious you're apparently going for.
I think if Apple had not required publishers to sell in other stores at or above the iBookstore prices, this wouldn't be an issue that the DoJ would pursue.
That's not illegal. And this whole thing is absurd because it levels the playing field. Amazon can no longer force publishers into shitty deals, which is what was happening before Apple entered the picture.
Amazon would tell publishers "you will sell to us at this (absurdly low) price, or we won't carry your print book". They are the real predator here.
Other than anti-Apple fanboys
Ah, the fanboy chestnut.
It's only a "chestnut" because people use it to mean "someone who likes something I don't like", which, quite ironically, is almost universally more fanboyish than the person being called a fanboy.
I personally think "fanboy" is a good term (to be a fan of something), but the OSS/Linux/Android crowd perverted it to mean the above.
I make my living writing iOS and Mac OS software. I'm commenting from a Mac Pro with an embarrassing number of iPhones, iPads and iPod touches connected to it. If anything, I can be accused of being an Apple fanboy.
My apologies, I jumped the gun.
This is exactly how the market is supposed to work. Where once there was one eBook provider, there are now four major providers. Apple is not even the biggest one! How can that be a monopoly or even a trust?
You forgot that Apple is eeevil. And Google isn't, so Google is right. Sorry, we are talking about Amazon. Amazon isn't Apple, so Amazon isn't evil, so Amazon is right. And Kindle uses Android which is free so Kindle doesn't use DRM. Well, it isn't DRM because it works on all Kindles. But Apple uses AAC for music which is proprietary and evil and DRM. Even though the A's don't stand for Apple but for Advanced and Audio and there is no DRM, but it is Apple and Apple is evil.
Do I get modded up now?
One problem is that prices went up 50% literally overnight when Apple got all the publishers to agree to force Amazon and other sellers to charge more.
Two problems there. First where's the evidence that eBook prices went up at all, let alone 50%. People have found individual cases of books that went up, and books that went down. 50% is far too round a number to represent anything other than somebody making up statistics on the spot.
For their part, Apple claims average ebook price went down from $7.97 to $7.34. Can you prove them wrong?
Secondly, you repeat the Justice Department's assertion that Apple orchestrated price fixing. It's an allegation not a fact. You don't knwo any better than I whether it's true or not.