Slashdot Mirror
Judge Rules Apple Colluded With Publishers to Fix Ebook Prices
Despite many publishers themselves settling with the DOJ over allegations of price fixing ebooks, Apple held firm and recently went to trial. And now the verdict is in: Apple conspired with major publishers to control ebook prices in violation of anti-trust laws. A trial for damages has been ordered. Quoting Reuters: "The decision by U.S. District Judge Denise Cote in Manhattan is a victory for the U.S. government and various states, which the judge said are entitled to injunctive relief. ... Cote said the conspiracy resulted in prices for some e-books rising to $12.99 or $14.99, when Amazon had sold for $9.99. 'The plaintiffs have shown 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,' Cote said. 'Without Apple's orchestration of this conspiracy, it would not have succeeded as it did in the spring of 2010,' she added."
Update: 07/10 16:36 GMT by U L : The ruling is now available (160 page PDF).
now if we can just get a judge to rule the fundamental concept of an "e-book" is bullshit and nothing more than an encumbered text document designed to peddle locked down e-garbage hardware and fleece the ignorant.
Good people go to bed earlier.
Maybe because it's not illegal to change your prices?
And it's authors who are complaining? Authors are the ones who control the supply - if they're upset about other people controlling the pricing of their work, then maybe they shouldn't have sold that right off. The barrier to entry for distributing e-books is minuscule - if an author wants to maintain control over the distribution of their work, there is absolutely nothing stopping them these days.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
Hard to see how this was ever going any other way when the publishers involved all settled, including admissions of guilt in the settlement. According the the BBC, Apple will 'appeal against the ruling and fight "false allegations".' Apple has now definitively departed from the reality-based community.
Slashdot - News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters, in ISO-8859-1 Has just realised that beta makes this signature redundant
First off, no company evil and it can't be. A company isn't sentient, the people are.
Group dynamics, dude.
Groups act like a single entity - case in point military. It has been shown time and time again, put a person in a uniform and have them identify with the organization and you can get them to do just about anything. The Nazis were expert at this. (I will bitch slap the first person who improperly invokes Godwin's law on this!)
It's the same with a company. When folks are working for a company, they identify with that company. That's why when speaking to a representative of a company and you slight the company - not them personally - many times they'll get irate as if you DID insult them.
If a company "culture" can be just a like a personality. I mean, why is that the cell providers, satellite tv, airlines, and cable companies, even though they are made up of individuals, treat their customers like garbage and have no problems ripping them off?
It's because of a company personality or "culture".
So, yes a company CAN be Evil.
if they're upset about other people controlling the pricing of their work, then maybe they shouldn't have sold that right off. The barrier to entry for distributing e-books is minuscule - if an author wants to maintain control over the distribution of their work, there is absolutely nothing stopping them these days.
Wow, just no barrier to stupidity on the internet, is there. Do you realize how fantastically low the success rate is for e-books? No distribution, no public awareness, no marketing ... other than the seventeen people following you on twitter. I'm not saying publishers go out of their way to push every book (far, far from it) but without a physical presence on the bookshelves you chance of getting noticed or even an ounce of publicity is fantastically low.
Your suggestion is akin to suggesting a farmer open a fruit stand instead of working with wholesalers.
At this point you will likely point out one or two of those exceptions as some sort of straw man argument. Me, I've just worked in and around the industry for decades (on both sides).
Authors control the supply ... I'm going to laugh about that one for a while.
Would you have the same opinion if the oil companies together decided that you should pay $30 a gallon for gas?
Prices couldn't go down; Amazon was selling below wholesale as a means to control the market. Apple's got deep pockets too, so they probably could've done the same, but it's not really a sustainable business model.
Really, Apple's error here was not understanding the legal position that this put them in. They should've waited for what I think was the inevitable anti-trust case against Amazon and entered the market afterwards. This was a freebie given to Amazon and Apple detractors by some Apple executives being impatient.
Books are not a fungible commodity. People don't decide what book to read based on price, they decide based on the book. Yes, if they set the price too high people won't buy it, but that is not the issue here. The issue here is that if you are using other businesses (retailers) to sell your product, then those other businesses should have a say in how much they will sell the product for. That competition has been completely eliminated by this collusion. And the purpose of the collusion was not simply to set the price of the product, but to ensure that a single retailer no longer had to compete on price.
Your argument defeats itself. As you pointed out (as the court determined), it took many players working together to raise the price of ebooks. That's the definition of collusion. Not a monopoly.
I would argue that "monopoly power" is the ability of *one* player to reset the price above the what would normally be a market price. Since the deal Apple brokered among publishers raised the cost of ebooks across all platforms, the term should apply here.
I disagree. In this market, you had en extremely dominant player with 80-90% market share selling products at a loss. One of the benefits of this was extending and maintaining the market share of the Kindle eco system, thus raising the barrier to entry to the market. Another was to train customers into a certain price range. Combining these, it is likely that they could later impose these prices on the suppliers.
Apple entering this unstable market gave the unhappy suppliers an option, which they took advantage of. A new player entering a previously almost monopolized market, and still being a by far smaller player - Kindle still has 50-60% of the market - and being hit by anti-trust laws sounds strange to me. Sure, they probably guessed that prices would increase but that was caused by the intrinsics of this specific market with the 800 lb gorilla selling at a loss. While I think Apple's MFN tactic should be disallowed - at least as far as MFN being applied to the customer price, rather that what Apple would be paying - Amazon also had MFNs in their contracts.
Dont nail them for some arbitrary amount that will be isolated and written off by the accountants. Hit them where it really hurts them: deny them the right to compete in a market. That would be a real punishment for them.
After all, they cheated. Let them be forced out of the game for a while. Then when they try to come back in, they will be so far behind they may actually have to offer some benefit to the consumer.