Slashdot Mirror
Apple $450 Million e-Book Settlement Wins Court Approval
An anonymous reader writes A week after Judge Denise Cote put forward concerns over a proposed settlement with consumers over e-book price-fixing in the iBookstore, she has given Apple preliminary approval for its $450 million settlement. "The proposed settlement agreement is within the range of those that may be approved as fair and reasonable, such that notice to the class is appropriate," Cote said. "Preliminary approval is granted." Cote set a final fairness hearing for Nov. 21.
take it and it's over. it's only USD$ after all, and they'll print some more.
He did no such thing.
He admitted that Apple conspired with publishers. That's the crime Apple were convicted of, because conspiring to raise prices is, you know, an actual, real crime under US law.
Apple broke up Amazon's monopoly.
What monopoly? The conspiracy's goal was to force Amazon to sell ebooks for more than it wanted to. They were trying to make readers pay more for their books. What's so great about that, exactly?
Because they did so, authors no longer had to just take whatever Amazon was willing to let them have.
Uh, what? Authors take whatever the publishers are willing to let them have. What does Amazon have to do with what publishers pay their authors?
Yep, the charges were legitimate. Anyone who reviews the case should be able to reach that conclusion. Even I did, and I'll cop to being biased in favor of Apple (I like to think of myself as a recovering fanboy, who still likes them, but who doesn't continue to engage in the blind zealotry).
That said, while the charges were legitimate, the sentencing was anything but. Cote granted an unprecedented level of access and authority to the court-appointed auditor compared to other similar cases, and she also appointed a personal friend of hers who is being rather handsomely compensated by Apple to the tune of $1000+ an hour. There's also the fact that she admitted to having engaged in illicit communications with him regarding the case behind closed doors without Apple or other parties present and that she's been trying to put restrictions on entirely unrelated parts of Apple's business (e.g. the App Store). There's also the question of how a $450 million judgment can be considered fair when the entire market had revenues of less than $3B/year at the time this stuff was going on, Apple only ever had around 10% of the market (i.e. $300M in revenue), and the amount of illegal profit they made in excess of their legitimate profits would have only been only a minuscule fraction of that.
So, they definitely deserve to be slapped. And they definitely deserve to be slapped even harder for doing it intentionally and willfully. But this judge is doing some nutso stuff. Just as I think even the most die-hard fanboy should be able to come around on agreeing that Apple is guilty if they just review the information that's available, I also think even the most die-hard Apple hater should be able to come around on agreeing that this judge is not acting in a fair and just manner if they review the information that's available.
Apple engaged in illegal activity, willfully so, and they rightfully should be slapped for it. But so did Amazon, yet they've been able to get away with it so far because the one's being hurt by them aren't the general public.
The author's guild has outright claimed that they think Amazon is breaching the Sherman Antitrust Act. Most people seem to forget that those laws apply to not just monopolies (when you're the only seller), but also to monopsonies (when you're the only buyer), and that the abusive monopsony Amazon has with regards to the publishers in this market is exactly what pushed the publishers into engaging in their own illegal activities. Which isn't to say that Apple or the publishers were justified in doing what they did because Amazon screwed them first. They weren't. Full stop. But that also doesn't mean that Amazon is justified in doing what it's been doing just because the publishers engaged in illegal activities too.
Negotiating hard is one thing, but they've held around 90% market share with eBooks for awhile now, and as virtually the only buyer in that space, Amazon has a responsibility to not abuse their monopsony, yet they have failed to do so at every turn. Anyone who Googles around for about 5 minutes can turn up a dozen examples of Amazon abusing their dominant position to force the publisher's hands. Delisting books right as major releases are about to come out, refusing to ship copies they have so that shipping times go from days to weeks, forcing the publishers to change packaging with minimal notice or else. These are all part and parcel in dealing with Amazon.
Apple deserves to be punished. Make no mistake about that. But Amazon has yet to get what it deserves, simply because it was smart enough to make sure that it hurt people no one feels sorry for.
doesn't mean a coalition of fair pricing is conspiring to fleece the consumer.
We'll go to the agency model, where you set the price, and we get our 30%, and yes, the customer pays a little more, but that's what you want anyway.
Steve Jobs, 2010.
I don't see how installing oneself as the head of a cabal of basically the entire US ebooks market is breaking up a monopoly.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?