Apple, major publishers hit with federal antitrust lawsuit over e-book pricing

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Couldn't happen to a better company.

1) Conning people into thinking not giving dividends is 'cutting edge' and good for investors.
2) Manufacturing practices that chooses cheapness over quality and questionable working conditions in their factories.
3) Price gouging for said shitty components. Style over substance.
4) Abuse of patent laws.
5) and now collusive business practices.


Apple and several of the nation's largest book publishers were hit with a federal antitrust lawsuit on Wednesday for allegedly colluding to fix e-book prices.

According to the complaint, filed by the U.S. Department of Justice, at least five publishers—Simon & Schuster, HarperCollins, Hachette, Penguin and Macmillan—conspired with Apple to fix prices for e-books ahead of the 2010 launch of the iPad tablet and iBookstore, forcing Amazon to raise prices for e-books on the rival Kindle.

Simon & Schuster, HarperCollins and Hachette have already settled with the Justice Department. According to Bloomberg, Apple and Macmillan "have refused to engage in settlement talks" and "deny they colluded to raise prices for digital books." Penguin plans to fight the lawsuit too, Bloomberg said.

Before the iPad came along, publishers had complained that Amazon's $9.99 price for e-books was too heavily discounted. When the iPad made its debut, most e-books sold by Apple were priced at $12.99, with the Cupertino, Calif.-based company allowing publishers to set their own prices—known as the "agency model." Amazon soon allowed publishers to set their own prices, too, driving up the prices of digital editions.

"Apple facilitated the [publishers'] collective effort to end retail price competition by coordinating their transition to an agency model across all retailers," the suit alleges.

A class action lawsuit filed in California District Court last summer by Kindle consumers was the first to allege a conspiracy, CNNMoney.com noted. According to that suit, "booksellers were 'terrified' by the discounted e-book price structure Amazon launched in 2007." The "spooked publishers" colluded with Apple to force Amazon's hand.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/apple-major-publishers-hit-federal-antitrust-lawsuit-over-162802123.html

[ElNono]

I'm glad they're looking into this. It just sucks they look into these agreements only when another giant like Amazon cries foul though, especially when Amazon has been doing pretty much the same stuff with the developers on their app store.

[lefty]

Eh
They are jealous of Apple

Alwaus trying to find something


Non issue, Stevie got this

[leemajors]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelbobelian/2012/04/12/the-irony-of-the-governments-antitrust-case-against-apple-and-five-publishers/


The second irony is equally paradoxical. Before the publishers instituted higher prices through their deal with Apple, Amazon controlled 90% of the e-book market. The allure of its fast-selling Kindle e-readers and the lack of viable competitors outside of the Nook (offered by Barnes & Noble) until the Apple iPad came onto the scene led to Amazon’s market dominance. Pricing its e-books significantly below its costs contributed to its near monopoly as well.

Such pricing schemes could be considered predatory under antitrust law. Yet, the DOJ did not bring such a case against Amazon. Nor did the agency try to curb Amazon’s monopolistic power over the e-book market at the height of the company’s dominance. Instead, the agency decided to pursue the less powerful publishers.

[ElNono]

Exactly. Not saying Apple or the publishers did nothing wrong, but this case has Amazon butthurt written all over it.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I'm glad they're looking into this. It just sucks they look into these agreements only when another giant like Amazon cries foul though, especially when Amazon has been doing pretty much the same stuff with the developers on their app store.

It was a two year investigation. It is what it is and its not like Amazon is above antitrust scrutiny. It was blatant collusion horizontally amongst multiple firms. Textbook violation.

Controlling marketshare is not per se a violation. Lowering prices as a abd thing is cute and all. I guess you like paying $2500 for laptops worth half that and crappy peripheral hardware.

It also was not just the DOJ. 15 state AG offices also filed suit including Texas. i suppose amazon controls all of them too? You guys are cute fanbois though.

https://www.oag.state.tx.us/oagnews/release.php?id=4026

[ElNono]

It was a two year investigation. It is what it is and its not like Amazon is above antitrust scrutiny. It was blatant collusion horizontally amongst multiple firms. Textbook violation.

Controlling marketshare is not per se a violation. Lowering prices as a abd thing is cute and all. I guess you like paying $2500 for laptops worth half that and crappy peripheral hardware.

It also was not just the DOJ. 15 state AG offices also filed suit including Texas. i suppose amazon controls all of them too? You guys are cute fanbois though.

https://www.oag.state.tx.us/oagnews/release.php?id=4026

I'm well aware of the investigation, and, as stated, I'm actually supportive of it. But apparently Amazon is indeed above antitrust scrutiny until some other big boy cries foul on them.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I'm well aware of the investigation, and, as stated, I'm actually supportive of it. But apparently Amazon is indeed above antitrust scrutiny until some other big boy cries foul on them.

Would you like to discuss the particulars of antitrust law?

Is there evidence that Amazon is guilty of horizontal collusion to fix prices? Lowering prices or having major market share is not a per se violation and lowering prices without evidence of collusion is shaky ground using the rule of reason. it certainly does not hurt the consumer. Might as well say the same thing about WalMart.

Just sounds like sour grapes to me.

[ElNono]

Would you like to discuss the particulars of antitrust law?

Is there evidence that Amazon is guilty of horizontal collusion to fix prices? Lowering prices or having major market share is not a per se violation and lowering prices without evidence of collusion is shaky ground using the rule of reason. it certainly does not hurt the consumer. Might as well say the same thing about WalMart.

Just sounds like sour grapes to me.

Amazon gets away with things like this:

List Price. The “List Price” for an App is an amount
that does not exceed, at any time, the lowest list price or suggested
retail price for such App (including any similar edition, version or
release) available or previously available on any Similar Service or
the lowest actual price at which you make or made such App available
for sale through any Similar Service. You will update the List Price
for each App as necessary to ensure that it meets the requirements of
this section 5i.

...because it's Amazon.

Not to mention the scam they pull with the Free App Of The Day promotion (http://blog.shiftyjelly.com/2011/08/02/amazon-app-store-rotten-to-the-core/).

But nobody cares about the little guy, and Amazon won't get sued by AGs for screwing up the little guy.

And it's not sour grapes. As a consumer, I'm glad they're going after Apple, Microsoft, Intel and everyone that colludes, does price fixing, or abuse their monopoly power. It's the right thing to do.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Amazon gets away with things like this:

List Price. The “List Price” for an App is an amount
that does not exceed, at any time, the lowest list price or suggested
retail price for such App (including any similar edition, version or
release) available or previously available on any Similar Service or
the lowest actual price at which you make or made such App available
for sale through any Similar Service. You will update the List Price
for each App as necessary to ensure that it meets the requirements of
this section 5i.

...because it's Amazon.

Not to mention the scam they pull with the Free App Of The Day promotion (http://blog.shiftyjelly.com/2011/08/02/amazon-app-store-rotten-to-the-core/).

But nobody cares about the little guy, and Amazon won't get sued by AGs for screwing up the little guy.

And it's not sour grapes. As a consumer, I'm glad they're going after Apple, Microsoft, Intel and everyone that colludes, does price fixing, or abuse their monopoly power. It's the right thing to do.

Again, how does that violate antitrust laws? Its not a per se or 'by definition' violation and the standard for the rule of reason is hard to support especially when they are lowering prices. 'We will beat any competitors price' is not a violation.

Do you think Wal-Mart breaks anti-trust laws doing that?

[ElNono]

Again, how does that violate antitrust laws? Its not a per se or 'by definition' violation and the standard for the rule of reason is hard to support especially when they are lowering prices. 'We will beat any competitors price' is not a violation.

Do you think Wal-Mart breaks anti-trust laws doing that?

Amazon is entitled to sell items at a loss if that's what they want to do. Nothing wrong with that.

What they're not entitled to do is agree to pay 20% of any sale to the provider, and then not pay the 20%. But you're not going to see AGs investigating such practices on Amazon.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Amazon is entitled to sell items at a loss if that's what they want to do. Nothing wrong with that.

What they're not entitled to do is agree to pay 20% of any sale to the provider, and then not pay the 20%. But you're not going to see AGs investigating such practices on Amazon.

Then the parties can sue for contract violations on their own behalf. Horizontal price fixing is something different in that if the state does not bring the case then no one can unless they can show direct significant harm. The state sues on behalf of the people or consumer.

they are two types of litigation though. Contract law and antitrust. If amazon is doing that and getting away with it in court then i get your point as that would be fucked up.

[ElNono]

Then the parties can sue for contract violations on their own behalf. Horizontal price fixing is something different in that if the state does not bring the case then no one can unless they can show direct significant harm. The state sues on behalf of the people or consumer.

they are two types of litigation though. Contract law and antitrust. If amazon is doing that and getting away with it in court then i get your point as that would be fucked up.

Agree