16 ms·

>Apple did not conspire to fix e-book pricing and this ruling does nothing to change the facts We are disappointed the Court does not recognize the innovation a

>Apple did not conspire to fix e-book pricing and this ruling does nothing to change the facts We are disappointed the Court does not recognize the innovation and choice the iBooks Store brought for consumers. While we want to put this behind us, the case is about principles and values. We know we did nothing wrong back in 2010. Unless I've read patently false accounts of the behavior, discussions, and conduct of Steve Jobs on behalf of Apple circa the iBooks store preparation and roll-out, this is one of the most laughably false statements that a lawyer has put to paper in 2016. The year is still early though.

coldtea 11y ago
>Unless I've read patently false accounts of the behavior, discussions, and conduct of Steve Jobs on behalf of Apple circa the iBooks store preparation and roll-out, this is one of the most laughably false statements that a lawyer has put to paper in 2016. You've probably indeed heard patently false accounts. What practice exactly do you think constituted price-fixing, based on the accounts you've read?
tehwebguy 11y ago
Price fixing doesn't just mean the fixed their own price, otherwise the dollar store would be in trouble. When Amazon has 90% of the market it's silly to call what Apple did price fixing. Apple didn't work with competitors to fix prices for consumers, they told publishers to get on board or get bent. That should be an option every company has, unless they own the market, IMO. Edit: Somehow typed the word "eBay" instead of the word "what" - for THAT I do blame Apple ;)
- Oletros 11y ago
  > Apple didn't work with competitors to fix prices for consumers No, they worked with publishers to fix the prices for consumers
  - andrewstuart2 11y ago
    Right, they didn't have to work directly with their competitors; they went above their heads.
  - acqq 11y ago
    But didn't they just work with the publishers on determining the model for the Apple iBook store? Even if they discussed and agreed for some pricing model to which all adhered in at that moment effectively just starting iBook store, how was that colluding? The iBook store didn't exist before, so Jobs had to win the publishers somehow, that means that all had to agree to some model that would be favorable to them and certainly more favorable than Amazon's. And how was that anti-competitive or worse? Does anybody have some exact references, like the court decision that explains that?
    - Oletros 11y ago
      Here it is the DOJ ruling [0]. The link comes from this blog [1] > The iBook store didn't exist before, so Jobs had to win the publishers somehow, that means that all had to agree to some model that would be favorable to them and certainly more favorable than Amazon's. They forced the model TO ALL the stores [0] http://dearauthor.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Cote-Decision-on-Price-Fixing.pdf http://dearauthor.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Cote-Decisi... [1] http://dearauthor.com/features/industry-news/thursday-news-judge-cote-finds-apple-conspired-to-raise-prices-with-publisher-by-implementing-agency-pricing/ http://dearauthor.com/features/industry-news/thursday-news-j...
      - tehwebguy 11y ago
        > They forced the model TO ALL the stores So far nothing has explained to me how Apple forced the pricing model upstream to Amazon - has anyone read this and determined that?
        dilemma 11y ago
        The agency model has something called "most favored nation" which forces the same retail price on all channels and retailers.
- rpgmaker 11y ago
  > When Amazon has 90% of the market it's silly to call what Apple did price fixing. Price fixing has nothing to do with market share. Thanks to Steve's emails this was a very clear cut case for the government to make but if at this point in time you still can't see it then nothing will make you.
vonklaus 11y ago
Amazon controlled 90% of the market share and was price dumping. It is dubious that they colluded too much, as they were buying from the sellers, which is literally how markets work. Amazon, and I am not joking, in an article called Amazon: We have 70-80 percent of e-book market[0] through there kindle chief makes that claim. Also credit suisse released a report prior claiming 90%[1] in the wall street journal. This article itself also links to 5 publishers in a signed statement within an amicus brief claiming these figures and that dumping was taking place. thus prices set above that of a 90% market concentration single actor, make it reasonable to assume that increasing prices is infact the market rate. Steve Jobs was a dick, maybe they were anti-competitive. I doubt they made 450million charging more than the market leader... http://www.cnet.com/news/amazon-we-have-70-80-percent-of-e-book-market/ http://www.cnet.com/news/amazon-we-have-70-80-percent-of-e-b... [1]http://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2010/02/16/analyst-amazon-e-book-share-to-fall-from-90-to-35// http://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2010/02/16/analyst-amazon-e-... Nearly everything here is fact. So i find it difficult to understand what is being objected to...
- jonknee 11y ago
  ... And Apple arranged for all the big publishers to raise prices which is plain and simple price fixing.
  - gwright 11y ago
    I probably know just enough about this to be dangerous, but offering a different pricing model isn't the same as colluding to force the same price, even if the model results in an increased price. Purchasing soda at a convenience store is more expensive than buying a 12-pack at the grocery store but I don't think 7-11 is entering into an illegal price-collusion scheme with Coke and Pepsi to raise prices on soda. The agency model allows each publisher to pick the price for their book at the seller takes a percentage. I'm still having a hard time wrapping my head around the idea that this is price fixing. It doesn't prevent other sellers from using other models (Amazon, wholesale model), or other sellers from using the agency model with a different 'cut' or for publishers to set different prices for their books. It the end, I think this action seems to have the unintended consequence of strengthening the control of Amazon rather than encouraging a competitive environment for book sellers.
ianamartin 11y ago
So what you're saying is that you've read patently false accounts of behavior, discussions, and conduct. Good talk, man. Glad you sorted that out.
- 6stringmerc 11y ago
  Well if that's your take then I'm surprised your testimony didn't compel the Supreme Court to hear out the appeal and render a verdict to the contrary.
empressplay 11y ago
It's amusing that everyone agrees Apple is full of crap on this, but on the FBI matter everything Apple says is gospel.
- CyrilBoh 11y ago
  You can agree with a party on something and disagree on something else. Nothing interesting about that.
- soylentcola 11y ago
  Not exactly rare. Also, I don't know if "gospel" is the best way of putting it. Apple is a massive company with a wide range of policies, actions, and official stances on various topics. Just as with an individual person, I can wholeheartedly disagree with them on one opinion while agreeing completely on another. Just as with individual people, there's rarely an "always right" or "always wrong" company. In matters of policy and opinion, there's often not even a true right or wrong at all. Different interests. Different priorities. Sometimes they align with mine or what I think is more important overall and sometimes they conflict. Otherwise there would be no need for debates or lawsuits.

coldtea 11y ago

>Unless I've read patently false accounts of the behavior, discussions, and conduct of Steve Jobs on behalf of Apple circa the iBooks store preparation and roll-out, this is one of the most laughably false statements that a lawyer has put to paper in 2016. You've probably indeed heard patently false accounts. What practice exactly do you think constituted price-fixing, based on the accounts you've read?

tehwebguy 11y ago

Price fixing doesn't just mean the fixed their own price, otherwise the dollar store would be in trouble. When Amazon has 90% of the market it's silly to call what Apple did price fixing. Apple didn't work with competitors to fix prices for consumers, they told publishers to get on board or get bent. That should be an option every company has, unless they own the market, IMO. Edit: Somehow typed the word "eBay" instead of the word "what" - for THAT I do blame Apple ;)

Oletros 11y ago
> Apple didn't work with competitors to fix prices for consumers No, they worked with publishers to fix the prices for consumers
- andrewstuart2 11y ago
  Right, they didn't have to work directly with their competitors; they went above their heads.
- acqq 11y ago
  But didn't they just work with the publishers on determining the model for the Apple iBook store? Even if they discussed and agreed for some pricing model to which all adhered in at that moment effectively just starting iBook store, how was that colluding? The iBook store didn't exist before, so Jobs had to win the publishers somehow, that means that all had to agree to some model that would be favorable to them and certainly more favorable than Amazon's. And how was that anti-competitive or worse? Does anybody have some exact references, like the court decision that explains that?
  - Oletros 11y ago
    Here it is the DOJ ruling [0]. The link comes from this blog [1] > The iBook store didn't exist before, so Jobs had to win the publishers somehow, that means that all had to agree to some model that would be favorable to them and certainly more favorable than Amazon's. They forced the model TO ALL the stores [0] http://dearauthor.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Cote-Decision-on-Price-Fixing.pdf http://dearauthor.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Cote-Decisi... [1] http://dearauthor.com/features/industry-news/thursday-news-judge-cote-finds-apple-conspired-to-raise-prices-with-publisher-by-implementing-agency-pricing/ http://dearauthor.com/features/industry-news/thursday-news-j...
    - tehwebguy 11y ago
      > They forced the model TO ALL the stores So far nothing has explained to me how Apple forced the pricing model upstream to Amazon - has anyone read this and determined that?
      - dilemma 11y ago
        The agency model has something called "most favored nation" which forces the same retail price on all channels and retailers.
rpgmaker 11y ago
> When Amazon has 90% of the market it's silly to call what Apple did price fixing. Price fixing has nothing to do with market share. Thanks to Steve's emails this was a very clear cut case for the government to make but if at this point in time you still can't see it then nothing will make you.

vonklaus 11y ago

Amazon controlled 90% of the market share and was price dumping. It is dubious that they colluded too much, as they were buying from the sellers, which is literally how markets work. Amazon, and I am not joking, in an article called Amazon: We have 70-80 percent of e-book market[0] through there kindle chief makes that claim. Also credit suisse released a report prior claiming 90%[1] in the wall street journal. This article itself also links to 5 publishers in a signed statement within an amicus brief claiming these figures and that dumping was taking place. thus prices set above that of a 90% market concentration single actor, make it reasonable to assume that increasing prices is infact the market rate. Steve Jobs was a dick, maybe they were anti-competitive. I doubt they made 450million charging more than the market leader... http://www.cnet.com/news/amazon-we-have-70-80-percent-of-e-book-market/ http://www.cnet.com/news/amazon-we-have-70-80-percent-of-e-b... [1]http://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2010/02/16/analyst-amazon-e-book-share-to-fall-from-90-to-35// http://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2010/02/16/analyst-amazon-e-... Nearly everything here is fact. So i find it difficult to understand what is being objected to...

jonknee 11y ago
... And Apple arranged for all the big publishers to raise prices which is plain and simple price fixing.
- gwright 11y ago
  I probably know just enough about this to be dangerous, but offering a different pricing model isn't the same as colluding to force the same price, even if the model results in an increased price. Purchasing soda at a convenience store is more expensive than buying a 12-pack at the grocery store but I don't think 7-11 is entering into an illegal price-collusion scheme with Coke and Pepsi to raise prices on soda. The agency model allows each publisher to pick the price for their book at the seller takes a percentage. I'm still having a hard time wrapping my head around the idea that this is price fixing. It doesn't prevent other sellers from using other models (Amazon, wholesale model), or other sellers from using the agency model with a different 'cut' or for publishers to set different prices for their books. It the end, I think this action seems to have the unintended consequence of strengthening the control of Amazon rather than encouraging a competitive environment for book sellers.

ianamartin 11y ago

So what you're saying is that you've read patently false accounts of behavior, discussions, and conduct. Good talk, man. Glad you sorted that out.

6stringmerc 11y ago
Well if that's your take then I'm surprised your testimony didn't compel the Supreme Court to hear out the appeal and render a verdict to the contrary.

empressplay 11y ago

It's amusing that everyone agrees Apple is full of crap on this, but on the FBI matter everything Apple says is gospel.

CyrilBoh 11y ago
You can agree with a party on something and disagree on something else. Nothing interesting about that.
soylentcola 11y ago
Not exactly rare. Also, I don't know if "gospel" is the best way of putting it. Apple is a massive company with a wide range of policies, actions, and official stances on various topics. Just as with an individual person, I can wholeheartedly disagree with them on one opinion while agreeing completely on another. Just as with individual people, there's rarely an "always right" or "always wrong" company. In matters of policy and opinion, there's often not even a true right or wrong at all. Different interests. Different priorities. Sometimes they align with mine or what I think is more important overall and sometimes they conflict. Otherwise there would be no need for debates or lawsuits.