7 ms·

Apple was a participant in the conspiracy. The publishers all settled a long time ago though.

by readams 11y ago

acqq 11y ago
How was it a participant if it just opened its store under a different model from Amazon in order to attract the publishers? Even the model wasn't invented by Apple: "Hachette and later HarperCollins surprised Apple with their suggestion that, instead of a wholesale model, Apple adopt an agency model for the distribution of e-books." It sounds like http://www.indiana.edu/~p1013447/dictionary/nomfall.htm http://www.indiana.edu/~p1013447/dictionary/nomfall.htm (They "conspired" because we call them "participants.") It doesn't actually prove anything.
- KirinDave 11y ago
  It participated by being the definition of a participant. It designed a marketplace around appealing to the publishers who were eager to fix prices. A fact that the publishers decided not to contest.
  - acqq 11y ago
    As far as I see, Apple just opened their own store and was able to win the publishers to sell there. The publishers did what they wanted to do, including communicating among themselves even before Apple appeared, insisting on higher prices, proposing the agency model and making their new deals with Amazon. I've quoted all the supporting parts from the court decision in my other posts. I still don't see any argument under which Apple had to insist on the same terms that Amazon had. And Apple didn't have to insist on the same terms, and had the right to open their own store, what it actually did wrong? Can anybody really say that Apple had to say "no we won't open the store if the prices aren't the same as at Amazon"? Apple actually made the clause that their prices are allowed to be minimal of all other stores. And Apple didn't have the problem to sell items even for $0.99, that's how they started with the iTunes store years earlier.
    - KirinDave 11y ago
      It doesn't matter if the publishers were looking for a partner to fix prices with even without Apple. Apple was the one to provide the service, and ultimately enabled it. How can you possibly suggest that leaves Apple blameless?
      - acqq 11y ago
        It's just the store that Apple opened, and Apple didn't fix the prices. It had working mechanisms to sell even for $0.99, like they did with songs. It didn't enable fixing, it just became the competition to Amazon. The publishers used their leverage to negotiate new deals with Amazon. Until then they weren't able, it was Amazon that was effectively a monopoly. What was Apple supposed to do, in your opinion, as it wanted to open its e-book store?
        revelation 11y ago
        You probably want to read the original case material before conjectring any further, which quotes extensively from emails at the highest levels of Apple and participating publishers. Start with the opening presentation: https://www.justice.gov/atr/case-document/file/486701/download https://www.justice.gov/atr/case-document/file/486701/downlo...
        deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
        studentrob 11y ago
        What is it about the DOJ that makes them produce unsearchable, low-resolution PDF documents? I spent 5-10 minutes looking through that document and can't find anything that makes Apple look bad. I see the publishers telling each other to "double delete" each other's emails. That looks bad. But it isn't obvious to me that Apple is engaging in any illegal behavior based on the email quotes in that document. It seems more like consumers and government were accustomed to Amazon's pricing model, in which they sometimes take a loss. Then, when publishers wanted to set their own prices, they sought a service that would allow them to do that and found Apple. I'm a consumer and don't like high prices, but I can also understand how a publisher might like to decide how to price their books. It's beyond me why that should be deemed illegal. <rant> If the DOJ or FBI get an increased budget I hope some of that goes towards increasing their transparency by not only making information available, but also making it searchable. And why do I need to pay for C-Span transcripts? Wouldn't it be nice if we could all read and search through what our representatives are saying? </rant>
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]

Apple was a participant in the conspiracy. The publishers all settled a long time ago though.

by readams 11y ago

Apple was a participant in the conspiracy. The publishers all settled a long time ago though.

acqq 11y ago

How was it a participant if it just opened its store under a different model from Amazon in order to attract the publishers? Even the model wasn't invented by Apple: "Hachette and later HarperCollins surprised Apple with their suggestion that, instead of a wholesale model, Apple adopt an agency model for the distribution of e-books." It sounds like http://www.indiana.edu/~p1013447/dictionary/nomfall.htm http://www.indiana.edu/~p1013447/dictionary/nomfall.htm (They "conspired" because we call them "participants.") It doesn't actually prove anything.

KirinDave 11y ago
It participated by being the definition of a participant. It designed a marketplace around appealing to the publishers who were eager to fix prices. A fact that the publishers decided not to contest.
- acqq 11y ago
  As far as I see, Apple just opened their own store and was able to win the publishers to sell there. The publishers did what they wanted to do, including communicating among themselves even before Apple appeared, insisting on higher prices, proposing the agency model and making their new deals with Amazon. I've quoted all the supporting parts from the court decision in my other posts. I still don't see any argument under which Apple had to insist on the same terms that Amazon had. And Apple didn't have to insist on the same terms, and had the right to open their own store, what it actually did wrong? Can anybody really say that Apple had to say "no we won't open the store if the prices aren't the same as at Amazon"? Apple actually made the clause that their prices are allowed to be minimal of all other stores. And Apple didn't have the problem to sell items even for $0.99, that's how they started with the iTunes store years earlier.
  - KirinDave 11y ago
    It doesn't matter if the publishers were looking for a partner to fix prices with even without Apple. Apple was the one to provide the service, and ultimately enabled it. How can you possibly suggest that leaves Apple blameless?
    - acqq 11y ago
      It's just the store that Apple opened, and Apple didn't fix the prices. It had working mechanisms to sell even for $0.99, like they did with songs. It didn't enable fixing, it just became the competition to Amazon. The publishers used their leverage to negotiate new deals with Amazon. Until then they weren't able, it was Amazon that was effectively a monopoly. What was Apple supposed to do, in your opinion, as it wanted to open its e-book store?
      - revelation 11y ago
        You probably want to read the original case material before conjectring any further, which quotes extensively from emails at the highest levels of Apple and participating publishers. Start with the opening presentation: https://www.justice.gov/atr/case-document/file/486701/download https://www.justice.gov/atr/case-document/file/486701/downlo...
        deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
        studentrob 11y ago
        What is it about the DOJ that makes them produce unsearchable, low-resolution PDF documents? I spent 5-10 minutes looking through that document and can't find anything that makes Apple look bad. I see the publishers telling each other to "double delete" each other's emails. That looks bad. But it isn't obvious to me that Apple is engaging in any illegal behavior based on the email quotes in that document. It seems more like consumers and government were accustomed to Amazon's pricing model, in which they sometimes take a loss. Then, when publishers wanted to set their own prices, they sought a service that would allow them to do that and found Apple. I'm a consumer and don't like high prices, but I can also understand how a publisher might like to decide how to price their books. It's beyond me why that should be deemed illegal. <rant> If the DOJ or FBI get an increased budget I hope some of that goes towards increasing their transparency by not only making information available, but also making it searchable. And why do I need to pay for C-Span transcripts? Wouldn't it be nice if we could all read and search through what our representatives are saying? </rant>
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]