3 ms·

The publishers were all connected through Apple and agreed to charge a normalized price for all their eBooks, and inflating that price across the board. Remembe

The publishers were all connected through Apple and agreed to charge a normalized price for all their eBooks, and inflating that price across the board. Remember, eBooks were first as expensive as normal books, then a lot cheaper, then suddenly expensive again. Competing suppliers agreeing on anti-competitive acts is what collusion is.

acqq 11y ago
> Competing suppliers agreeing on anti-competitive acts is what collusion is. Anti-competitive to whom? To Amazon, the owner of the only e-book store who actually forced the publishers to the prices they didn't like? And how it affected Amazon? It lost the monopoly and the upper hand.
- Oletros 11y ago
  > Anti-competitive to whom? To the costumers as the DOJ said. Please, if you don't want to read what the case is about, stop posting. You're your repeating the same things again and again. And they are wrong.
- kalleboo 11y ago
  In that case, file an antitrust suit against Amazon. Two wrongs don't make a right.
- mattlutze 11y ago
  http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=232 http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=232 https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/collusion https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/collusion https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/collusive_bidding https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/collusive_bidding https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/anticompetitive-practices https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/anticompetitive-practices https://www.accc.gov.au/business/anti-competitive-behaviour https://www.accc.gov.au/business/anti-competitive-behaviour The suppliers agreed to perform mutually beneficial acts, with Apple as a mediator and facilitator (see the emails and meetings referenced in this HN thread), which systematically reduced competition between the suppliers in the eBook market. It's quite plain, which is why Apple has been required to pay $450M in damages.

acqq 11y ago

> Competing suppliers agreeing on anti-competitive acts is what collusion is. Anti-competitive to whom? To Amazon, the owner of the only e-book store who actually forced the publishers to the prices they didn't like? And how it affected Amazon? It lost the monopoly and the upper hand.

Oletros 11y ago
> Anti-competitive to whom? To the costumers as the DOJ said. Please, if you don't want to read what the case is about, stop posting. You're your repeating the same things again and again. And they are wrong.
kalleboo 11y ago
In that case, file an antitrust suit against Amazon. Two wrongs don't make a right.
mattlutze 11y ago
http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=232 http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=232 https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/collusion https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/collusion https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/collusive_bidding https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/collusive_bidding https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/anticompetitive-practices https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/anticompetitive-practices https://www.accc.gov.au/business/anti-competitive-behaviour https://www.accc.gov.au/business/anti-competitive-behaviour The suppliers agreed to perform mutually beneficial acts, with Apple as a mediator and facilitator (see the emails and meetings referenced in this HN thread), which systematically reduced competition between the suppliers in the eBook market. It's quite plain, which is why Apple has been required to pay $450M in damages.