3 ms·

This is incoherent? Apple was the one that was found guilty under antitrust laws there, not Amazon.

by taeric 3y ago

scarface_74 3y ago
That’s just the point. The ruling was incoherent. Amazon was deciding the prices of ebooks and taking a loss selling them below what the publishers were selling them to Amazon. This was hurting the publishers physical books sells. The publishers wanted to control their own prices. But one punisher couldn’t pull their books from Amazon unless they all did. Apple was working as a go between for all of the publishers and wanted to give the publishers the right to set their own prices and Apple would take a cut. This is where the case came in.
- taeric 3y ago
  You are begging a ton of questions there. For one, there was no evidence that physical book sales were impacted by lower priced ebooks. For two, Amazon doesn't even have a monopoly on ebooks, much less books. Their share is almost certainly comparable to the marketshare we are discussing here, amusingly. Further, though, you are literally arguing against the laws here. They were not found guilty of being a monopoly. They were found guilty of antitrust violations that included price manipulation in the one case, and wage manipulation in the other.
  - scarface_74 3y ago
    How could physical book sales not be impacted when Amazon was selling ebooks for $9.99 when they weee buying the right to sell them from the publisher for $14.99? It’s a classic case of price dumping. Apple was found guilty of price manipulation because they wanted to make a deal with the publishers to allow the publishers to set their own pricing instead of Amazon price dumping.
    - taeric 3y ago
      I don't really care to defend Amazon in this, but your argument here is pretty weak. Which is why nobody has really accused Amazon of this in court. Note that antitrust lawsuits have been brought against them, but from what I can find, they were dismissed. https://www.reuters.com/legal/amazon-major-publishers-win-dismissal-antitrust-lawsuits-over-book-pricing-2022-09-29/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/amazon-major-publishers-win-di... This is all a side discussion, which I confess is fun; but it seems you agree that Apple has been guilty of antitrust violations in the past, without necessarily having had a monopoly. And... that is the entirety of my point that started this branch. :D
      - scarface_74 3y ago
        https://qz.com/103169/how-apple-tried-to-turn-the-e-book-industry-against-amazon-and-lost https://qz.com/103169/how-apple-tried-to-turn-the-e-book-ind...
        taeric 3y ago
        I'm not really clear what you are showing me here? Nobody argued in court that Amazon was price dumping. It is speculated that the NYT BestSeller deal of $9.99 was maybe in that direction, but nobody really argued that in court. Quite the contrary, it was argued, successfully, that it was perfectly legal for Amazon to offer discounts like this. (Ironically to this debate, they didn't blankly sell all ebooks at 9.99, and no numbers were released to indicate how many were sold at the publisher suggested prices. As a customer at the time, I know I bought many NYT listings that I wouldn't have bought otherwise, thanks in part to that being a very low friction price.) More, your argument was that sales of physical books were impacted. But, to show that you would have to be able to actually show it. With book sales continuing to climb, that will be hard to say "but it could have been even bigger!" Indeed, most evidence is that the ebooks were additional sells. That all said, and I quote your article, "In a major rebuke, a federal judge has ruled that Apple violated antitrust laws..." Again, the point I was raising is that antitrust is more than just monopoly laws. You can try and argue that the case was ruled incorrectly, but Apple was unable to do that with probably some of the best lawyers that you can get. Appeal was struck down and they were guilty of antitrust. Pretty convincingly.

This is incoherent? Apple was the one that was found guilty under antitrust laws there, not Amazon.

by taeric 3y ago

This is incoherent? Apple was the one that was found guilty under antitrust laws there, not Amazon.

That’s just the point. The ruling was incoherent. Amazon was deciding the prices of ebooks and taking a loss selling them below what the publishers were selling them to Amazon. This was hurting the publishers physical books sells. The publishers wanted to control their own prices. But one punisher couldn’t pull their books from Amazon unless they all did. Apple was working as a go between for all of the publishers and wanted to give the publishers the right to set their own prices and Apple would take a cut. This is where the case came in.

taeric 3y ago
You are begging a ton of questions there. For one, there was no evidence that physical book sales were impacted by lower priced ebooks. For two, Amazon doesn't even have a monopoly on ebooks, much less books. Their share is almost certainly comparable to the marketshare we are discussing here, amusingly. Further, though, you are literally arguing against the laws here. They were not found guilty of being a monopoly. They were found guilty of antitrust violations that included price manipulation in the one case, and wage manipulation in the other.
- scarface_74 3y ago
  How could physical book sales not be impacted when Amazon was selling ebooks for $9.99 when they weee buying the right to sell them from the publisher for $14.99? It’s a classic case of price dumping. Apple was found guilty of price manipulation because they wanted to make a deal with the publishers to allow the publishers to set their own pricing instead of Amazon price dumping.
  - taeric 3y ago
    I don't really care to defend Amazon in this, but your argument here is pretty weak. Which is why nobody has really accused Amazon of this in court. Note that antitrust lawsuits have been brought against them, but from what I can find, they were dismissed. https://www.reuters.com/legal/amazon-major-publishers-win-dismissal-antitrust-lawsuits-over-book-pricing-2022-09-29/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/amazon-major-publishers-win-di... This is all a side discussion, which I confess is fun; but it seems you agree that Apple has been guilty of antitrust violations in the past, without necessarily having had a monopoly. And... that is the entirety of my point that started this branch. :D
    - scarface_74 3y ago
      https://qz.com/103169/how-apple-tried-to-turn-the-e-book-industry-against-amazon-and-lost https://qz.com/103169/how-apple-tried-to-turn-the-e-book-ind...
      - taeric 3y ago
        I'm not really clear what you are showing me here? Nobody argued in court that Amazon was price dumping. It is speculated that the NYT BestSeller deal of $9.99 was maybe in that direction, but nobody really argued that in court. Quite the contrary, it was argued, successfully, that it was perfectly legal for Amazon to offer discounts like this. (Ironically to this debate, they didn't blankly sell all ebooks at 9.99, and no numbers were released to indicate how many were sold at the publisher suggested prices. As a customer at the time, I know I bought many NYT listings that I wouldn't have bought otherwise, thanks in part to that being a very low friction price.) More, your argument was that sales of physical books were impacted. But, to show that you would have to be able to actually show it. With book sales continuing to climb, that will be hard to say "but it could have been even bigger!" Indeed, most evidence is that the ebooks were additional sells. That all said, and I quote your article, "In a major rebuke, a federal judge has ruled that Apple violated antitrust laws..." Again, the point I was raising is that antitrust is more than just monopoly laws. You can try and argue that the case was ruled incorrectly, but Apple was unable to do that with probably some of the best lawyers that you can get. Appeal was struck down and they were guilty of antitrust. Pretty convincingly.