3 ms·

Yet another miscarriage of justice. The entire line of logic seems to have been that because Apple's actions led to increased prices it must be a conspiracy. A

Yet another miscarriage of justice. The entire line of logic seems to have been that because Apple's actions led to increased prices it must be a conspiracy. Amazon was, and is, the monopolist using classic monopolist tactics (lock-in, undercutting prices, etc.) to retain a monopoly. Of course once their monopoly was ensured they'd pivot to make a true profit if pesky Apple hadn't interfered: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/05/business/as-competition-wanes-amazon-cuts-back-its-discounts.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/05/business/as-competition-wa... I can't help but feel that this was driven by politics/optics (to your average person, of course lower prices is better).

fpgeek 13y ago
Put Apple to the side for the moment and just look at the publishers. Did they conspire? I think it is obvious that they did. At the time of the agency switch it was obvious something fishy was going on with the whole Amazon v MacMillan "buy button" battle. The DoJ's investigation uncovered plenty of evidence about what that was: a conspiracy among publishers to force Amazon to the agency model. And all the publishers settled before getting to trial, which certainly supports the strength of the DoJ's evidence and case. Now consider a publisher conspiracy. The DoJ's argument against Apple is that they were the enforcer that made the publisher conspiracy possible. You may agree or disagree with the judge about whether or not the evidence supports that argument, but it is a serious, carefully-thought-out line of logic either way.
jasonlotito 13y ago
> Amazon was, and is, the monopolist using classic monopolist tactics (lock-in, undercutting prices, etc.) to retain a monopoly. 1. Being a monopoly isn't illegal. You don't say this, but using the word monopolist makes it seem like you think that such a thing alone is criminal enough. 2. Lock-In? What part is the lock in? The fact that I can buy a Kindle and never purchase anything from Amazon? The fact that the DRM used for ebooks from Amazon are optional and decided by the publisher? 3. Undercutting prices? So?
dragonwriter 13y ago
> Yet another miscarriage of justice. The entire line of logic seems to have been that because Apple's actions led to increased prices it must be a conspiracy. No, the line of logic was that because there was specific evidence of them conspiring with the Publishers, it was (to the standard required in civil cases, which is far from "must be") apparent that there was a conspiracy. > Amazon was, and is, the monopolist using classic monopolist tactics Whether or not Amazon is a monopolist (or even illegaly leveraging a monopoly) might be relevant in an anti-trust trial of Amazon, but it really doesn't have any relevance to an alleged price-fixing conspiracy involving several of Amazon's suppliers and one of their competitors.

fpgeek 13y ago

Put Apple to the side for the moment and just look at the publishers. Did they conspire? I think it is obvious that they did. At the time of the agency switch it was obvious something fishy was going on with the whole Amazon v MacMillan "buy button" battle. The DoJ's investigation uncovered plenty of evidence about what that was: a conspiracy among publishers to force Amazon to the agency model. And all the publishers settled before getting to trial, which certainly supports the strength of the DoJ's evidence and case. Now consider a publisher conspiracy. The DoJ's argument against Apple is that they were the enforcer that made the publisher conspiracy possible. You may agree or disagree with the judge about whether or not the evidence supports that argument, but it is a serious, carefully-thought-out line of logic either way.

jasonlotito 13y ago

> Amazon was, and is, the monopolist using classic monopolist tactics (lock-in, undercutting prices, etc.) to retain a monopoly. 1. Being a monopoly isn't illegal. You don't say this, but using the word monopolist makes it seem like you think that such a thing alone is criminal enough. 2. Lock-In? What part is the lock in? The fact that I can buy a Kindle and never purchase anything from Amazon? The fact that the DRM used for ebooks from Amazon are optional and decided by the publisher? 3. Undercutting prices? So?

dragonwriter 13y ago

> Yet another miscarriage of justice. The entire line of logic seems to have been that because Apple's actions led to increased prices it must be a conspiracy. No, the line of logic was that because there was specific evidence of them conspiring with the Publishers, it was (to the standard required in civil cases, which is far from "must be") apparent that there was a conspiracy. > Amazon was, and is, the monopolist using classic monopolist tactics Whether or not Amazon is a monopolist (or even illegaly leveraging a monopoly) might be relevant in an anti-trust trial of Amazon, but it really doesn't have any relevance to an alleged price-fixing conspiracy involving several of Amazon's suppliers and one of their competitors.