> The graph said "weighted". Weighted by what? I'm saying the DoJ produced a graph that would back up their narrative >I won't believe obviously-biased "sources

> The graph said "weighted". Weighted by what? I'm saying the DoJ produced a graph that would back up their narrative >I won't believe obviously-biased "sources" that have no real data. Perhaps Eddy Cue is not a biased source and he admitted in the trial that ebook prices raise http://www.cnet.com/news/apples-eddy-cue-yep-we-caused-e-book-pricing-to-rise/ http://www.cnet.com/news/apples-eddy-cue-yep-we-caused-e-boo... > But the artificially-low prices Amazon was using for e.g. bestsellers was not sustainable for the publishers. Why not? Publishers were paid full price. In facts publishers earned LESS money with the agency model than with the wholesale model. > This is predatory pricing, and their goal was to control the entire eBook market. Any proof of that? Do you also believe that DoJ lied when its investigation of Amazon found no predatory pricing? > Once they had complete dominance, it's reasonable to expect that they would have raised prices I think that precog police still don't exists >And in a market without competition it's very likely that Amazon would be selling books at prices higher than a healthy competitive market (like the one Apple was creating with their entry) A competitive market where ALL the stores must sell the ebook for the same price? Where the heck is the competition? Is this your definition of competition, fixing the prices for all the stores and books?