5 ms·

I've been seeing a lot of news on this, and most people are crying out against Amazon for hurting authors. However it's their publisher who had the federal gove

I've been seeing a lot of news on this, and most people are crying out against Amazon for hurting authors. However it's their publisher who had the federal government on their back for price fixing. It was their publisher who instigated this. Amazon is a retailer and when 5/6ths of the big publishers conspire to price fix, you can bet every one of them is going to have their necks on the cutting block. Amazon does not need these publishers, they are no longer an online book company they're one of the worlds biggest retailers. These publishers need Amazon, they're a massive retailer known for books. Don't shit where you eat folks.

balls187 12y ago
Amazon has a lot of power because of their distribution, however if people can't get the books they want from Amazon, they'll buy them else where.
- MichaelGG 12y ago
  Perhaps. Or they'll just download it or ignore it. There's several books I've wanted to read, but they aren't on Kindle and there's so much to read so I just move on. Additionally probably half of my Kindle purchases are impulse purchases, and half of those are done right on the device itself.
gress 12y ago
The publishers had the federal government on their back because of lobbying from Amazon.
- SoftwareMaven 12y ago
  If your suppliers were in collusion with a major competitor, wouldn't you be asking for support from the authorities?
  - gress 12y ago
    A monopolist facing competition from a competent new entrant will use whatever methods are available to keep their position.
    - YokoZar 12y ago
      It's more correct to describe the collusion of the publishers as a cartel than as a monopolist here. They work together in collusive price-fixing arrangements. Amazon may have just enough market power as a customer of theirs to break this arrangement, however it would be quite a stretch to call Amazon a monopsony.
- revelation 12y ago
  Nah, I think it was because of those charming Steve Jobs emails. I invite anyone to read the original complaint [1] for the details. We've seen this in the no poaching agreements... the dude certainly wrote a lot of emails without consulting his lawyers. 1: http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f282100/282135.pdf http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f282100/282135.pdf
  - gress 12y ago
    Wrong - Amazon was behind it: http://www.salon.com/2014/01/12/amazons_bogus_anti_apple_crusade/ http://www.salon.com/2014/01/12/amazons_bogus_anti_apple_cru...
    - revelation 12y ago
      Sure, somebody has to ring the bell. But rest assured, this case was standing on its very own legs. People have this tendency to jump to the "big questions" that the law and judges simply aren't concerned with. There was very clear evidence here, and your opinion of Amazon doesn't factor into it.
      - gress 12y ago
        Your faith in the impartiality of legal processes is most refreshing.
        fpgeek 12y ago
        GP wasn't making a statement about the impartiality of legal processes [1], they were making a statement about the evidence in this case. If you'd like to dispute that, I'd suggest looking at some of it. [1] In fact, the comment "somebody has to ring the bell" suggests significant awareness of biases in and limitations of legal processes.
        gress 12y ago
        The point is that the selection of defendant is what this is all about. Amazon could equally well be subject to an antitrust case.

balls187 12y ago

Amazon has a lot of power because of their distribution, however if people can't get the books they want from Amazon, they'll buy them else where.

MichaelGG 12y ago
Perhaps. Or they'll just download it or ignore it. There's several books I've wanted to read, but they aren't on Kindle and there's so much to read so I just move on. Additionally probably half of my Kindle purchases are impulse purchases, and half of those are done right on the device itself.

gress 12y ago

The publishers had the federal government on their back because of lobbying from Amazon.

SoftwareMaven 12y ago
If your suppliers were in collusion with a major competitor, wouldn't you be asking for support from the authorities?
- gress 12y ago
  A monopolist facing competition from a competent new entrant will use whatever methods are available to keep their position.
  - YokoZar 12y ago
    It's more correct to describe the collusion of the publishers as a cartel than as a monopolist here. They work together in collusive price-fixing arrangements. Amazon may have just enough market power as a customer of theirs to break this arrangement, however it would be quite a stretch to call Amazon a monopsony.
revelation 12y ago
Nah, I think it was because of those charming Steve Jobs emails. I invite anyone to read the original complaint [1] for the details. We've seen this in the no poaching agreements... the dude certainly wrote a lot of emails without consulting his lawyers. 1: http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f282100/282135.pdf http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f282100/282135.pdf
- gress 12y ago
  Wrong - Amazon was behind it: http://www.salon.com/2014/01/12/amazons_bogus_anti_apple_crusade/ http://www.salon.com/2014/01/12/amazons_bogus_anti_apple_cru...
  - revelation 12y ago
    Sure, somebody has to ring the bell. But rest assured, this case was standing on its very own legs. People have this tendency to jump to the "big questions" that the law and judges simply aren't concerned with. There was very clear evidence here, and your opinion of Amazon doesn't factor into it.
    - gress 12y ago
      Your faith in the impartiality of legal processes is most refreshing.
      - fpgeek 12y ago
        GP wasn't making a statement about the impartiality of legal processes [1], they were making a statement about the evidence in this case. If you'd like to dispute that, I'd suggest looking at some of it. [1] In fact, the comment "somebody has to ring the bell" suggests significant awareness of biases in and limitations of legal processes.
        gress 12y ago
        The point is that the selection of defendant is what this is all about. Amazon could equally well be subject to an antitrust case.