US DoJ to appeals court: Haha, no, seriously – Apple totally inflated ebook prices The US Department of Justice has urged an appeals court to uphold the verdict against Apple that found the fruity firm had violated antitrust laws and conspired with book publishers to fix the price of ebooks. In paperwork submitted to the US court and seen by The Register, the DoJ claimed Apple’s appeal was just trying to …
“If allowed to stand, the ruling will stifle innovation..."
This has become such a cliche part of every corporate legal discussion. First thing I thought when I saw it in the article was: substantiate those claims. Maybe they did. I did a brief bit of searching for the filing itself but couldn't find it, so I can't say (I didn't look very hard).
That while this case is dragging on, Amazon is starting to exercise their near monopoly power in the book market by offering "take it or leave it" deals to small publishers (per the story last week)
Not that this justifies Apple and the big publishers breaking the law, but hopefully the FTC will take a look at Amazon's actions at some point to insure we have a level playing field.
I'm sure you'll also be taking the first opportunity to moan when your favourite authors start bailing out if Amazon crush the publishers as the are trying to do.
2 wrongs don't make a right but investigating one wrong by apple and ignoring whopping wrongs by Amazon comes into that category too.
So it is OK for Amazon to violate the law so long as it only hurts companies that have violated the law in the past? And I guess you won't shed a tear if Microsoft or Google did something illegal that hurt Amazon, because now that Amazon is breaking the law it is OK?
Hopefully you can see where the idea of "they deserve it" will get us.
As I understand it, Amazon are doing nothing illegal. In fact, they are doing exactly what all retailers do every day of the year, trying to negotiate a better deal from a supplier, Supermarkets do it, your employers do it, people walking into shops do it. Suppliers have the right to refuse to deal with retailers and retailers can refuse to stock goods from suppliers.
........ regardless of everything else in the story and the actions taken I have just seen something that beggars belief 'inventing the iBooks store'. How the f*** can you call that an invention? I don't care who's tech you prefer but that statement there is showing utter contempt for everyone on the planet whoever created anything of use.
Lets join in ..... I took a beer into the toilets at the club so it wouldn't get lifted and inadvertently invented a self contained mobile beer recycling method.
Your reference is:
1. An opinion piece
2. From 2012
3. From the Wall Street Journal
4. Behind a Paywall
So forgive me if I lend less credence to it than, say, an article from America's Finest News Source.
This post has been deleted by its author
Latin for "in itself" But is applied in US law like this:
Antitrust
In the United States, illegal per se often refers to categories of anti-competitive behavior in antitrust law conclusively presumed to be an "unreasonable restraint on trade" and thus anti competitive. The United States Supreme Court has, in the past, determined activities such as price fixing, geographic market division, and group boycott to be illegal per se regardless of the reasonableness of such actions. Traditionally, illegal per se anti-trust acts describe horizontal market arrangements among competitors.
The illegal per se category can trace its origins in the 1898 Supreme Court case Addyston Pipe & Steel Co. v. U.S., 175 U.S. 211 (1898).
A number of cases have subsequently raised doubts about the validity of the illegal per se rule. Under modern Antitrust theories, the traditionally illegal per se categories create more of a presumption of unreasonableness.[1] The court carefully narrowed the per se treatment and began issuing guidelines. Courts and agencies seeking to apply the per se rule must:
show "the practice facially appears to be one that would always or almost always tend to restrict competition and decrease output";
show that the practice is not "one designed to 'increase economic efficiency and render markets more, rather than less, competitive'";
carefully examine market conditions; and
absent good evidence of competitiveness behavior, avoid broadening per se treatment to new or innovative business relationships.
Courtesy of Wikpaedia.
This post has been deleted by its author
Apple wanted a slice of the market but didn't want to compete on price and didn't want to be undercut. It's that simple.
I said in a previous post (in another story) that there is nothing inherently beneficial about competition and nothing inherently detrimental about monopolies.
In this instance, the monopoly (Amazon) was providing choice and a good price to the consumer. Their product is good and they have improved it numerous times as well as offering different devices to suit a range of people. You can even use it on an iPad if you desire - you just need to pay Apple for the privilege.
In short, it was a good system that was beneficial to the customer.
Apple could have offered publishers a better deal and either lowered the margin or charged a bit more. Then you could have used Amazon or, if you felt that Apple's offering was superior, pay a premium for that. THAT is choice - different offerings with different features at different price points.
The real question, however, is will this see prices go down?
I'd bet my left nut on Apple being guilty as sin!
Inasmuch as they are mounting an affirmative defense - essentially it amounts to "we did what they said but the law was misapplied" - there's no question of "guilt". It's entirely a matter of how the law is interpreted.
I doubt many people wanted to take you up on that bet, anyway. Personally I have all the testicles I need, even under reasonable scenarios of damage, theft, or loss.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
