> Apple didn't work with competitors to fix prices for consumers
No, they worked with publishers to fix the prices for consumers
No, they worked with publishers to fix the prices for consumers
The iBook store didn't exist before, so Jobs had to win the publishers somehow, that means that all had to agree to some model that would be favorable to them and certainly more favorable than Amazon's.
And how was that anti-competitive or worse?
Does anybody have some exact references, like the court decision that explains that?
This is an article the legal reasoning behind why the iBookstore MFN clause was an antitrust violation - it was designed to impose financial penalties on publishers that did not get all of their retailers to switch to an agency pricing model.
This is similar to an earlier case about Toys 'R Us. They got a group of toy manufacturers to agree to restrict their toy sales to warehouse clubs, so long all the manufactures in the group agreed to do so.
Strange.
Edit: "the use of a unique "most favored nation" (MFN) clause. Under the DOJ's reading of the Seventh Circuit's Toys "R" Us decision, the DOJ argued that this was a per se violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act."
Beyind that, Apple's practices extended to iOS. All ebook vendors from then on had to take 30% cut of whatever price the publisher. Then apple forced all vendors trying to sell their wares on iOS to only sell through their merchant interface, with no price disparity allowed. And what is Apple's cut? 30%.
So any vendir trying to sell ebooks on iOS had to relinquish all their margins to Apple, pretty much locking all vendors out of the sales point.
Amazon is the only one that benefitted from this, ironically, since they were well established and did not need iOS sales to survive. All other competitors just withered away.
These circular arguments only exist because the culprit in the case is Apple. Apple tried to fix prices by colluding with a cartel of book publishers instead compete in a free market. They have been found guilty of this by one court, the decision has been upheld by another court and the Supreme Court has rejected there appeal. It then used its market power to force all competitors off iOS. They literally killed the ebook market.
Competing suppliers agreeing on anti-competitive acts is what collusion is.
Anti-competitive to whom? To Amazon, the owner of the only e-book store who actually forced the publishers to the prices they didn't like? And how it affected Amazon? It lost the monopoly and the upper hand.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/collusion
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/collusive_bidding
https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/anticompetitive-practices
https://www.accc.gov.au/business/anti-competitive-behaviour
The suppliers agreed to perform mutually beneficial acts, with Apple as a mediator and facilitator (see the emails and meetings referenced in this HN thread), which systematically reduced competition between the suppliers in the eBook market.
It's quite plain, which is why Apple has been required to pay $450M in damages.
To the costumers as the DOJ said.
Please, if you don't want to read what the case is about, stop posting. You're your repeating the same things again and again. And they are wrong.
> The iBook store didn't exist before, so Jobs had to win the publishers somehow, that means that all had to agree to some model that would be favorable to them and certainly more favorable than Amazon's.
They forced the model TO ALL the stores
[0] http://dearauthor.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Cote-Decisi...
[1] http://dearauthor.com/features/industry-news/thursday-news-j...
I'm reading the 2013 material and I can't find the "meat." OK, they establish that Apple did propose the "agency model" which was not available to the publishers by Amazon, that Apple did say it was ready to sell books for more than 9.99 that was an Amazon's fixed price. But how was that "making conspiracy"?
Amazon held the market, the publishers effectively had no choice before Apple introduced their store. Apple offered something different. The publishers were able to make new deals with Amazon. And? What was actually wrong to do? To even mention that they were willing to sell the books for the price that publishers liked more, even if it's higher than 9.99? Why? That is in the document claimed as the "start of conspiracy." How is that? To design the iBook store to have an "agency model"? Why is that not allowed? To even meet the publishers about all that? How should it be otherwise done? What was Apple supposed to do? Just offer what Amazon offers? Isn't that the opposite of the any reasonable principles?
Does it mean nobody is allowed to disrupt the current model of the effective store monopolist? That he can't sell in his store at higher prices? That he cant have another model in his store? That he can't discuss his own model? What?
But they coordinated without Apple anyway, it's also in the court decision that the executives had meetings among them before Apple even appeared on the e-book scene:
http://dearauthor.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Cote-Decisi...
"On a fairly regular basis, roughly once a quarter, the CEOs of the Publishers held dinners in the private dining rooms of New York restaurants, without counsel or assistants present, in order to discuss the common challenges they faced, including most prominently Amazon’s pricing policies."
Apple made the iPad, with the reading experience up to then unmatched by anybody (no tablet with such characteristics existed before 2010), wanted to open the e-book store, gave the publishers the offer they liked, but definitely didn't invent that communication between the publishers.
What was Apple supposed to do, given that whatever coordination existed, it existed even before Apple approached the publishers? Apparently not a single publisher was satisfied with Amazon's (monopolist) terms. Of course Apple offered them different terms.
"Hachette and later HarperCollins surprised Apple with their suggestion that, instead of a wholesale model, Apple adopt an agency model for the distribution of e-books."
It sounds like http://www.indiana.edu/~p1013447/dictionary/nomfall.htm (They "conspired" because we call them "participants.") It doesn't actually prove anything.
A fact that the publishers decided not to contest.
I still don't see any argument under which Apple had to insist on the same terms that Amazon had. And Apple didn't have to insist on the same terms, and had the right to open their own store, what it actually did wrong?
Can anybody really say that Apple had to say "no we won't open the store if the prices aren't the same as at Amazon"?
Apple actually made the clause that their prices are allowed to be minimal of all other stores. And Apple didn't have the problem to sell items even for $0.99, that's how they started with the iTunes store years earlier.
Apple was the one to provide the service, and ultimately enabled it. How can you possibly suggest that leaves Apple blameless?
What was Apple supposed to do, in your opinion, as it wanted to open its e-book store?
Start with the opening presentation:
https://www.justice.gov/atr/case-document/file/486701/downlo...
I spent 5-10 minutes looking through that document and can't find anything that makes Apple look bad. I see the publishers telling each other to "double delete" each other's emails. That looks bad. But it isn't obvious to me that Apple is engaging in any illegal behavior based on the email quotes in that document.
It seems more like consumers and government were accustomed to Amazon's pricing model, in which they sometimes take a loss. Then, when publishers wanted to set their own prices, they sought a service that would allow them to do that and found Apple. I'm a consumer and don't like high prices, but I can also understand how a publisher might like to decide how to price their books. It's beyond me why that should be deemed illegal.
<rant> If the DOJ or FBI get an increased budget I hope some of that goes towards increasing their transparency by not only making information available, but also making it searchable.
And why do I need to pay for C-Span transcripts? Wouldn't it be nice if we could all read and search through what our representatives are saying? </rant>
At what point will you admit Apple's wrongdoing and stop talking about the searchability? Please have the grace to admit you were wrong in public.
Apple did this on the principle that they should have the right to collude with the industry and increase prices to the consumer. That's what the company did. Its partners in this process all agreed to settle. The only people who continued to protest this characterization were at Apple. And they just lost a massive court case over it.
I dunno what more you want.
Hi Kirin, I'm a different commenter with my own opinion.
Increasing transparency of government actions is something I care about. I also believe in competitive markets.
The first slide isn't evidence showing Apple knowingly conspired to do evil, in my opinion, and nor is the rest of the deck. Before Amazon started selling eBooks, publishers were able to sell hardcover books, i.e. new releases, for a higher price point. Then Amazon, being the only ebook retailer, was able to very quickly undercut the publishers' in-store new-release prices on a global scale due to the nature of digital products and their position as a monopoly in the ebook retailer market. This cost the publishers money. Then Apple appeared as another retailer and publishers asked Apple to give them their agency model back. And, publishers said they would only join Apple if all the publishers would do it. Apple said okay.
Regardless of this court decision, I imagine we'll see more agency model pricing in the future when more options open up for publishers.
It's perfectly fine if you disagree. I'm not trying to convince you. I'm just sharing my opinion.
This case was in court for years. If it were so cut and dry as you proclaim, the case would have been over much sooner.
I am not pointing a mind control ray at you or threatening your family. I'm saying the evidence strongly suggests your opinion is not founded in reality.
"Evil" is not an interesting conversation here. "Legality" is another. Apple saw an opportunity to break the Google+Amazon pricing lock on the market. They realized this opportunity by working with publishers to beachhead a new model. They acknowledged that this explicitly raised prices for consumers, and would only work if the publishers all used Apple as the leverage.
I know you want to say this is in favor of competition. Apple sure does. But everyone agrees that it was illegal. You can't just say "Apple Happened To Be There™." They facilitated the entire process, and it was built on the back of their dominance in desktop computing, mobile and media reach.
And while no SINGLE slide tells that whole story in a single pithy quote, the ENTIRE linked deck certainly tells that story. You've been given a smoking gun and Eddy Cue's fingerprints and replied, "Gosh that sounds complex, why isn't this easier to search?"
> I am not pointing a mind control ray at you or threatening your family.
That's good. It would be really strange if you were. This is an internet conversation which I consider to be pretty casual. Most likely, only you and I will ever read this, and whoever else reads it will stop when they find it uninteresting.
> "Evil" is not an interesting conversation here.
That's subjective. I say it's interesting, you think it isn't. I have no problem with that.
> You can't just say "Apple Happened To Be There™."
I gave a summary of my take on the situation. Again, I see no problem with that.
It's hard for me to see Apple as a ring leader as the DOJ claims, or that publishers were convinced by Apple to pursue this course. They already had this plan together before Apple came to the table. Apple was more like the final piece to the puzzle than the ring leader. They asked Apple for a proposal and told Apple the terms under which they would agree, essentially creating the proposal themselves, yet having it come from Apple's mouth.
Perhaps it will make you feel better to know that I believe Apple ought to have known better about the risks of appearing like the master conspirator in this case. As I mentioned in another comment, Apple ought to have known better about the risks, and it seems they could have launched this model, albeit slower, without such a concerted effort.
> You've been given a smoking gun and Eddy Cue's fingerprints and replied, "Gosh that sounds complex, why isn't this easier to search?"
None of us are privy to all the details of this case. We get summaries, and I'm saying they are in a lousy format, unsearchable and low resolution. It's a side rant but relevant towards increasing transparency of our government. We all have limited time, and making things easier to read helps everyone. If you feel that's off topic, that's cool. My comment about the DOJ's awful document-creation skills is not the basis of my support of Apple. However, it does contribute to my theory that our government does not understand technology, and that we need more representatives who have technical knowledge like Ted Lieu.
So please, respond as you like. But I'm filtering out your posts from now on. You're the exact kind of person I shouldn't engage with on HN.
It does make a difference in the ruling and applied punishment.
The 7th circuit's decision from Toys R Us vs. FTC decision states,
As TRU correctly points out, the critical question here is whether substantial evidence supported the Commission's finding that there was a horizontal agreement among the toy manufacturers, with TRU in the center as the ringmaster, to boycott the warehouse clubs. [1]
The Toys R Us ruling was referenced in the 2nd circuit court of appeals ruling against Apple. Therefore, the above statement has bearing and Apple did need to be perceived as the ringleader to receive the brunt of the punishment.
> So please, respond as you like. But I'm filtering out your posts from now on. You're the exact kind of person I shouldn't engage with on HN.
That's your choice. I think I've been cordial. Feel free to point out anywhere I haven't been respectful. If disagreement is disrespectful to you, I don't know how else I can help.
What? Apart that Amazon paid full price for the ebooks to publishers, there was a time window before the hard cover release and the ebook release.
> Then Apple appeared as another retailer and publishers asked Apple to give them their agency model back. And, publishers said they would only join Apple if all the publishers would do it. Apple said okay.
You strangely forgot the part about the publishers forcing the agency model to all the stores.
Mmm, no, the publishers forced ALL the stores, not only Amazon, the agency model and the forced the SAME price for all the stores
So far nothing has explained to me how Apple forced the pricing model upstream to Amazon - has anyone read this and determined that?
It didn't work that way: the publishers renegotiated their deals with Amazon, it was they who wanted it differently. They were able to sell for 9.99 if they wanted. Apple was just "ready to sell for more," contrary to Amazon who insisted on selling for 9.99 no matter what.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/07/10/a-jud...
"It was as apparent to the Publishers as it was to Apple that Apple’s proposal would only allow the Publishers to raise the consumer prices for e-book versions of their key titles above Amazon’s $9.99 price point to the proposed price caps if they moved Amazon and their other e-tailers to agency."
"During this week, Amazon had a long-scheduled set of meetings in New York with the Publishers. In separate conversations on January 20 and over the next few days, the Publisher Defendants all told Amazon that they wanted to change to an agency distribution model with Amazon."
I don't see anything else but that Apple negotiated the deals which pleased the publishers. They did what they believed they had to do (introduce higher prices) even before Apple. That it was "apparent to Apple" doesn't mean guilt, for me.
That the prices raised doesn't prove more but that the publishers wanted them higher and were able to set them.
"From: Eddy Cue
To: Steve Jobs
Subject: Books - Publisher update
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009
Steve,
[...] Clearly, the biggest issue is new release pricing and they [the publishers] want a proposal from us. Everyone was estatic to see Apple and what it could mean for their industry."
...
"They decided they had to come up with a way that would move the whole market off 9.99 and they think an agency model is the only way to do it."
"They believe that this is the best chance for publishers to challenge the 9.99 price point ...."
Clearly and explicitly recognizing that collusion is the only way to achieve the price that they desire.
...
"I am told Random House is concerned about the future of e-books and the potentially dominant role played by Google and Amazon. Would it make sense for the 2 of us to have meetings / diner with Markus Dohle, Brian Murray, John Sargent..."
Conspiracy to meet and fix prices. Collusion like this across competitors is illegal price fixing. Competitors do not have a legitimate reason to meet and discuss common pricing.
...
"You are absolutely correct: we've always known that unless other publishers follow us, there's no chance in getting Amazon to change its pricing practices."
...
"It is important to Apple that there be 'some level of reasonable pricing'. They feel the only way to get this is for the industry to go to the agency model." (additional illegal collusion to fix prices)
"When they thought it through, they didn't think anything else would keep the market from its current pricing 'craziness'" (i.e., market prices -- demonstrating conspiracy to fix prices)
"[Eddy Cue, Apple] also thinks that book prices are becoming too low - he is worried about consumer perception. Therefore he suggests an 'agency model'".
...
"To: Carolyn Reidy (Simon & Shuster)
From: Eddy Cue (Apple)
Subject: iTunes
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2010
"[...] As we discussed, here is what I think is the best approach for ebooks. Just like the App Store, we are proposing a principal-agency model [...]"
The same email is repeated and sent to Markus Dohle of Random House, and then John Sargent of Macmillan, and very similarly to David Young of Hachette Book Group.
"After talking to all the other publishers and seeing the overall book environment, here is what I think is the best approach for ebooks", Eddy Cue wrote to David Young, and to David Shanks of Penguin, and Brian Murray of Harper Collins. He goes on to outline the illegal price fixing scheme which they successfully colluded to implement.
...
Additional points that establish the case:
- Additional emails go on to demonstrate how the model will be forced on all retails and result in the price fixing
- Graphs of data of how prices changed over time as Apple deployed its price-fixing scheme.
- Apple provides information about one competitor's prices and desires to another, explicitly communicating one competitor's pricing desires to the other.
- Evidence of collusion as copy/pasted statements make their way into material from several publishing house leaders, all on the same day following meetings with Apple.
- "Agency is anti-price war territory." Yup.
- Clear recognition by the competitors that they were engaging in illegal price fixing. "We would have to 'get everyone else to go to the agency model'. When I said, 'but of course we can't talk to our competitors', [Eddy Cue] said he didn't mean other publishers, but our accounts - to which I replied, if we make these our terms, then they are our terms." Carolyn Reidy, discussing her deal with Apple to other people.
- Additional evidence of Apple taking an active role in conducting these discussions with publishers and bringing about the actual consensus of getting them all to agree to it. Apple was the common party that actually brought the coordination about by facilitating the conversation and proposing the actual price fixing terms.
- Publishers recognize that their deals with Apple force them to an agency model for all sales.
- One publisher balks about being forced to do this. Apple enlists other publishers to convince them. Further publishers are waiting for other publishes to agree, before they agree to terms with Apple (collusion; they should be making deals independently)
United States of America v. Apple, Inc. - https://www.justice.gov/atr/case-document/file/486701/downlo...
I think the evidence is pretty overwhelming. Have you examined the actual data? I hope this provides a good starting point.
(These conspiracies to fix prices seem common for Silicon Valley companies, don't they? Apple and other tech companies were similarly involved in antitrust litigation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_L... )
As far as I understand, they also sold other things already under the same conditions for all the publishers (music, apps).
I understand the courts had another view, but I don't agree. The publishers did raise prices, but they just wanted for the possibility to do so anyway. It was inevitable, in my view, it was Amazon that forced (by having an effective monopoly until Apple appeared) all the publishers to sell the way they didn't like, so of course it was unstable state, possible to be preserved only if the Amazon's monopoly remains.
Sorry, you have it all wrong. This isn't about Apple giving the same deal to all publishers. This was about Apple convincing all publishers to give all other retailers the same deal as Apple -- and all at the same time, as a single group across essentially the entire industry, thus resulting in price fixing and price increases.
Imagine the absurdity if the manufacturer of a car (motor vehicle) could dictate the terms at which their cars were sold by all retailers. Essentially, the manufacturer exclusively determines the price that all auto sellers must charge. Does that analogy make better sense? No car dealership can offer a discount because the manufacturer has exclusive control.
Then imagine that it's not just one auto manufacturer: it's all of them, all at once. That's what happened with ebooks - virtually the entire industry colluded. It's not just working to get the same terms for their publishers, it was also getting those publishers to, in concert all with each other, force all of their retailers to do the same thing. Only with the collusion of a cartel could they have achieved this, and the result was illegal price-fixing that harmed consumers.
Competitors are not allowed to collude, and not allowed to collude to raise prices. Competitors have no legitimate business to meet and discuss with each other and make agreements about what price they'll all offer together, as that's an illegal cartel, yet that's what happened as a result of the conspiracy that Apple led.
> The publishers did raise prices, but they just wanted for the possibility to do so anyway
Publishers always had control over the price at which they sold their books to retailers. They just did not have control over the price at which those retailers subsequently resold them to consumers. And why should they? When books were historically sold at wholesale price for 50% of their retail price, why should a publisher stop a retailer from competing on price, by offering (say) a 190% markup rather than 200%, if the retailer has a more efficient operation? Once the book is "handed off" from the publishers to the retailer, what legitimate reason is for the publisher to control that transitive resale -- and why should the publisher have control over all of those resales among all retailers? That is the cartel that Apple brought about.
Imagine if the manufacturer of a toothbrush had the power to force all stores that sell it to have the same price. Why should they have that power? Why can't stores offer a discount if they have a more efficient supply chain, or more insightful pricing strategy? And then suddenly all toothbrush manufacturers in the entire industry did the same thing at the same time? I hope this paints a better picture of what happened with Apple and ebooks, and the reason why they were convicted of illegal collusion to fix prices.
The true reality of the situation, in my opinion, is that with the advent of the Internet, the incremental value of publishing has begun to drop. Authors are increasingly required to deliver fully complete and ready-to-publish manuscripts, rather than handing off a draft to the publisher for editing and typesetting. Furthermore, individual authors are better able to market themselves and generate interest online than in the older days when advertising had a higher cost, and required printing a large order of books up front and buying retail space. It's becoming cheaper and cheaper for authors to offer books online themselves. Consider what's happened with books like The Martian: it was (as I understand it) self-published as an ebook, and then gained a following, and eventually Hollywood bought the film rights. The value added by a publisher diminishes if they're not printing and distributing your physical book - they become a publicist. So, publishers saw the reality for what it was, and saw that their industry was all trending toward undifferentiated "perfect competition". They reacted to the situation by cooking up a collusion across the industry to conspire to keep prices artificially higher than they otherwise would have been, using the combined market power of their collusion to bring it about.
The problem is, here it is claimed that the term in Apple's contracts that guaranteed Apple the lowest retail price was the "dictate" as you say, here's from the summary of the decision to which other pointed here:
""the use of a unique "most favored nation" (MFN) clause. Under the DOJ's reading of the Seventh Circuit's Toys "R" Us decision, the DOJ argued that this was a per se violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act."
That reading is certainly disputable, especially knowing the context: the MFN gave Apple right to sell at the lowest price on the market, and the claim was also that MFN was a pressure because Apple demanded 30% from the retail price and that was somehow bad. But that's the same percentage they took in the apps store before. I understand it was decided as it was decided, but I still claim it didn't have to be so.
If the answer is "not making MFN" then it's what apparently the court decided. But MFN actually guaranteed Apple lowest prices, not the highest.
Would you really even think "that Toys R US case is relevant here"?
I think they're great questions, really interesting and forward thinking, and it's too bad you're being downvoted for promoting interesting discussion.
The ruling doesn't undo any of the results of what happened, as far as I can tell. I see varying ebook prices on Amazon and I can only imagine that publishers now have the ability to do agency model pricing.
All this means is that Apple and others will be really careful about working with content creators or publishers in the future who are stuck with a wholesale model but desire agency-model pricing. And maybe content quality will go down since the creators earn less. Or maybe more people move to independent publishing sooner. I guess it is impossible to know.
Ironically, back around 2000, we hailed Jobs for working together with the record labels and convincing them to enter the digital age. Until the iTunes store, nobody was able to convince the labels that mp3s could be a safe way to make money. It wasn't exactly the same situation, but I could see how, from Apple and Jobs' perspective, the effort involved in the ebook situation would've seemed the same and innocent. The difference was, instead of being first to market and able to set prices without oversight, they were second and had to figure out how to compete. They realized they could compete by giving publishers a legit pricing model that they wanted, but didn't realize they could be held liable for price fixing.
Another thing I'm wondering about is why the publishers were so insistent that the others must also join. Each told Apple they would only join the plan if a minimum of 4 others did too. I don't follow why that was necessary, since books are published exclusively by one publisher and there wouldn't be any overlap. Anyway, I'm with you. It sounds like the publishers were begging for this circumstance and Apple was caught unaware. The DOJ saw an easy prize on a desirable target based on existing law and they went for it. Ultimately, though, Apple ought to have known better about the risks, and it seems they could have launched this model, albeit slower, without such a concerted effort.
He is downvoted because those questions have nothing to do with the case and are just a smoke curtain to no admit what Apple did. > Another thing I'm wondering about is why the publishers were so insistent that the others must also join. Each told Apple they would only join the plan if a minimum of 4 others did too.
Because if a majority of publishers are on board, they can force the OTHER stores threatening to stop selling ebooks though them
> Because if a majority of publishers are on board, they can force the OTHER stores threatening to stop selling ebooks though them
Some of the publishers did not support windowing, that is, withholding new releases from being available as ebooks, so that argument doesn't quite hold up.
No, agency model gave LESS revenue to publishers
> Some of the publishers did not support windowing, that is, withholding new releases from being available as ebooks, so that argument doesn't quite hold up.
What the heck has to do windowing with what I have said?
It is clear that you have your opinion fixed on stone. It is a waste of time trying to discuss anything. For you Apple is innocent, period.
Why would publishers ask for an agency model if it earned them less money?
> What the heck has to do windowing with what I have said?
Your last sentence above, "Because if a majority of publishers" runs together. Perhaps I misunderstood what you said.
> It is clear that you have your opinion fixed on stone.
I don't
> It is a waste of time trying to discuss anything
At this point I agree
> For you Apple is innocent, period
Not really. To me it seems Apple was a final piece to the puzzle and not a ring master. As I mentioned in another comment, I believe Apple ought to have known better about the risks of appearing like the master conspirator in this case. Apple ought to have known better about the risks, and it seems they could have launched this model, albeit slower, without such a concerted effort.
The difference between us is, for you, Apple is guilty, period. For me, it isn't so obvious.
> No, agency model gave LESS revenue to publishers Why would publishers ask for an agency model if it earned them less money?
This is the the difference between you and me, I have read a lot about the case. You don't know anything about it. You don't know that with the wholesale model, publishers earned more from ebooks than with the agency model. And you don't know why they prefer to earn leass with the new model. Please, read about the case before posting uninformed thing like you have being doing in all your posts.
> Your last sentence above, "Because if a majority of publishers" runs together. Perhaps I misunderstood what you said
Yes, you have misunderstood, and it was very lear,. All the publishers together were able to force the other stores to the agency model with the threatening of pulling the books
> The difference between us is, for you, Apple is guilty, period
No, the difference is that different courts have found guilty Apple, period.
You're the one saying that all the courts are wrong without any evidence of it, just because you don't like the outcome.
This is irrelevant and has nothing to do with the case. The case is about Apple colliding with the publisher to FORCE all the stores to change to the agency model.
The case is not Apple dealing with their OWN store
You mean, actually selling the books? The only change from wholesale to agency is that the retailer is forbidden from purchase.
The publishers even before Apple arrived tried various steps to change their deals with Amazon and let it sell for more, they just haven't had any negotiation power.
From the court document:
"Well aware of the Publishers’ experimentation with windowing, Apple also told Publishers that it opposed windowing; it believed that withholding e-books alienated customers and led to piracy."
It was one attempt of the publishers before.
This makes it very clear: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/07/10/a-jud...
And how was Apple doing anything what the publishers didn't do themselves? The CEO's had their meetings without Apple, even before, as I've already quoted. And after the meetings with Cue, they continued. Cue didn't organize them:
"After Young had met with Apple but before S&S had its meeting, Young could not resist calling Reidy to share the wonderful news that the “Top Man” at Apple opposed $9.99 pricing. He hesitated to say more because S&S would be meeting with Apple the following day, and he did not want to “spoil [the] fun.”"
It's obvious the publishers communicated, but I don't see Apple's guilt.
All my quotes here and in other posts here are from the court decision.
If that still did not convince you, then I don't see the point discussing it further.
Note that antitrust laws are there to protect consumers.
[0] http://allthingsd.com/20130515/heres-that-steve-jobs-e-book-...
It's like it was written as an admission.
All of your quotes here and in other posts are cherry picking form the court decision to much your beliefs.
Read the 160 pages of the ruling and then post. But it seems that nothing will change your views
Exactly, and I quote the exact formulation of MFN from the court's decision in my other (possibly harder to read) comment here.
> The agency model has something called "most favored nation"
"Most Favored Nation" clause, as stated in the court document:
http://dearauthor.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Cote-Decisi...
"The MFN guaranteed that the e-books in Apple’s e-bookstore would be sold for the lowest retail price available in the marketplace." Why shouldn't be Apple able to propose that in its contract? It's on publishers to accept it or not.
It was obviously the opposite of "raising prices" it was a protection for the Apple book store to remain competitive.
Why should Apple be responsible for what the publishers do with their own contracts to Amazon once the Apple's store opens? Of course the existence of Apple's store changes the market conditions, and why shouldn't it?
Why should Apple be guilty that the publishers made new, what they saw as better for them deals with Amazon once the Apple's store opened? It's the Amazon that got the competition at that moment, not that Apple behaved anti-competitive. Amazon effectively haven't had any competition before. Once it had, the publishers wee able to renegotiate.
"Every Publisher with whom Apple met lamented Amazon’s pricing New Releases and NYT Bestsellers at $9.99. Several of them made clear that they were actively searching for a way to gain more control over pricing and were implementing tactics they did not enjoy, like windowing."
"As Apple had expressed to the Publishers, it strongly believed that withholding content would interfere with the growth of the digital market and was inconsistent with its business goals and practices. Apple thus embraced the model that Hachette and HarperCollins had proposed -– the agency model. Apple was already familiar with this model since it used the agency model to sell apps through its App Store."
Edit: just posting a link to some newspaper article doesn't prove anything. Under "specific" I mean a "specific proof" that somehow negates the quotes from the court decision I've presented or shows them in completely new light.
I don't think it is. There's an opportunity for some store to do that.
For what it's worth, I agree with you that it isn't so cut and dry that Apple set out to fix prices or do evil here. They were simply one gateway to higher prices desired by publishers. Selling electronic goods is sufficiently different from selling tangible goods to warrant additional consideration beyond existing case law.
I think the DOJ/government finds Apple difficult to work with. During the encryption congressional hearing, Trey Gowdy was begging Apple to lobby for legislation, or come up with their own new legislation. It was disgusting. The DOJ and our Congress do not understand technology and it hurts the industry.