Comments on: The DOJ’s half-baked explanation of Apple’s role in the e-book case

By: David Emil Henderson

David Emil Henderson — Thu, 12 Apr 2012 19:58:39 +0000

Dick George is right. A “victory” for consumers is a “defeat” for producers, and the result will be “cheap” books that lack any of the time-consuming research and dedication that are necessary to produce a high-quality book. Amazon can sell 100,000 books by 100,000 authors for 99 cents each and make nearly $65,000. But each author makes only 99 cents.

Apple’s vision for books is similar to its corporate philosophy — if you want to produce top-notch products, you have to pay for top-notch creators.

– David Emil Henderson

By: George Dick

George Dick — Thu, 12 Apr 2012 18:26:32 +0000

First, the only monopolies that exist over any substantial period of time have been sponsored by government, e.g. Ma Bell, cable TV, etc. So I dismiss prima facia there is any harmful monopolistic practices by any of the parties named in the suit. I also reject that “lower consumer prices” of eBooks, the goal of the DOJ, is necessarily a public good. Higher “producer” prices benefits publishers/authors/distributors. Under what part of our US Constitution gives government the power or right to interfere in the marketplace to aid consumers over producers?

We have far more to fear from the unforeseen costs and consequences of government meddling than any temporary pricing advantage a private company may enjoy.

That said, given that each publisher is free to set prices under the agency model, how can they prove collusion? In fact, it is Amazon’s model that is dictating prices by varying the commission they pay. And Apple is not the only seller of eBooks using the agency model, nor do they have a monopoly on the different devices which can read eBooks.

I believe the ultimate effect of the pusillanimous capitulation of the big NY publishers to the government will be the emergence of publishers selling eBooks direct to consumers off their own website — i.e. Pottermore. I might add MyTabletBooks.com provides publishers a vehicle to begin selling direct immediately.

By: Jojo

Jojo — Thu, 12 Apr 2012 14:47:19 +0000

Jeez the quality of analysis on PaidContent has gone down. Dipshit, Apple wasn’t concerned about protecting its 30% margin because the size of the e-book market was large, it was concerned because if it granted better terms to book publishers, then it would face pressure to grant those same terms on other forms of content. That would have dramatically affected their entire model for content.

By: Michael W. Perry

Michael W. Perry — Thu, 12 Apr 2012 01:51:04 +0000

Those who settled may regret their move, because they’ll be stuck with what they’ve agreed even if Apple wins. What’ll be interesting to see is if the DOJ’s charges give Apple grounds to use discovery on Amazon. That’ll make the latter very unhappy.

Of course the most suspicious aspect of this DOJ lawsuit is ‘the dog that didn’t bark’–meaning the fact that they’re not going after Amazon. Odd that ebook distributor with a 90% market share at the time and one that was using the classic competition-crushing technique of selling below cost, is regarded of doing nothing illegal but Apple, which at that time has zero market share is. Even now, Amazon’s market share is about seven times that of Apple.

Suspicious, very suspicious.

By: Guest

Guest — Wed, 11 Apr 2012 22:33:48 +0000

Wow…I am so shocked. As with most other articles on Paid Content, the author loves Apple, worships the publishing industry and hates Amazon.

Interesting that most other legal analysis of the lawsuit indicates the feds have a very stronbg case.