|
|
|
|
|
by revelation
4704 days ago
|
|
Why do people keep bringing Amazon into this? It's like asking a criminal on his philosophy to life. It simply doesn't factor into the law. Amazon is not a party to the case, and it is not a defense. They fixed prices, and theres no situation where this yields a upside to customers. And in fact, it didn't. That's why they had to pay up, and Apple, failing to come to terms with the DOJ, will now have to pay much much more dearly for ever bringing this into a court. |
|
> They fixed prices [...]
This is something I'm not sure about. From what I've read it sounds like all the publishers already wanted to do this and Apple was just the perfect opportunity to force the issue.
But as I said above, Apple clearly knew this was the case and used it to their advantage. They didn't set out fix prices, but they weren't against it.
> And in fact, it didn't.
This is a little odd too. Because of the agency model and the most favored nation contracts, prices went up. But if prices were artificially low before hand, was this a harm to consumers or a correction that would have happened eventually anyway?
There are some interesting twists in this case that make it a lot less clear-cut than most price fixing schemes. Apple probably deserves some kind of punishment for their behavior. On a personal level I'd really like the ability to buy books in the Kindle app, that seems like a fair punishment. I love my Kindle, but I do think Amazon might have been abusing their monopoly.
Of course the publishers were all guilty as hell, but they settled quickly. If they had tried to fight this too, I wonder if we'd hear as much about Apple. They're the only ones left standing and fighting.