| Amazon's position in the market before this case is one of the things that makes it interesting. If Apple went to into a competitive market and pulled this it would be pretty clear cut. But instead they went into a market dominated by a de facto monopoly. In fact many people believe that Amazon should have been investigated for it's practices in the 'pre-iBooks' era. > 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. |