DoJ on Apple e-book pricing: two wrongs don't make a right

[DainBramaged]

The US Department of Justice says it plans to move forward with its proposed settlement with some e-book publishers, despite the "self-serving" comments submitted by Apple. In a 64-page response (PDF) to the comments it received on the settlement, the DoJ reiterated its reasons for suing Apple and publishers, accusing Apple of continuing to offer solutions that are "contrary to the public interest." That's a no-no, even if the old system pushed by Amazon was a "monopoly."

When the DoJ first sued Apple, Hachette, Harper Collins, Macmillan, Penguin, Pearson, and Simon & Schuster in April of 2012, it said the companies had actively conspired to raise e-book prices. This allegedly forced consumers to "pay tens of millions of dollars more for e-books than they otherwise would have paid" since the iPad's launch in 2010, both as a result of the iBookstore's prices and Amazon's eventual decision to adopt the same "agency model" pricing scheme that same year.

Three of the publishers—Hatchette, HarperCollins, and Simon & Schuster—immediately agreed to settle with the DoJ, leading to a slew of commentary being submitted from the public, publishers, and even Apple. And now that the comment period is over, the DoJ appears to feel even more strongly about its original complaint. In its response, the DoJ reiterated that it conducted a "lengthy investigation" into the e-book price increases of 2010 that "uncovered significant evidence that the seismic shift in e-book prices was not the result of market forces, but rather came about through the collusive efforts of Apple and five of the six largest publishers in the country."

The DoJ claims the only critical commenters were those with an interest in seeing people pay more for e-books. (It's important to note that Apple was the only non-settling defendant in the case that submitted comments). It also believes settlement critics didn't fully understand its decree.

http://arstechnica.com/apple/2012/07/doj-on-apple-e-book-pricing-two-wrongs-dont-make-a-right/

[onehandle]

1. Memo From Senator Schumer to DOJ: Drop the Apple E-Books Suit

'Restoring Amazon's monopoly in digital publishing is not in the public interest.'

Recently the Department of Justice filed suit against Apple and major publishers, alleging that they colluded to raise prices in the digital books market. While the claim sounds plausible on its face, the suit could wipe out the publishing industry as we know it, making it much harder for young authors to get published.

The suit will restore Amazon to the dominant position atop the e-books market it occupied for years before competition arrived in the form of Apple. If that happens, consumers will be forced to accept whatever prices Amazon sets.

All of us will lose the vibrant resources a diverse publishing universe provides. As Scott Turow, president of the Author's Guild, has explained, the Justice Department's suit is "grim news for everyone who cherishes a rich literary culture." These losses will be particularly felt in New York, which is home not only to many publishers, but also to a burgeoning digital innovation industry.

The e-books marketplace provides a perfect example of the challenges traditional industries face in adapting to the Internet economy. Amazon took an early lead in e-book sales, capturing 90% of the retail market. Because of its large product catalog, Amazon could afford to sell e-books below cost.

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052702303740704577527211023581798-lMyQjAxMTAyMDEwNzExNDcyWj.html

Amazon is the Walmart of online. Destroying main street retail in much the same way.

[PoliticAverse]

2. "consumers will be forced to accept whatever prices Amazon sets."

Poor consumers forced to accept below retail prices.

Btw, Apple dwarfs Amazon in profit, revenue and cash.

[Trillo]

3. It really bothers me that either our DofI or Constitution

provides for authors to make income from their writings for a "limited time", and yet there's ANY barrier to getting published in a money-collection venue, any barrier other than citizenship.

I believe that the Library of Congress should not only provide for the registration of copyrights, but also have a mechanism or process that makes those works available to any purchaser, and cuts a royalty check to the author-citizen when sales have been made on some regular basis, during the defined "copyright" period.

I had a publishing company composed of one author, and JPMorgan took over our prior bank (Washington Mutual), and decided that $10 per month coming into the account deserved a monthly charge of something like $17 per month (don't recall their exact figure). So, rather than continuing to jump through pointless hoops created by corrupt banksters, the author decided to withdraw the book from the market, because the "royalty" collection process had been tainted by the Bankster who saw MONEY, and decided "to grab it".

So much for the governments protection of authors payment processes. Kinda makes those fine words in Section 8, "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" just another lie, as those words have now been usurped by corporate-publishing "gatekeepers" and their bankster pals making a corrupt system that allows only their "insiders" to collect money from their writings (or inventions).