Libor Kubín Please accept this brief reflection as my personal opinion on the Apple vs DOJ lawsuit over the price of e-books. The California company lost that round.
I have no illusions about Apple and its business practices. Yes, running a business in any field can be very tough and on the edge. On the other hand, lawyers can convince the court that the white square is actually a black circle.
What bothers me about one of the many court decisions involving Apple?
- Before the trial began, Judge Denise Cote said: "Apple is apparently guilty."
Shouldn't the judge be impartial and stick to the rule: is the person presumed innocent until proven guilty?
- The US court ruled that: "The plaintiffs have shown that the defendants conspired with each other to eliminate price competition in order to raise the prices of e-books, and that Apple played a central role in arranging and carrying out this conspiracy." Officials of rival Amazon also testified at the trial , which this action was supposed to damage.
- The court said that while Amazon stuck to its usual prices, the conspiring publishers sold the same titles for $1,99 to $14,99.
If Apple were to dominate the e-book market, I would understand some concerns about consolidating a monopoly. In 2010, when the iPad was launched, Amazon controlled practically 90% of the e-book market, which it usually sold for $9,99. Although some books are more expensive in the iTunes Store, Apple paradoxically managed to gain a 20% share of the e-book market. The Cupertino company gave publishers and authors the opportunity to determine how much they would offer the e-book for. The same financial model Apple applies to music, so why is this model wrong for e-books?
- Deputy Attorney General Bill Baer said of the verdict that: "...it is a victory for the millions of consumers who have chosen to read e-books."
As for customers, they have the option of choosing where and for how much to buy their digital print. E-books from Amazon can also be read on the iPad without any problems. But if publishers are forced to price below their production costs, a customer victory can become a Pyrrhic victory. In the future, no books may be published in electronic form.
Related articles:
[related-posts]
a) the fact that the judge revealed the verdict before it was handed down is unprofessional, but I would not claim that it has anything to do with impartiality
b) the fact that Apple had higher prices for the exact same product sold essentially through the same distribution channel is not entirely correct and should have been resolved in my opinion. the result - the leveling of prices is in order, one of the basic pillars of the economy is a competitive environment, which de facto did not exist here.
c) in general, I think that the price of electronic books should be minimal - costs for distribution/logistics, sales, etc. are eliminated, or are greatly reduced. it is at the same time very easy to reach an extremely large audience - at a low price, books = information = will be available to everyone, which should be the primary goal of disseminating this information. The publisher's profits and thus the author's income will then be generated in large volumes
Higher prices, in my opinion, harm this specific market.
a) What does the term psychological pressure tell you? And talk about the outcome before sentencing?
b) Excuse me, but do you buy bread and butter at the same price in all stores? So I don't. Price "fixation" reeks of state bureaucracy. Try to explain your train of thought to me: after all, one of the basic pillars of the economy is a competitive environment, which de facto did not exist here. So Amazon had a de facto monopoly (90% of the market). So there was no competition and he dictated the terms. Apple sold some titles at auction, some the same or cheaper. Still, it managed to capture about 20% of the market. I would see Amazon's lobbying in this state intervention.
Why was it necessary to protect Amazon with a single price policy for e-books? In addition, Apple did not create any barrier, you could buy e-books in any store.
c) Please don't think. Sit in a corner, take a calculator and subtract -40% from the price of a printed book. That's the price of an e-book, and it's usually worth it. When you write a book, publish it and get a few hundred for your efforts of several months (thanks to smart people like you), maybe you will sing another one.
Judge Denise Cote said before the trial began, "Apple is apparently guilty."
Oh, so this is your big fail. On the contrary, it is of course beneficial for Apple and its lawyers to know what they are up to as soon as possible. At that time, the judge already had (as is usually the case) enough material to make a decision and thus express her opinion. So Apple knew where it stood and could then reverse this opinion in the negotiations by providing additional evidence in its favor. Czech law works similarly. When will the judge instruct the party that the evidence he submitted does not support his claim...
The second thing is your distortion of the truth. In the linked article, it says that she said this in the preliminary proceedings - that is, long after the trial had begun. You write about the fact that she said this before the start of the trial, as if she did not see the documentary evidence at all, etc.
I recommend that you either do not write about legal matters at all (even your layman's opinion), or study the issue (civil process is codified at the federal level), or consult with someone who understands the issue.
Um, attacking another out of ignorance of the law and speculation, and then equating the statement "Apple is apparently guilty" with "the evidence doesn't support the claim" takes a seriously strong stomach. Congratulations berenza.
Here's someone outsmarting us again and they can't even read:
Apple denies any involvement in this conspiracy. Judge Cote noted that the strength of the State's evidence that was referred to in her statement was only her "preliminary assessment." The Reuters agency described the judge's statements before the trial as unusual: "They can put even more pressure on Apple to settle the dispute."
Is it common practice for the judge to release his preliminary decision to the media? Try to enlighten us laymen Mr. Berenz.
And another thing. You obviously have a poor knowledge of competition law. You knit apples and pears together. The court condemned the horizontal distortion of competition by the cartel agreement. In your article, you write about abuse of a dominant position - that is, vertical distortion of competition.
Better stick to your craft, you're not very good at this.
In my opinion, the whole accusation is somarina. It is clear that there are not only fair practices in business, so no one would get ahead, but again this is absurd. Totally stupid lawsuit. In addition, when I can still buy the e-book on e.g. Amazon and read it in iBooks. If it is not possible, then fine, then I understand the lawsuit, but this is completely beside the point. Plus, people, the physical print is the best to read :)