Justice Department to Apple, Publishers: Here we come.

[rockymtnhigh]

I don't think this paradigm shift is limited to the book business. to me, it's clear that electronic distribution is slowly but surely destroying traditional print mediums.

newspapers and magazines are thinner and all of them are struggling to survive.
how many will survive to see the 2020 decade?




Sent from my MB855 using Tapatalk 2

I would not disagree -- in some ways the newspapers have themselves to blame, but ultimately the ability to adapt to a new world is critical for success.

Here the local newspaper has seen a total decline; and is pretty much a joke. Whereas, a local news radian channel has done a great job of adapting to new technology. They provide constant updates on Facebook, twitter, and their own website; publish news stories that while usually shorter than the newspaper, are more current, up to date, and rival the paper.

And I will admit, that while I balked at $20/month for the New York Times iPad/web subscription, I would NEVER ever go without it. It is how I read the news on a daily basis.

 

[meStevo]

Apple spoiling for trial on e-book pricing

Apple and the remaining 2 other publishers say they look forward to this going to trial.

I wonder how strong their case is if the 3 that settled as part of their settlement become ammo against Apple.

I just don't see 'Amazon bad!' being a defense against what they are being sued for.

 

[rockymtnhigh]

Apple spoiling for trial on e-book pricing

Apple and the remaining 2 other publishers say they look forward to this going to trial.

I wonder how strong their case is if the 3 that settled as part of their settlement become ammo against Apple.

I just don't see 'Amazon bad!' being a defense against what they are being sued for.

Agreed. 100%. The three that settled, did so very quickly, and I am sure they provided plenty of ammo for the government. What pushing for trial is, ironically, anyways - it is really just a delay tactic, and most likely tied to their own ultimate settlement strategies.

 

[meStevo]

Barnes and Noble doing some crying in public and to the court about the possible settlement and that it's not fair to let people sell things at below cost.

Barnes & Noble claims price fixing settlement will raise e-book prices | Ars Technica

QQ.

This is the same company that pulled physical copies of Comic Books from their stores because Amazon secured exclusive digital distribution.

It's time to evolve, B&N, or you can join Borders.

 

[meStevo]

Trial date set for June 3rd, 2013.

E-book price fixing trial set for 2013: Apple, Macmillan and Penguin prepare for courtroom brawl -- Engadget

 

[meStevo]

Must have a weaker case in the EU, 4 publishers and Apple have offered a settlement to end the investigation there.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/07/net-us-eu-apple-publishers-idUSBRE8A50SA20121107

It's mentioned in the article that if found violating EU rules companies can be fined 10% of their global sales, a figure that would be north of $15b for Apple, so perhaps that potential outcome was a little more persuasive than the outcome of challenging it in the US.

Penguin is the lone holdout and not part of this settlement and will remain under investigation.

 

[meStevo]

Penguin has settled with the DOJ, they want to try and put this behind them so they can merge with Random House.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...-+All+content)&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher

I'll be getting 20+ refunds from this one.

 

[meStevo]

McMillan has now settled too, leaving just Apple to fight this suit.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

[lparsons21]

Assuming the feds don't just drop Apple out, Apple will probably win if it goes to court. The feds position about Apple was very, very weak.

 

[mike123abc]

http://allthingsd.com/20130208/appl...llan-settlement/?mod=WSJ_qtoverview_wsjlatest

“The DOJ’s accusation of collusion against Apple is simply not true,” an Apple spokesman told AllThingsD at the time. “The launch of the iBookstore in 2010 fostered innovation and competition, breaking Amazon’s monopolistic grip on the publishing industry. Since then customers have benefited from eBooks that are more interactive and engaging. Just as we’ve allowed developers to set prices on the App Store, publishers set prices on the iBookstore.”

 

[dangue]

http://allthingsd.com/20130208/apple-alone-fighting-doj-e-book-suit-after-macmillan-settlement/?mod=WSJ_qtoverview_wsjlatest

I've certainly "benefitted" from more expensive books...

Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys

 

[mike123abc]

I've certainly "benefitted" from more expensive books...

Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys

Apple can claim that they did not set prices, that it was entirely up to the publisher what price to publish. That is what makes Apple's case strong. Just because the publishers refused to sell to Amazon with out Amazon keeping their price intact was not Apple's fault. All Apple did was agree not to discount, and let the publishers set whatever price they wanted.

 

[meStevo]

Apple can claim that they did not set prices, that it was entirely up to the publisher what price to publish. That is what makes Apple's case strong. Just because the publishers refused to sell to Amazon with out Amazon keeping their price intact was not Apple's fault. All Apple did was agree not to discount, and let the publishers set whatever price they wanted.

Trial has started, emails and other evidence presented today between Jobs relating to the above:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...4194a0-cc72-11e2-8f6b-67f40e176f03_story.html

The government presented as evidence an e-mail exchange on Jan. 24, 2010, between Jobs and News Corp executive James Murdoch. News Corp is the parent company of Harper­Collins.


Jobs had written, “Throw in with Apple and see if we can all make a go of this to create a real mainstream e-books market at $12.99 and $14.99.”


But Apple attorney Snyder said that the e-mail was selectively chosen and, in context of the full letter, does not show wrongdoing. In another part of the e-mail, one of 15 e-mails exchanged between Jobs and Murdoch, the late Apple executive appears doubtful about ­changes to the e-books market.


“Heck, Amazon is selling these books at $9.99, and who knows maybe they are right and we will fail even at $12.99,” Jobs wrote to Murdoch. “But we’re willing to try at the prices we proposed. We are not willing to try at higher prices, because we are pretty sure we’ll all fail.”


The government spent more than 11 / 2 hours presenting e-mails, travel itinerary, handwritten notes and phone logs on a slide deck.


At one point, Lawrence Buterman, a lawyer at the Justice Department, highlighted a Wall Street Journal interview from June 2010. When asked by a reporter why anyone would buy an e-book for $14.99 when Amazon was selling them for $9.99, Jobs responded: “That won’t be the case,” adding that “the prices will be the same.”


The next day, Simon & Schuster’s then-general counsel Elsa Riven sent an e-mail to her chief executive, Carolyn Reidy, calling Jobs’s remarks “incredibly stupid.” Reidy is expected to testify Tuesday.

There's a reason why this kind of thing rarely goes to trial.

 

[mike123abc]

If Apple loses they will appeal forever. The last thing they want is a bunch of suits filed in state courts claiming damages.

 

[meStevo]

If Apple loses they will appeal forever. The last thing they want is a bunch of suits filed in state courts claiming damages.

Why would they be sued, the publishers are the ones refunding consumers already. Not sure what the ability to appeal has to do with anything.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

[mike123abc]

Why would they be sued, the publishers are the ones refunding consumers already. Not sure what the ability to appeal has to do with anything.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

Apple is being sued by 33 states, if it loses this trial, the states AGs will be able to use the federal loss to win the state suits.