Tilted
..
Judge Says Apple Conspired to Raise Prices on E-Books
I think this is a misguided ruling for a number of reasons. Even if you accept the factual assertions of the Justice Department, their case requires a novel theory for what amounts to price fixing. In my view, it defies reason and as a matter of common sense the DOJ got the problem (i.e. in terms of monopolistic and monopsonistic threats in the ebooks market) wrong by 180 degrees. I don't say that because I use Apple products, I'm found of Amazon and own their products as well (Amazon, in reality, stands on the other side of this dispute - the DOJ is, for practical purposes, acting in Amazon's stead). The just think that the DOJ lost sight of the forest for the trees on this one and its position showed little regard for the long-term health of the ebooks market. I also think its legal theory is pretty weak. I don't know that I'd call this the worst overreach from this Justice Department, but I'd certainly call it a significant overreach. And, if higher courts ultimately accept its novel theory of what amounts to price fixing, that could have significant effects on markets in the future.
All that said, the ruling is what it is. It could get overturned on appeal, but I can't say I'm confident that will happen. In the end it probably doesn't matter much for Apple, the publishers, Amazon, or the ebook market. The potential, and quite scary, monopoly combined with a monopsony that Amazon was trying to establish has likely been sufficiently disrupted already such that the ebooks market can develop in a reasonably healthy manner (e.g. with lower prices for consumers in the long run and continued plentiful quality content creation). This may mean that consumers (myself included) receive a few more pennies in their settlement for ebooks previously purchased through Amazon though.
I think this is a misguided ruling for a number of reasons. Even if you accept the factual assertions of the Justice Department, their case requires a novel theory for what amounts to price fixing. In my view, it defies reason and as a matter of common sense the DOJ got the problem (i.e. in terms of monopolistic and monopsonistic threats in the ebooks market) wrong by 180 degrees. I don't say that because I use Apple products, I'm found of Amazon and own their products as well (Amazon, in reality, stands on the other side of this dispute - the DOJ is, for practical purposes, acting in Amazon's stead). The just think that the DOJ lost sight of the forest for the trees on this one and its position showed little regard for the long-term health of the ebooks market. I also think its legal theory is pretty weak. I don't know that I'd call this the worst overreach from this Justice Department, but I'd certainly call it a significant overreach. And, if higher courts ultimately accept its novel theory of what amounts to price fixing, that could have significant effects on markets in the future.
All that said, the ruling is what it is. It could get overturned on appeal, but I can't say I'm confident that will happen. In the end it probably doesn't matter much for Apple, the publishers, Amazon, or the ebook market. The potential, and quite scary, monopoly combined with a monopsony that Amazon was trying to establish has likely been sufficiently disrupted already such that the ebooks market can develop in a reasonably healthy manner (e.g. with lower prices for consumers in the long run and continued plentiful quality content creation). This may mean that consumers (myself included) receive a few more pennies in their settlement for ebooks previously purchased through Amazon though.
rogressivehateapplemadeinchina:
