How much will Apple cough for ebook conspiracy? Trial starts May 2014

Re: "Punitive"

Why would the lawyers want to back down now, they're watching the meter going around so fast the whole edifice is in danger of taking off. The only reason to slow down would be it they thought it would keep the gravy train on its wheels better.

But that's not exactly a punishment now is it. By that logic if I steal a candybar and get caught, I'd only have to pay a 60p fine, rather than what is it now. £50+?

That's around a 10000% markup on the theft?

So should apples fine be the difference between the prior and current average price * number of ebooks sold since apple started the deal + 10,000%?

Apparently the calculation works out to be about 500 million bucks:

http://www.macrumors.com/2013/07/25/apple-could-owe-500-million-after-being-found-guilty-in-e-book-antitrust-case/

It's a lot of money, but it's not exactly going to cause Apple any pain, considering the mountain of cash they have in the bank.

More painful to them will be the restrictions on being able to enter into similar contracts again in the next 5 years, particularly if they're looking to expand the TV show distribution and iRadio, etc etc.

Re: One thing I could never understand

"How could anyone think that an agreement which basically said "You are not allowed to give this price or better to a competitor" could EVER be anything but a price fixing arrangement..."

Because scumbag companies have been leading up to that level (restrictive competitive pricing contracts) for a very long time; they have only been doing it serendipitously

Bose Corporation, for example, has been doing this type of regulated pricing structure since the 1980's (how do I know? I was a dealer once...). They only do so under a different guise: the 'unwritten rule'.

Back in the 80's and 90's, you could only advertise Bose products using Bose pre-authorized ad copy AND, if you insisted on actually printing a price in the ad, it could only be FULL RETAIL. Bose frowned against having a "sale" or even discounting their products off of full retail pricing. If you did wish to discount a Bose product you could never, ever mention the price in print - you could only say things like "Save!" or "Come in for pricing", which even the former raised their eyebrows in alarm.

So you say to yourself, "So? That did not mean that you couldn't sell the product at whatever pricing you truly wished to", and in that respect you do not understand the delicacy of the situation.

Bose would do (occasional) inspections of your shop to see how you displayed their products (in a dedicated display, not in direct comparison to any other product) and at what pricing. If they didn't like what they saw? Then, purely by 'accident'...your shipments dried up. You could order and order and order, but by some miraculous 'loss' of your requests you never actually GOT any product.

So every Bose dealer went along with the ploy. Therefore, de facto "price fixing" - it was almost impossible for a customer to buy Bose at a discount, you had to look far and wide and find a dealer doing so in a quiet manner (which, we did).

These de facto pricing standards were - AND STILL ARE - somewhat rampant in parts of the retail industry. Grado Labs, headphone manufacturers, are widely known for continuing to play this game in Europe: you discount our products? Don't expect a restocking shipment anytime soon.

A few companies in recent years have, like Apple, attempted to get this policy in writing and, as you see, the retailers just play along and sign on the dotted line. Why? They are used to the subversive version of it being played against them so having it in writing is not that significant a deal - it isn't anything truly new. The other companies got caught and now it is simply Apple's turn to pay the piper for anti-competitive practices and, like the others before them, Apple sees no problem with the policy because they've seen this game played for years. 'Why are you bothering us?!', they bemoan, when it's been around before?

Re: Might be a little optomistic

Of course they'll see the money. Not directly mind you, but since all buyers are American (using american logic) all the money will go to the american government who act on behalf of the people. So by using american logic the money actually does get to everybody (everybody being americans, even if they're not)

A simple way of explaining it is that there is a line in the sand.

Google do one of the following

1: Toe the line, gonig right up to the limits of legal

2: Find a gap in the line which lets them pass without crossing it. (a loophole)

3: Step over the line a bit, and then apologise when they're caught

4: Find something where the line doesn't exist at all and try to get the line pushed back as far as possible when it is finally put in place.

Apple however do the following

1: See the line, and then scoot over it like a dog with worms scoots along the carpet.

One of them is pressing their luck but in a legal way, the other is completely flouting the law and expects to get away with it.

That and google actually settled on the book issue with an "Easier to ask forgiveness than permission" approach. They continue to put everything up there, but publishers can ask for specific titles to be removed. Which works out much faster than google asking for permission for each individual title.