backtop


Print 6 comment(s) - last by GotThumbs.. on Jul 19 at 3:39 PM


  (Source: usatoday.net)
Five book publishers were accused of partaking in an agency sales model with Apple

A judge from the Manhattan federal court has finally set a date for the bench trial involving Apple and two publishers who were accused of anticompetitive practices involving e-books.

Back in April of this year, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) sued Apple and five book publishers over anticompetitive practices concerning e-book sales. The book publishers were Hachette Livre (Lagardère Publishing France), Harper Collins (News Corp., U.S.A.), Simon & Schuster (CBS Corp., U.S.A.), Penguin (Pearson Group, United Kingdom) and Verlagsgruppe Georg von Holzbrinck (owner of inter alia Macmillan, Germany).

The book publishers were accused of partaking in an agency sales model with Apple, which meant that publishers were allowed to set the price of a book and Apple would take a 30 percent cut. In addition, the publishers could not let rivals sell the same book at a lower price.

Traditionally, publishers sell physical books to retailers for about half of the cover price, which is considered a wholesale model. Retailers then had the ability to sell those books to customers for a lower price if they wanted to.

But when e-books came along, this model was challenged. Amazon started selling best sellers for as low as $9.99 to encourage its Kindle e-reader sales. Publishers were not happy.
Apple then came along with iBooks, and publishers began to worry that it would take over the book industry the way Apple's iTunes took over the music industry, where customers would choose to purchase cheap, digital books instead of physical books.

However, Apple made everything better when it struck a deal with publishers to implement the agency model in 2010. This helped Apple at the time of its iPad and iBooks launch. But its deal with publishers made it seem like an attempt to thwart Amazon's dominance.

Recently, Harper Collins, Simon & Schuster and Hachette Livre decided to settle the case with the U.S. DOJ. However, Apple, Penguin and Macmillan have decided to fight the antitrust case.

The bench trial in the Apple e-book case will start June 3, 2012.




Source: Reuters



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Not quite...
By Shadowself on 6/27/2012 6:34:35 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
The book publishers are accused of partaking in an agency sales model with Apple, which meant that publishers were allowed to set the price of a book and Apple would take a 30 percent cut.


No. Apple and the publishers were accused of colluding and raising book prices as a united group. The agency model was just the methodology they used. There is nothing inherently illegal with using the agency model or letting the publishers set the price.

Think of it this way: If the publishers typically sold books (even e-books) to publishers at half the sale price then under the agency model where Apple gets 30% of the sale price, this would LOWER the price to just 71% of the original price -- and the publishers would get the exact same income as before.

Until the publishers get greedy the agency model, as implemented by Apple in their contracts, could have actually lowered the price of books across the board.

A couple other examples to think about are iTunes and Apple's App Store. Both use the agency model and the US Gov has not ever seriously considered for going after Apple in those markets for using the agency model.

Using the Agency Model is not what is on trial here.

quote:
In addition, the publishers could not let rivals sell the same book at a lower price.


Not quite. Apple's contracts with the publishers has never said they can't let rivals lower the price of the books. What is does say is that if they do lower the price of a book at a different distributor, that Apple's customers get that same lower price no matter what.

The publishers could dictate that all books are free if sold through Amazon. Then by Apple's contract with the publishers, they'd have to "sell" them to customers for free through Apple too.

The difference is subtle but significant. Apple's current contracts with the publishers don't dictate any prices. It does not say what price the publishers can dictate. However, it does say that Apple's customers get as good a price as offered anywhere else. Nothing more. Nothing less.

The real issues comes down to the smoking gun email from Jobs where he mentions that the publishers could make more money by using the agency model. Many people are reading this as collusion (and maybe it is), but often statements made in negotiations are legally considered just that, negotiation tactics and nothing more. Only what is in the wording of the final contract stands up.

It will be interesting to see how this one plays out.




RE: Not quite...
By Varun on 6/28/2012 11:12:47 AM , Rating: 2
Yes not the agency model at all. More like the MFN clause (which is normally used on wholesale prices to make sure you don't get charged more wholesale that other customers, and was twisted by Apple to ensure that there is no price competition) and the fact that all of the publishers got together in a restaurant to make this deal, which is clearly collusion.


RE: Not quite...
By GotThumbs on 7/19/2012 3:39:21 PM , Rating: 2
"A couple other examples to think about are iTunes and Apple's App Store. Both use the agency model and the US Gov has not ever seriously considered for going after Apple in those markets for using the agency model.
"

Doene't mean they shouldn't. Its over due as far as I'm concernted. Talk about anti-competiive.

Apple's ecosystem is the most restricive in existance.

Please give a similar example of any other company that empliments the controls Apple does.

Keep thinking...because there isn't an example. MS never prevented users from installing another browser. Try loading content on and Iproduct without jailbreaking it.

Apple seems to have millions of blind followers....

Hopfully Obama and the DOJ don't drink the cool-aid.


"Spreading the rumors, it's very easy because the people who write about Apple want that story, and you can claim its credible because you spoke to someone at Apple." -- Investment guru Jim Cramer














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki