Amazon Flexes Its Muscles in Fight Against Publishers

> Apple colluded with the publishers to set the price, and forced Amazon to sell for the same price

Apple gave the publishers leverage to use with Amazon, which is a wee bit different. But I'll give you "colluded", because it doesn't really matter.

I wish Google would actually find the various articles I've read in the past about this, but my recollection is that various economists have explained that this sort of "corrective measure" is actually legal and the right course of action under certain circumstances, and the ebook market (with Amazon's near-total dominance) qualifies.

You say "mainly the people being screwed", but that's not true. Amazon tried to claim that prices were lower before Apple came along, but that's actually only true for some (admittedly popular) books. Prices on other books were higher before Apple. Not only that, but the low prices that Amazon was talking about was not actually a sustainable market, but instead was Amazon engaging in predatory pricing. And predatory pricing is not something that the DOJ is supposed to be in the business of defending.

Basically, many people have looked at the overall book market both before and Apple entered it, and found that, when looking at the entire market instead of just e.g. the NYT bestsellers list, prices were not higher after Apple showed up.

It's also worth pointing out that Apple was being accused of violating antitrust laws, which are essentially laws designed to prevent unfair monopolistic practices. It seems rather ridiculous to claim that a minority player in a market could be guilty of monopolistic practices, since that generally requires being a monopoly. It's even more absurd when one of the main goals of antitrust is to promote fair competition, and yet it was used to punish the only real competition that Amazon had in the market. Basically, the DOJ used fair competition laws to hand a government-sanctioned monopoly to a single company.

---

I did a bit more digging, and what Apple was found guilty of was a "per se" violation of a horizontal price-fixing conspiracy using a series of vertical agreements. I've found a MacObserver article[1] that talks about a 30-page amici curiae brief filed by two economists explaining why Judge Cote's ruling was wrong.

[1]: http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/economists-on-apple-e...

There's a 3-paragraph summary at that article, which should give you a good idea of what was wrong with the ruling.

I've seen a number of other articles since the ruling where other economists weigh in and say essentially the same thing, but Google is still being difficult.

---

Edit: One comment about this brief says that the DOJ didn't make these considerations because it found Apple to be per se liable, which is to say, the DOJ considered the actions to be illegal regardless of any possible motivation. Some of the other economists I've referred to argued specifically against this point, saying that these kinds of vertical agreements are not a violation of the per se rule and that Judge Cote royally screwed up in applying it. Of course, Judge Cote's ruling also said she would consider Apple to have been guilty under a rule of reason as well, but I find it hard to believe given how much evidence there is that Apple's actions were indeed in its own independent business interest, and that these kinds of vertical agreements and the provisions they contained are not in fact illegal under these circumstances (my understanding is basically that they can be illegal when used by a dominant player in a market, because it's anti-competitive, but when used by a new entrant in a market with an existing dominant player, they are ok, but IANAL).

Not true.

Amazon pays individual authors 70% of retail. That's far more than they get from any publisher.

The flaw in your argument is that they can't raise the price of that publisher's books in a market, they can only raise the price they charge on their own website. When Amazon raises their price for a particular book, that doesn't change the price it sells for anywhere else the book is available, and they aren't colluding with any of the other retailers to fix prices.

What they're doing is actually a demonstration of their lack of monopoly power. When they raise the price they charge for a book, any customers doing comparison shopping who want that book in particular will get it from a different retailer. If Amazon had monopoly power you would instead expect substantially all customers to either pay the higher price to Amazon or not buy the book from anyone.

The market characteristic that Amazon is taking advantage of is that if they raise the price for books from one publisher, it shifts impulse purchases from that publisher to another for customers looking through Amazon's website to find a new book to read. It's essentially the same strategy as putting the product of the publisher you don't like at the back of the store, or replacing mention of it in your promotional materials with mention of a competing product you also sell. The publisher cares a lot more than Amazon about which publisher's books Amazon sells more of, which provides Amazon with negotiating leverage against the publisher. All retailers have that leverage over their suppliers. It doesn't require monopoly power. Obviously being bigger gives you more leverage, but being big and having a monopoly are not the same thing.

Not only is this measurable, but laws of supply and demand are pretty well established economic theory. I'm honestly surprised to see such gesticulation about economics in a start-up oriented forum.