“If Apple loses the legal case filed against it and book publishers on Wednesday over e-book pricing, will it be deeply wounded in its growing rivalry with Amazon? Not likely, analysts say,” Nick Wingfield reports for The New York Times.
“Amazon may have lost some share in e-books, but it still dominates the fast-growing market. At the same time, Apple’s failure to trounce Amazon in e-books did little to diminish the appeal of the iPad, which became a smash hit for other reasons,” Wingfield reports. “James McQuivey, an analyst at Forrester Research, said research by his company indicated that games, Web browsing, Facebook and other applications are bigger parts of the appeal of the iPad than e-books. ‘The fact is that they didn’t weaken Amazon the way they had hoped to, but it doesn’t harm them,’ Mr. McQuivey said.”
Wingfield reports, “If e-book prices plummet as a result of the lawsuit — one possible outcome — chances are the financial impact on Apple will be small… Mark Lemley, a law professor at Stanford specializing in antitrust and intellectual property, said he did not expect Apple to give up easily in the case. ‘Apple has a history of being fairly aggressive in litigation,’ Mr. Lemley said. ‘There’s some sense in their corporate culture that we’re right.'”
Read more in the full article here.
Related articles:
16 U.S. states join DOJ’s eBook antitrust action against Apple, publishers – April 12, 2012
Australian gov’t considers suing Apple, five major publishers over eBook pricing – April 12, 2012
DOJ’s panties in a bunch over Apple and eBooks, but what about Amazon? – April 12, 2012
Antitrust experts: Apple likely to beat U.S. DOJ, win its eBook lawsuit – April 12, 2012
Why the market shrugged off the Apple antitrust suit – April 11, 2012
What’s wrong with the U.S. DOJ? – April 11, 2012
Macmillan CEO blasts U.S. DOJ; gov’t on verge of killing real competition for appearance of competition – April 11, 2012
U.S. DOJ hits Apple,major publishers with antitrust lawsuit, alleges collusion on eBook prices – April 11, 2012
U.S. DOJ may sue Apple over ebook price-fixing as early as today, sources say – April 11, 2012
Go Apple! DEFEAT THE COMMIES!!!!!
When did Apple pick a fight with North Korea? Oh, wait, they didn’t, it’s just some iggerant fuckwit who fails to comprehend exactly what a Communist is. Mario, get a fucking education.
A Communist is a person who has moved so far to the left that he/she can no longer be called a Democrat.
Horschack,
You are a COMMIE! And a dirtball.
ha welcome back…
Ignore the stupid Rorschach. They are predictable and still idiots.
Yes Comrade Horshack, ignore the Patriots. They speak the truth. Your Zombie-Lemming-Nano-Brain can not comprehend the non-propaganda……
So Apple might be forced to price books the way they wanted to in the first place? Bring it on.
This case has a political taint to it. It’s election time and the Obama administration is trying to create a constituency in which they would claim it is fighting for. After colluding with the banking and oil industries big bosses to rape the country and tank the economy with the DoJ doing nothing, the Obama administration is trying to show that it is fighting for the little people, i.e. the reading public. Such is the nature of the political beast.
And as for the Attorney General, he is pursuing the case at cross purpose. This is a stepping stone for any ambitious AG as a short-cut to catapult into the political limelight. Past cases have shown time and time again that ambitious AGs have been willing to be blindsided by political ambitions to subvert the course of justice for personal agenda. Anything that has to do with Apple nowadays is guaranteed to generate intense attention.
So can you explain the fact that numerous solidly “red” states (including Alaska, Arizona, Texas, South Dakota) and “blue” states (Iowa, Pennsylvania, Vermont) have joined the AG’s suit?
Democrat Senates?
Because those AGs aren’t doing this for political reasons, it’s primarily about the money they are looking to collect from the alleged, price-fixing conspirators.
If (in all probability) the states and fed succeed, they will collect far, far more money than the total amount that consumers “overpaid”. Of course, most of it will be fines and damage awards, but even so I’ll bet not a dime of the rest will likely make it back to consumers.
You speak much wisdom, kemosabe.
Here’s the real question: Why is it that a law professor at Stanford specializing in antitrust and intellectual property, only opines about Apple’s “…history of being fairly aggressive in litigation,’ and the “… sense in their corporate culture that we’re right.’” ???
How about a reasoned comment regarding the merits of the case and the underlying case law? Seriously, can someone get beyond the “celebrity”, “politics”, and “financials” of this and analyze the law, the evidence and likely ruling?
‘How about a reasoned comment regarding the merits of the case and the underlying case law?’
That would mean that the readers of his column would actually have to think for themselves instead of having their ears tickled with cotton candy journalism.
Okay, Apple simply proposed to the book publishers the exact same scheme they’ve used for music and apps and the publishers could charge any price they wanted. I fail to see how Apple is responsible for any hanky-panky.
What I don’t understand is why the publishers were so powerless (or dimwitted) with Amazon. If they didn’t want Amazon undercutting everything, why didn’t they go to the agency model a long time ago? Or why didn’t they simply require minimum pricing like Apple does with its hardware? Apple doesn’t let retailer massively undercut each other why did the publishers?