“Recently the Department of Justice filed suit against Apple and major publishers, alleging that they colluded to raise prices in the digital books market. While the claim sounds plausible on its face, the suit could wipe out the publishing industry as we know it, making it much harder for young authors to get published,” U.S. senator Charles E. Schumer (D-NY) writes in an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal.
“The suit [if successful – MDN Ed.] will restore Amazon to the dominant position atop the e-books market it occupied for years before competition arrived in the form of Apple. If that happens, consumers will be forced to accept whatever prices Amazon sets,” Schumer writes. “Apple entered and negotiated an agency model with publishers, in which the publisher could establish a retail price and Apple would take a percentage cut. The result was increased competition. Amazon’s market share quickly eroded to 60%, and consumers had multiple platforms through which to purchase digital books. Amazon was forced to expand its catalog, invest in innovation, and reduce the prices of its Kindle reading devices. Most importantly, the average price for e-books fell to $7 from $9, according to a filing in the case.”
Schumer writes, “The Justice Department has ignored this overall trend and instead focused on the fact that the prices for some new releases have gone up. This misses the forest for the trees. While consumers may have a short-term interest in today’s new release e-book prices, they have a more pressing long-term interest in the survival of the publishing industry… The Justice Department lawsuit is also unsettling from a broader perspective. As our economy transitions to digital platforms, we should be celebrating and supporting industries that find ways to adapt and grow. By developing a pricing model that made e-book sales work for them, publishers did just that.”
“I am concerned that the mere filing of this lawsuit has empowered monopolists and hurt innovators. I believe it will have a deterrent effect not only on publishers but on other industries that are coming up with creative ways to grow and adapt to the Internet,” Schumer writes. “The administration needs to reassess its prosecution priorities. Justice Department officials currently have comprehensive guidelines in place to determine when they should challenge mergers, but they have no such guidelines for non-merger investigations. It’s time to come up with some. These new guidelines should take a broad, pragmatic view of the market as a whole. As the e-books case shows, this kind of perspective is sorely missing today.”
Read more in the full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: Once again, as we’ve said from the very beginning of this fiasco: “The U.S. DOJ is plainly inept.”
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “Dan K.” for the heads up.]
Related articles:
Apple’s U.S. e-books antitrust case set for 2013 trial – June 24, 2012
U.S. government complains, claims Apple trying to rush e-books antitrust case – June 21, 2012
Barnes & Noble blasts U.S. DOJ e-book settlement proposal – June 7, 2012
Apple: U.S. government’s e-book antitrust lawsuit ‘is fundamentally flawed as a matter of fact and law’ – May 24, 2012
Federal Judge rejects Apple and publishers’ attempt to dismiss civil case alleging e-book price-fixing – May 15, 2012
Court documents reveal Steve Jobs email pushing e-book agency model; 17 more states join class action suit – May 15, 2012
Apple vs. Amazon: Who’s really fixing eBook prices? – April 17, 2012
Apple: U.S. DOJ’s accusation of collusion against iBookstore is simply not true – April 12, 2012
Apple not likely to be a loser in legal fight over eBooks – April 12, 2012
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
JC, I agree with Schumer. The Mayans were right.
Take a deep breath, Schumer agrees with us this time 😉
That’s right, Schumer agrees with us… and another 200,000km “X” solar flare erupts from a sunspot the size of 15 Earths.
One correct assessment does not negate a history of repeated errors
Are you talking about F10T12, or Schumer? 😉
Wow, I agree with Schumer on something.
How is it possible that this obama lemming had an actual thought of his own. Up until now he only knew how to parrot obama and reid. Us NY’rs sure are proud of our senator. I cannot wait to tell my friends….
You just Had to go there, didn’t you? Open your closed, brainwashed mind.
@ Auramac – I suggest you do likewise clueless one.
@ peterblood: I won’t bother suggesting you open your mind as I am well aware that Neo-Con-Job suckers are incapable of doing so.
‘Bah bah’ says the sheeple.
The fact is that Schumer has a good record of speaking up on issues that he personally sees as important. As one of his constituents, I have never known him to join the DemoCrap clones unless he personally agreed with them. He is exactly the sort of person I actually like having in government, whether he gets it right or not.
Party politics are dumdum politics. Follow either party’s line and you’re just a worthless little clonebot. 😯
Good for Chuck. Absolutely correct, well reasoned and he does have an independent inclination from time to time. But certainly not even close to 50-50.
Aura and Peter have differing viewpoints, obviously. One hurled insults and the other responded with the same. Sounds fair to me. The people decide.
Derek, indeed, “clonebots” can be found on both sides. Wish in one hand, I know, we had more choice of sides.
Fingers crossed reality rules …
Yes at last a Democrat is using his brain! With no seeming agenda other than fairness and whats REALLY the right thing to do! Amazing! There may be hope for this party yet. (NAH!)
I too long for the days of Bush – when the US flowered as the land of milk and honey, when no-one was out of work, and the halls of government were filled with wise and benevolent Republicans who care only about the well being of Joe Average.
Don’t be too proud of this Democratic terror either. Neither party has a sterling record. Clinton was lucky to preside over a prosperous era or decade he had little to do with creating. Obama is not so lucky. Everyone thinks Presidents have this much control when they really don’t. Best thing they can do is get out of the way.
So why then the politically biased invective against a Democrat, if one party is as bad as another and Presidents have so little power?
The fact is the DOJ has its own agenda, based on long time managers who, obviously, have no clue about modern technology and are easily swayed by people (like amazon) who have their own agenda. This isn’t some anti-business/capitalist agenda, since if the DOJ winds, a really BIG business does win – Amazon!
It is, simply, a result of cluelessness within the management of the DOJ, nothing more, nothing less. Hopefully, some pressure from tech savvy members of Congress, like this guy, will help them see the light.
Don’t be so darn logical, rwahrens! Hypocrisy does not appreciate being revealed as such.
The new dogma is that, If you believe hard enough, then it becomes the truth…
Crap! If Schumer agrees with me, I must be wrong!
The Senator needs to be careful of the ‘separation of the powers’.
We only keep Schumer in office to serve as a reliable reverse litmus test. Normally, whichever side he picks, we know to choose the other. Now what?
What do you expect when a communist is in charge of the White House and appoints a political commissar to oversee law and order. You get the overturning of rational laws and the pursuit of the irrelevant.
See a neurologist. “Communist?” LOL!
See a proctologist. Communist is a bit overstated but not too far from some Socialist aspects truth. It ain’t no laughing matter except by mindless liberturd hyena’s who never fail to never think for themselves.
Oh, come on. Given the very narrow right-of-center political narrative in this country, the right wing couldn’t see a Communist with a 15 meter telescope!
You and F10T12 and BLN should all visit a mortician, because your brains are dead – not even fit for zombie food.
Time to up your meds again, BLN.
Yet another example of the glaring ignorance shown by the average Yank when referring to the rest of the world. BLN, it seems you can actually read, and have a reasonable level of education and intelligence, so try using it to look at examples of REAL Communism in the wider world. You could look at Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, Illuminoso Sendoro, Maoist China, Robert Mugabe and his Marxist regime in Zimbabwe, for starters.
Then, having reached a moderate level of enlightenment, you could stop referring to your own government as ‘Communist’.
If you could only understand just how low an opinion people in the rest of the world have of America and its inhabitants; just in case I happen to travel abroad, I have a tee shirt with ‘I AM NOT AMERICAN’ printed on the front…
Get a clue, why don’t you.
“Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, Illuminoso Sendoro, Maoist China, Robert Mugabe and his Marxist regime in Zimbabwe”
Except those regimes had nothing to do with communism either.
Neither Obama, nor the Khmer Rouge, nor Illuminoso Sendoro, nor Maoist China, nor Robert Mugabe ever tore down the oligarchy and turned over the governance and the means of production over to the people.
Here’s a quick tip on how to recognize communism. If the people aren’t in control, shit ain’t communist. If a government says it’s communist but the people aren’t in control, then it’s bullshitting you.
IMHO, DOJ filed suits against AAPL is simply because some ultra-small-dick DOJ lawyers want to get attention to prepare for their eventual private sector law career.
Proof that even a dumbass lib moron can get it right once in his career. Idiot Hussein still hasn’t got anything right. We dump that asshat in November.
When will you fools wake up that it isn’t about Liberals vs Conservatives or Democrats vs Republicans. It’s about who is bought and sold by lobbyists and who is not. The Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of the government need to get the message that we are tired of all the special interests buying the laws. People have to stop being led astray by false notions that serve no purpose other than aligning their votes with the current business as usual. Neither liberals nor conservatives are “morons,” but being polarized by special interest bought and sold politicians is truly a sign of lazy thinking and perpetuation of the status quo. Hooray for Schumer.
I am neither Republican or Democrat and I approve this message. Thanks Michael!
+1
I agree that there are deep, deep problems with political influence being sold to special interests in Washington and elsewhere in the American political system. But it’s a bit naive to claim that there aren’t also fundamental philosophical differences between American liberals and American conservatives these days. Actually, if you buy the “two-axis” political theory, “liberal vs. conservative” in America has really turned about 90 degrees to become “statist vs. libertarian”.
Me, I’m a libertarian. And as one, I’m shocked — although pleasantly surprised — that the usually “statist” Senator Schumer has taken this position. Good for him.
If you’re pro-gun, join the NRA. If you’re a senior citizen, join AARP. If you own a small business, join the NFIB. And if you belong to a union, you have no choice but to contribute. Business and Government have been intimately connected since this country was founded. You need to learn how to play the game!
“Philosophical” differences? You mean like conservatives being small government and fiscally responsible? Wait Bush blew that philosophy away now didn’t he? You mean like liberals being anti-business? Oh Wait, Obama has stacked regulatory agencies with ex-execs from the very companies they are supposed to control, he has been very pro-business. There goes that argument…
You see it is all rhetoric and rabble-rousing to get us fighting, all the while the ‘people’ getting their way are corporations. Often at our and the environments expense. Wake up
As the owner of a small business, I can assure you that corporations are anything but getting their way. Take a look at the lawsuit this very article is referring to if you think the Obama administration is pro-business.
I agree with the Senator on most things. Conservatism, like many of you espouse is anti-competitive because, if you had stayed awake in your economics classes, conventional capitalism without restraint is not freedom, it’s tyranny. Most all of you side with a philosophy that is against your best interests. It has nothing to do with so called “freedom”.
I can see you’ve been thoroughly brainwashed at college. Don’t worry, as you get older, you become less and less programmed.
Yes, socialism like debt ridden Europe is the way to go!
“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other pepople’s money”
-Margaret Thatcher
I normally do not agree with Chuck-E-Cheese Schumer, but I do in this particular instance.
Since you brought up Clinton… who singlehandedly destroyed the world economy with his stupid socialist agenda
Read rand weep…
At President Clinton’s direction, no fewer than 10 federal agencies issued a chilling ultimatum to banks and mortgage lenders to ease credit for lower-income minorities or face investigations for lending discrimination and suffer the related adverse publicity. They also were threatened with denial of access to the all-important secondary mortgage market and stiff fines, along with other penalties.
The threat was codified in a 20-page “Policy Statement on Discrimination in Lending” and entered into the Federal Register on April 15, 1994, by the Interagency Task Force on Fair Lending. Clinton set up the little-known body to coordinate an unprecedented crackdown on alleged bank redlining.
The edict — completely overlooked by the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission and the mainstream media — was signed by then-HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros, Attorney General Janet Reno, Comptroller of the Currency Eugene Ludwig and Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, along with the heads of six other financial regulatory agencies.
“The agencies will not tolerate lending discrimination in any form,” the document warned financial institutions.
So this is where it all started. In 1994. When the government pressured lenders to qualify the unqualified. To put people into houses they couldn’t afford.
If this is correct, then Lewinsky should take back her blowjob.