<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories about &quot;simon & schuster&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 6 Sep 2012 12:12:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Judge Quickly Approves Ebook Pricing Settlement; Says It's In The Public Interest To Stop Price Fixing</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120906/11274320303/judge-quickly-approves-ebook-pricing-settlement-says-its-public-interest-to-stop-price-fixing.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120906/11274320303/judge-quickly-approves-ebook-pricing-settlement-says-its-public-interest-to-stop-price-fixing.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Judge Denise Cote wasted no time at all in <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-06/judge-approves-settlement-with-publishers-in-e-book-case.html" target="_blank">approving the DOJ's settlement with three book publishers</a> in its antitrust lawsuit over ebook pricing.  While there had been some concerns about the settlement, the judge saw no problem with it at all, and very quickly issued <a href="http://ia601206.us.archive.org/6/items/gov.uscourts.nysd.394628/gov.uscourts.nysd.394628.113.0.pdf" target="_blank">an order approving the settlement</a> (pdf) between the government and HarperCollins, Simon &#038; Schuster and Hachette (the case against others, and Apple continues).  The terms of the settlement are straightforward:
<ol><i>
<li>They must terminate their Agency Agreements with Apple 
within seven days after entry of the proposed Final 
Judgment.  
</li><li>They must terminate those contracts with e-book retailers 
that contain either a) a restriction on the e-book 
retailer&#8217;s ability to set the retail price of any e-book, 
or b) a &#8220;Price MFN,&#8221; as defined in the proposed Final 
Judgment, as soon as each contract permits starting thirty 
days after entry of the proposed Final Judgment.  
</li><li>For at least two years, they may not agree to any new 
contract with an e-book retailer that restricts the 
retailer&#8217;s discretion over e-book pricing.  
</li><li>For at least five years, they may not enter into an 
agreement with an e-book retailer that includes a Price 
MFN. 
</li></i></ol>
Cote basically said that this is a perfectly straightforward price fixing case, and the settlement directly counteracts the price fixing issues, so there's no reason not to just move forward with it.
<blockquote><i>
The Complaint and CIS provide a sufficient factual 
foundation as to the existence of a conspiracy to raise, fix, 
and stabilize the retail price for newly-released and 
bestselling trade e-books, to end retail price competition among 
trade e-books retailers, and to limit retail price competition 
among the Publisher Defendants.  Although the Government did not 
submit any economic studies to support its allegations, such 
studies are unnecessary.  The Complaint alleges <b>a 
straightforward, horizontal price-fixing conspiracy, which is 
per se unlawful under the Sherman Act.</b>...  
The Complaint also details the defendants&#8217; public statements, 
conversations, and meetings as evidence of the existence of the 
conspiracy.  The decree is directed narrowly towards undoing the 
price-fixing conspiracy, ensuring that price-fixing does not 
immediately reemerge, and ensuring compliance.  Based on the 
factual allegations in the Complaint and CIS, it is reasonable 
to conclude that these remedies will result in a return to the 
pre-conspiracy status quo.  In this straightforward price-fixing 
case, no further showing is required.   
</i></blockquote>
Because of this, Cote rejects the idea of any evidentiary hearing and just approves the deal.  She notes that due to tons and tons of public comments that were allowed in the case, she is quite well informed of the issues and sees no additional benefit from such a hearing:
<blockquote><i>
It is not necessary to hold an evidentiary hearing before 
approving the decree.  Given the voluminous submissions from the 
public and the non-settling parties, which describe and debate 
the nature of the alleged collusion and the wisdom and likely 
impact of settlement terms in great detail, as well as the 
detailed factual allegations in the Complaint, the Court is 
well-equipped to rule on these matters.  A hearing would serve 
only to delay the proceedings unnecessarily. 
</i></blockquote>
She does try to summarize the comments against the settlement into four broad categories: (1) that the settlement would harm third party players like indie book stores, indie ebook retailers, indie publishers and authors, (2) that the settlement is "unworkable," (3) that there weren't enough facts to support the price fixing claim, (4) that the impact of such price fixing was actually pro-competition, in that it broke up Amazon's market dominance.  She then breaks down each of these arguments to show why none of them apply and the settlement should move forward.
<br /><br />
I won't go through all four issues, but I would like to focus on the two that get the most attention, the first and the last.   On the first issue, she points out that antitrust law is not designed to protect businesses from the working of the market, but to protect the public from the failure of the market.  If the settlement causes some businesses to suffer, but it's in the public interest, there is no problem there.
<blockquote><i>
If unfettered e-books retail 
competition will add substantially to the competitive pressures on physical bookstores, or if smaller e-book retailers are 
unable to compete with Amazon on price, these are not reasons to 
decline to enter the proposed Final Judgment.
</i></blockquote>
As for the last issue (breaking up Amazon's dominance), she notes that it was "perhaps the most forceful species of criticism" but still does not find it persuasive here.  The court more or less notes that Amazon's market position isn't on trial, and its use of wholesale pricing does not equal price fixing, as some have alleged.  Nor does it show "predatory" pricing, which was a key complaint.  The problem there: the evidence showed that Amazon was "consistently profitable."  And, to show predatory pricing, "one must prove more than simply pricing below an appropriate measure of cost" but also that the company will jack up prices down the road.   And all of the comments failed to do that:
<blockquote><i>
None of the comments demonstrate that either 
condition for predatory pricing by Amazon existed or will likely 
exist.  Indeed, while the comments complain that Amazon&#8217;s $9.99 
price for newly-released and bestselling e-books was 
&#8220;predatory,&#8221; none of them attempts to show that Amazon&#8217;s e-book 
prices as a whole were below its marginal costs.
</i></blockquote>
Oh, and finally, the court points out that swinging back the blame to Amazon is meaningless for the purpose of this case, anyway, because even if the court accepted that Amazon was price fixing <i>too</i>, that doesn't make it okay for the publishers to price fix themselves.  Think of it as the "two wrongs don't make a right" rule.
<blockquote><i>
Third, even if Amazon was engaged in predatory pricing, 
this is no excuse for unlawful price-fixing.  Congress &#8220;has not 
permitted the age-old cry of ruinous competition and competitive 
evils to be a defense to price-fixing conspiracies.&#8221; ...  The familiar mantra regarding 
&#8220;two wrongs&#8221; would seem to offer guidance in these 
circumstances.
</i></blockquote>
This probably does not bode well for the other publishers and Apple who are fighting the whole thing...<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120906/11274320303/judge-quickly-approves-ebook-pricing-settlement-says-its-public-interest-to-stop-price-fixing.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120906/11274320303/judge-quickly-approves-ebook-pricing-settlement-says-its-public-interest-to-stop-price-fixing.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120906/11274320303/judge-quickly-approves-ebook-pricing-settlement-says-its-public-interest-to-stop-price-fixing.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>will-prices-drop?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120906/11274320303</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 30 Aug 2012 20:02:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>First Round Of Ebook Price Fixing Settlements Are Announced</title>
<dc:creator>Zachary Knight</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120830/13190220221/first-round-ebook-price-fixing-settlements-are-announced.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120830/13190220221/first-round-ebook-price-fixing-settlements-are-announced.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ When the Department of Justice decided to sue Apple and five of the major book publishers for price fixing ebooks, we were glad to see some justice coming to purchasers of overpriced ebooks. Shortly after filing the suit, three of those publishers, HarperCollins, Hachette and Simon &#038; Schuster, <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120411/07155418453/breaking-us-sues-apple-publishers-over-ebook-price-fixing.shtml">decided to settle</a> rather than fight. Now, the <a href="http://paidcontent.org/2012/08/29/states-reach-69-million-ebook-pricing-settlement-with-publishers/">first round of settlements have been reached</a> between these three companies and 49 states (sorry Minnesota) and 5 US territories. The settlement totals to around $69 million to be split among the states and territories.<br />
<br />
In a press release on this settlement, Connecticut AG George Jepson states that while it is fine for companies to seek profit, they shouldn&#39;t harm the public in the process.
<blockquote>
<i>While publishers are entitled to their profits, consumers are equally entitled to a fair and open marketplace. This settlement will provide restitution to those customers who were harmed by this price-fixing scheme, but it also will restore competition in the eBook market for consumers&rsquo; long-term benefit.</i></blockquote>
By restoring competition in the market, these publishers agree to allow retailers pricing control of ebooks in the future. This could bring us back to $10 and below new releases that we have sorely missed.<br />
<br />
While this settlement is getting underway, the settlement between these companies and the DOJ is still being reviewed. That may take a while as District Court Judge Denise Cote has 868 public comment letters to sift through. Hopefully, she can ignore the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120609/02050719260/barnes-noble-ebooks-should-be-expensive-so-amazon-wont-kill-us-make-ebooks-expensive.shtml">ignorant pleas</a> of those opposed to the current settlement proposal and agree to a positive result. All that would be left is that actual lawsuit against Apple, Macmillan and Penguin which are all holding their ground that they did nothing wrong.&nbsp;<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120830/13190220221/first-round-ebook-price-fixing-settlements-are-announced.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120830/13190220221/first-round-ebook-price-fixing-settlements-are-announced.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120830/13190220221/first-round-ebook-price-fixing-settlements-are-announced.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>when-crime-does-eventual-pay</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120830/13190220221</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 11 Apr 2012 07:20:35 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Breaking: U.S. Sues Apple, Publishers Over eBook Price-Fixing</title>
<dc:creator>Leigh Beadon</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120411/07155418453/breaking-us-sues-apple-publishers-over-ebook-price-fixing.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120411/07155418453/breaking-us-sues-apple-publishers-over-ebook-price-fixing.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Ever since the Justice Department <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120309/03540318044/us-government-finally-realizes-that-publishers-apple-conspiring-to-raise-ebook-prices-is-price-fixing.shtml">announced</a> that they were investigating Apple and several publishers over allegations that Apple's agency model for ebook pricing violates antitrust law, we've been waiting for the other shoe to drop. Last night, Reuters <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/11/us-apple-ebooks-idUSBRE8391JW20120411" target="_blank">reported</a> that a lawsuit was imminent, and now Bloomberg has the news that <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-04-11/u-s-files-antitrust-lawsuit-against-apple-hachette.html" target="_blank">the government has filed a lawsuit against Apple, Hachette, HarperCollins, Macmillan, Penguin and Simon &amp; Schuster</a> in New York district court.

<p>Details are still scarce, but sources say Apple and Macmillan refused to participate in settlement talks while some of the other publishers are still hoping to avoid a drawn out legal battle, and may settle soon. <em><strong>Update:</strong> Bloomberg is now reporting that S&amp;S, HarperCollins and Hachette have settled.</em> It will be interesting to see what kind of defense Apple brings, because the evidence of collusion doesn't look good for them at all. Despite Authors Guild president Scott Turow's self-serving claim that this will somehow <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120310/19034718067/authors-guild-boss-e-book-price-fixing-allegations-but-brick-and-mortar.shtml">hurt culture</a>, this is good news for readers: busting Apple's and the publishers' iron grip on ebook prices will likely reduce them across the board.</p>

<p>Here is this the <a href="http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/ebooks04112012.pdf" target="_blank">government's complete filing</a> (pdf and embedded below).</p><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120411/07155418453/breaking-us-sues-apple-publishers-over-ebook-price-fixing.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120411/07155418453/breaking-us-sues-apple-publishers-over-ebook-price-fixing.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120411/07155418453/breaking-us-sues-apple-publishers-over-ebook-price-fixing.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>fresh-news</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120411/07155418453</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>