bklvr896 wrote:
is the agency model pricing the issue and why would that pricing model be inherently illegal. Afterall, it's simply the publisher being the seller and setting the price, using the retailer's as agents to sell the product, rather than selling the book to retailer and the retailer then selling it for whatever price they decide. What if the pubisher decided to open its own bookstore and not sell to any retailers? How is that much different and how would that be illegal. It's the alleged collusion that is at issue, did Apple and other collude on the agreement and prices?
No, the complaint specifically says that the agency model is not a problem. In fact, the proposed settlements expect that the settling publishers will continue to use agency model. The settling publishers will, however, be enjoined for two years from controlling the selling prices aside from a general restriction that over the course of a year, the total discounts given by a reseller on the publisher's titles cannot exceed that reseller's total commissions from those sales. In other words, Amazon can sell best-sellers at a loss if they make up the losses on non-best-sellers from the same publisher. Also, the Most Favored Nation clauses will be cancelled, permitting each reseller to negotiate separate terms with the publisher.
The complaint makes some very eyebrow-raising claims about blatant collusion. It says who discussed what with whom, where and when. If the complaint is at all accurate, the publishers (and Apple) were stupid beyond imagination.
