Mikey Campbell
On day two of the U.S. Department of Justice's antirust suit against Apple, Penguin Books CEO David Shanks took the stand to offer testimony regarding the Cupertino company's role in an alleged e-book price fixing scheme.
According to in-court reports from Reuters, Shanks testified on Tuesday that Apple inserted a provision in its e-book contract with Penguin which forced the publisher to modify its existing agreements with other retailers, including market leader Amazon.
The stipulation Shanks referred to is Apple's most favored nations clause, which is part of the so-called "agency model" that holds a publisher can set content pricing as long as it doesn't sell said content to another retailer for less.
"The fact that the parity clause was in the contract more or less made it a given we'd have to be at agency," Shanks said in a previously recorded deposition that was played in court.
In his testimony, Shanks added that Apple's clause was "certainly a factor" in moving rivals over the agency model where publishers have control over pricing. Retailers like Amazon use the wholesale model where content owners sell bulk rights to retailers, which can resell the e-books at or below cost.
The most favored nations system is one of the DOJ's targets in its suit, as it claims consumers were hurt by fixed prices resulting from collusion between Apple and five major publishing houses. All the accused publishers, including HarperCollins, Simon & Schuster, Hachette Book Group and Macmillan, settled out of court.
Penguin was the last of the five publishers to settle with the Justice Department, doing so in December 2012. The firm also paid a $75 million settlement to 33 state attorneys general for a parallel suit in May.
While the first part of Shanks' testimony appeared to strengthen the government's case, upon cross-examination sentiment shifted toward Apple. The CEO admitted that there was concern over the low content pricing from Amazon, which at the time was one of Penguin's biggest customers and accounted for some 90 percent of its e-book sales. This suggests, as Apple had argued, the negotiations were tough, making collusion a less likely option.Penguin CEO David Shanks admitted there was concern over Amazon's wholesale pricing model.
Under Amazon's wholesale model, however, the Internet retail giant was selling new hardcovers at prices far from the average normally fetched for first run titles. Publishers routinely release hardcover versions ahead of cheaper paperbacks in a profit-making practice called "windowing."
"What transpired was by having e-books now at $9.99, it was cannibalizing hardcover editions, which sold on average at $26," he said.
Later, Shanks said Penguin "strongly resisted" the most favored nations model as it feared Apple would not only match Amazon's low prices, but also require its usual iTunes commission. In the end, however, Penguin inked a deal after seeing the other major publishers hop on board.
Once the most favored nations system was established, with bookseller Barnes & Nobel also adopting the model, Penguin tried to get Amazon to move to it as well. According to Shanks, the market leader didn't take the news well.
"They yelled and screamed and threatened," he said. "It was a very unpleasant meeting."
Shanks was the first executive from the five publishing houses to testify in court. Also scheduled to take the stand during the three-week trial is Apple's vice president of Internet Software and Services Eddy Cue.
-m.jpg)
Charles Martin
Malcolm Owen
William Gallagher
Christine McKee
Wesley Hilliard
Andrew Orr
67 Comments
And they're going after Apple instead of Amazon because...???
Sheesh.
Apple needs to treat their government department with the respect that they deserve.
Pay 'em, f*ck 'em, then kick 'em out of your bed, Apple.
The DOJ views Amazon's model as benefitting the consumer, which it probably does in the short term. But in the medium term it destroys quality publishing, by devaluing quality content. Of course it has also led to a de facto monopoly by Amazon, but the DOJ would claim that's a separate issue, and maybe they'll pursue them next. If Amazon were broken up into separate entities, I wonder if selling books as loss leaders would still be a viable practice. In Germany, the agency model was actually required by law, and has meant bookshops were able to survive much longer (not being undercut by Amazon), and publishers can afford to publish and develop a much broader range of content (which they do).
So, let me get this straight. Apple has a deal where publishers can set prices, and they have to offer the lowest price on iBookstore. And the DoJ claims this "hurt consumers" because it "fixed prices"? Flexibile pricing with a proviso that the consumer be given the lowest price offered anywhere is neither fixed nor hurting consumers. This persecution is so illogical it proves that it is politically motivated. Which is why we need to repeal the entirety of anti-trust regulations--which have always been used anti-competitively to favor one business over another-- in this case, near monopolist Amazon is being defended from having to compete with Apple when Apple dared to offer publishers better terms. Really, people should belong in jail for this-- and I mean, people in the government. It's criminal.
The DOJ views Amazon's model as benefitting the consumer, which it probably does in the short term. But in the medium term it destroys quality publishing, by devaluing quality content
FWIW, in the 1990s when Japanese companies were selling RAM below "market cost", which greatly benefited consumers of RAM and american businesses selling computers with RAM, the DoJ and others claimed that this was "hurting consumers" and was "dumping."
It's so political... they just claim whatever they want.
But no doubt, someone subsidizing something benefits the buyers. We really need to shut down the DoJ. All the money they waste on market manipulation like this hurts consumers, and that's on top of the money they blow in taxes.