toggle

AAPL Stock: 101.32 ( + 0.74 )

Printed from http://www.macnn.com

Trial: Amazon demanded same terms from publishers as Apple

updated 02:20 am EDT, Fri June 7, 2013

Revelation raises issues of equal treatment, conflict of interest

Under cross-examination from Apple's lawyers, a key government witness -- Amazon Vice President for Kindle Content Russell Grandinetti -- undermined a key element of the Department of Justice's case against the Cupertino giant by admitting that once it decided to move to the "agency model" under pressure from publishers, it demanded exactly the same terms from the publishers as Apple had required. The deal even included a 30 percent cut and a "most favored nation" (MFN) clause that is the crux of the DOJ's complaint against Apple.

Grandinetti may have further hurt the government's case by refusing to answer a direct question about a meeting he attended in January 2010 -- a week prior to the introduction of the original iPad -- in Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos' Seattle boathouse. He was asked by Apple attorneys to reveal what was said at the meeting, where Amazon executives knew that Apple was planning a big announcement and suspected it would be a tablet that could handle e-books -- thus threatening the reseller's existing Kindle e-reader and e-book business, on which it had a near-total monopoly.

"I'm not comfortable discussing the contents of that meeting," Grandinetti said, dodging the question by revealing that Amazon attorneys were present as well as thus the discussions could be protected under attorney-client privilege. As Fortune reporter John Paczkowski points out, outside observers would "be amazed at how much evidence in this case has been redacted because it contained trade secrets, business data, privileged conversations with attorneys, etc." Grandinetti was not required to answer the question.

Evidence entered into the record, however, showed that one day after the meeting, Amazon began developing its own terms for an "agency model" pricing contract for e-books. Prior to Apple's entry into the market, publishers -- unhappy with Amazon's loss-leader discounting of new e-books, which they felt were cannibalizing printed hardcover sales -- had met with Amazon a few months earlier and threatened to hold back e-book titles for "seven months" (as Grandinetti recalled) to give the hardback versions a chance to sell at their normal price, which was usually in the $26 range. Amazon was selling e-book versions of the same books simultaneously for $10, below the cost it paid for the e-books from publishers under its existing "wholesale" model (in which the reseller sets the price).

When Apple did unveil the iBookstore alongside the iPad, it was the result of weeks of negotiations with publishers that included a move to an "agency model" pricing option -- where publishers set the retail price, while the reseller collects a percentage as a distribution fee -- and an MFN clause that required publishers not to sell the same e-book for less to other retailers than it did to Apple, a move characterized in court as a preventative measure to ensure competitive viability. The MFN clause is at the core of what the DOJ charges was illegal price-fixing by Apple, intended to set the average price of e-books higher to the detriment of consumers.

In fact, the average price of e-books has fallen since the widespread implementation of the "agency model," which Amazon has since adopted. New releases, however, did increase in price from Amazon's previous cut-rate pricing -- leading the DOJ to charge Apple with causing consumers to pay "hundreds of millions of dollars more" but which Apple counters was the only way to keep the publishers solvent and the market stable, which allowed for competitors (not just Apple) to enter.

The terms of Amazon's own "agency" agreement are essentially identical to Apple's terms, including the 30 percent commission, an MFN clause, and -- most importantly to Amazon -- a guarantee that it would get access to e-books on the same day that the print versions were released. In an email shown in court, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos called the threat that publishers might withhold e-book titles for a period to bolster print sales -- again, before Apple had even entered the market -- "an absolute declaration of war." Amazon was already known and feared by publishers for bullying retaliation and threats when publishers balked at its terms, but in fact when Apple introduced the iPad four of the (then) big six publishers were already "windowing" their latest releases.

The fact that Apple's iBookstore had no such threat against it -- since publishers themselves were setting the prices under Apple's model -- forced Amazon to abandon the "wholesale" model and use the agency model. Just a day after the iPad was announced, it began negotiating with publishers for an "agency" agreement.

The revelation has raised the question: if the "most favored nation" clause in Apple's contract was the root that moved the entire e-book industry to "agency" pricing and raised e-book prices unfairly -- as the DOJ argues -- why was it legal for Amazon to ask for the exactly the same terms, particularly when the threat came not from Apple, but from the publishers, before Apple entered the market?

During cross examination, Grandinetti admitted that Amazon designed its agency terms to be identical to Apple's in order to protect its business. He said Amazon wanted the "level playing field" with other e-book retailers -- the exact same wording that Apple has used to defend why it pursued the "agency" pricing model in the first place, and the same wording publishers used as to why they were unhappy with Amazon's discounting of the suggested retail price of new e-books. Amazon's practice not only devalued the worth of the e-book versions, the publishers felt, but also undercut what was at the time their main source of income: printed book sales.

Amazon agreed to the agency model to prevent "windowing" e-book releases from publishers who were retaliating for Amazon's abusive and monopolistic behavior, Apple attorneys told the court. Like Apple, Amazon -- which at the time had 90 percent share of the e-book market -- didn't want to be competitively disadvantaged going forward, and agreed to new terms in order to end what Grandinetti called "discrimination" by the publishers.




by MacNN Staff

toggle

Comments

  1. Inkling

    Dedicated MacNNer

    Joined: 07-25-06

    Great article and one that raises the question we should all be asking. Why isn't Amazon being sued by the DOJ? If Apple's adoption of agency pricing was a crime when it had virtually 0% of the ebook market (the deals were made before the iPad's release), then why wasn't Amazon engaging in criminal activity when it insisted on almost identical contracts and had some 90% of the ebook market?

    For those not in the know, this is precisely how Chicago Machine politics work. Pay the right people and you not only get spared legal harassment, your competitors, innocent though they might be, feel the wrath of the machine. And remember, the key lies in paying precisely the right people. Having Al Gore on Apple's board matters little. He's not one of those in charge.

    And I might add that, thus far, I'm quite impressed with how Apple's lawyers are handing this. The key to success as a lawyer is to never ask a question whose answer you don't already know and that won't favor your client. Apple's lawyers are getting answers that aren't making either Amazon or the DOJ look good. I only wonder if that will be enough to sway a judge who's already rather foolishly made her bias on this dispute known. If it isn't, Apple will almost certainly appeal.

    Also, keep in mind that, from Day One, the DOJ's core strategy has rested on the fact that they have far more money to spend that even the largest of publishers. Publishing doesn't have a profit margin--for every bestseller, there are about six books that lose money. With Apple's very deep pockets, the DOJ has met their match. Apple can meet them dollar for dollar and then some.

  1. The Vicar

    Junior Member

    Joined: 07-01-09

    Why "Chicago Machine" politics? This is how politics works, period. What, did you think Washington D.C. didn't have a series of kickbacks in place? Look at the way aspartame (Nutri-Sweet) was rushed through FDA approval under Reagan because a Republican-owned company owned the patent, and the way the FDA banned stevia at the same time on the basis of one anonymous and uninvestigated complaint, contrary to their own official rules on how bans are supposed to work. Now the patent on aspartame has run out, and suddenly the FDA has decided it needs to reinvestigate the various issues which were reported in the 1980s, while stevia is suddenly okay again. (Note that I'm not saying there is necessarily anything wrong with aspartame -- but there was no serious investigate of claims made at the time, which SHOULD have triggered some really searching study.)

Login Here

Not a member of the MacNN forums? Register now for free.

toggle

Network Headlines

toggle

Most Popular

MacNN Sponsor

Recent Reviews

Life n Soul 8 Driver Bluetooth headphones

When it comes to music on the go, consumers generally have some options to consider when looking for the best experience. While Blueto ...

Pure Jongo T2 wireless speaker

Multi-room audio compatibility is a key metric for wireless sound systems these days. The entry cost into a house-spanning system can ...

Logitech Z213 multimedia speakers

Desktop computer speakers sit in a weird area of limbo: many consumers have forgone the era of desktop listening for the privacy and v ...

toggle

Most Commented