Comments on: GOOD thing for e-books: Amazon MIGHT draw closer antitrust scrutiny, due to new Justice policy http://www.teleread.com/ebooks/good-thing-for-e-books-amazon-might-draw-closer-antitrust-scrutiny-due-to-new-justice-policy/ News & views on e-books, libraries, publishing and related topics Wed, 15 Feb 2012 20:23:39 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Mike Perry http://www.teleread.com/ebooks/good-thing-for-e-books-amazon-might-draw-closer-antitrust-scrutiny-due-to-new-justice-policy/comment-page-1/#comment-1055820 Mike Perry Tue, 12 May 2009 03:45:51 +0000 http://www.teleread.org/2009/05/11/good-thing-for-e-books-amazon-might-draw-closer-antitrust-scrutiny-due-to-new-justice-policy/#comment-1055820 Years ago, I was reading in a microfilm collection some of the letters between Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, and her wealthy husband. Some of his financial transactions had triggered a IRS investigation in New York state, where she was recovering from a surgery. To avoid answering their questions, he was faking illness and pretending to be confined to their Phoenix home, even while slipping in and out of New York. Friends in high places, he mentioned in one letter, had told him that cash slipped to the right pockets high in FDR's Treasury Department could make the investigation go away. It's never said in their letters since they were reunited and didn't need to write, but the investigation did go away. You're forgetting that Obama has brought Chicago-style politics to our capitol. He spent twenty-years in the city's politics without ruffling the feathers of a single one of the city's many crooks, much less cleaning up anything. He's not going to clean up business in this country. He's conducting the initial shakedown operations, a lot of bluster, a lot of threats at anyone with deep pockets. A bit of money in the right pockets, and all those nasty little anti-trust investigations will go away. Some more money into his 2012 campaign chest, and he will be saying nice things about a company's executives. The ones that get pursued will be the ones who don't give, the honest ones. The first rule of politics: If you want to know what a candidate will do, look at his past and at his friends. You didn't. That's why you believed in "Hope and Change," and that's why you're headed for a fall. Years ago, I was reading in a microfilm collection some of the letters between Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, and her wealthy husband. Some of his financial transactions had triggered a IRS investigation in New York state, where she was recovering from a surgery. To avoid answering their questions, he was faking illness and pretending to be confined to their Phoenix home, even while slipping in and out of New York. Friends in high places, he mentioned in one letter, had told him that cash slipped to the right pockets high in FDR’s Treasury Department could make the investigation go away. It’s never said in their letters since they were reunited and didn’t need to write, but the investigation did go away.

You’re forgetting that Obama has brought Chicago-style politics to our capitol. He spent twenty-years in the city’s politics without ruffling the feathers of a single one of the city’s many crooks, much less cleaning up anything. He’s not going to clean up business in this country. He’s conducting the initial shakedown operations, a lot of bluster, a lot of threats at anyone with deep pockets. A bit of money in the right pockets, and all those nasty little anti-trust investigations will go away. Some more money into his 2012 campaign chest, and he will be saying nice things about a company’s executives. The ones that get pursued will be the ones who don’t give, the honest ones.

The first rule of politics: If you want to know what a candidate will do, look at his past and at his friends. You didn’t. That’s why you believed in “Hope and Change,” and that’s why you’re headed for a fall.

]]> By: Michael Harris http://www.teleread.com/ebooks/good-thing-for-e-books-amazon-might-draw-closer-antitrust-scrutiny-due-to-new-justice-policy/comment-page-1/#comment-1055580 Michael Harris Mon, 11 May 2009 16:54:16 +0000 http://www.teleread.org/2009/05/11/good-thing-for-e-books-amazon-might-draw-closer-antitrust-scrutiny-due-to-new-justice-policy/#comment-1055580 David, in many ways we agree, but in this may be one where we agree to respect each others differences :). In fact, I do agree with most of your points: I wish that Amazon would embrace a DRM-free approach, I wish that they would consider a more open pub standard, I'm not happy to hear the experiences of small publishers and writers. However, I don't agree that it should be an anti-trust concern. In the spirit of free competition, I believe that companies should be able to do things that I don't agree with. They can make mistakes and surprise me with their ideas. We know that Barnes and Noble is entering the e-reading/e-book market. If Amazon was perfect, then Barnes and Noble might be doomed to failure with its late market entry. As it is, they have the opportunity to offer a compelling service that one-ups Amazon. Furthermore, I would argue that Amazon, and to a lesser extent Sony, have really energized the market. Without them, our next best hope would be ebooks on the iPhone. Let's say that we had placed pre-conditions on the market for Amazon: only DRM-free; only open formats; etcetera. Would they have still entered the market? I don't know, but it would certainly have changed what they saw as their business case. I'm happy that they are in the market; however flawed their entry has been. My hope is that competition from B&N, Sony, iPhone, and small players such as Baen, Jetbook, and Astak show them some opportunities to grow their market. However, I'm not so much in favor of government regulation to achieve these ends. I don't know the perfect answer and I'm more excited by the chance for open markets to muddle their way to a better answer (I know that it seems to take an excruciating long time) than I am about regulatory action to figure out the best possible option and dictate that option for everyone. It's not that I think that government decisions are inherently bad. I believe that markets are like living laboratories. Every player tries small experiments and the market rewards the most successful. On the other hand, government fiat only allows one view of the world. It forgoes the potential power of diversity of viewpoints and substitutes the viewpoint of one entity. Michael David, in many ways we agree, but in this may be one where we agree to respect each others differences :) .

In fact, I do agree with most of your points: I wish that Amazon would embrace a DRM-free approach, I wish that they would consider a more open pub standard, I’m not happy to hear the experiences of small publishers and writers.

However, I don’t agree that it should be an anti-trust concern. In the spirit of free competition, I believe that companies should be able to do things that I don’t agree with. They can make mistakes and surprise me with their ideas.

We know that Barnes and Noble is entering the e-reading/e-book market. If Amazon was perfect, then Barnes and Noble might be doomed to failure with its late market entry. As it is, they have the opportunity to offer a compelling service that one-ups Amazon.

Furthermore, I would argue that Amazon, and to a lesser extent Sony, have really energized the market. Without them, our next best hope would be ebooks on the iPhone. Let’s say that we had placed pre-conditions on the market for Amazon: only DRM-free; only open formats; etcetera. Would they have still entered the market? I don’t know, but it would certainly have changed what they saw as their business case.

I’m happy that they are in the market; however flawed their entry has been. My hope is that competition from B&N, Sony, iPhone, and small players such as Baen, Jetbook, and Astak show them some opportunities to grow their market.

However, I’m not so much in favor of government regulation to achieve these ends. I don’t know the perfect answer and I’m more excited by the chance for open markets to muddle their way to a better answer (I know that it seems to take an excruciating long time) than I am about regulatory action to figure out the best possible option and dictate that option for everyone.

It’s not that I think that government decisions are inherently bad. I believe that markets are like living laboratories. Every player tries small experiments and the market rewards the most successful. On the other hand, government fiat only allows one view of the world. It forgoes the potential power of diversity of viewpoints and substitutes the viewpoint of one entity.

Michael

]]>