A good 101 breakdown of the court case between Apple and Amazon. Sorry, I mean Apple and the Department of Justice, obviously, because what use is government if it’s not for spending public tax dollars on maintaining a private corporate monopoly. Bias? What, me? No. I’m sure an article about this issue from a site called “Mac Observer” would also be entirely neutral and even-handed.

That aside, the argument here is pretty interesting, as it’s essentially asking the courts to weigh up the question of what is worse for consumers: collusion and price fixing, or a (be)low-cost monopoly. Apple’s argument is essentially that Amazon is operating so far under cost in the ebook market, that it prevents other entrants from even starting the race, meaning Apple “had” to take drastic measures to do so. Amazon’s/the DOJ’s argument is that Apple and the major publishers colluded in a price fixing scheme, which is illegal.1 Apple’s retort is that Amazon’s ebook strategy amounts to price dumping, which is also illegal.

In short, this is a bunch of large corporations, plus the government, getting together in the US courts for a giant game of NO U: Antitrust Edition.

What’s better for consumers, you ask? Oh you silly summer child. This isn’t about consumers. Whatever gave you that quaint little notion?

  1. Unless it’s deemed to be used in the purpose of breaking up a monopoly. I think you can see where this is going, yes? []