Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Businesses The Courts Apple

Judge Thinks Apple Will Lose E-Book Price-Fixing Case 150

Posted by Soulskill
from the who-is-she-to-judge?-oh-right dept.
Nerval's Lobster writes "Apple could face a difficult time winning its court case against the U.S. Department of Justice over e-book pricing, according to the federal judge overseeing the trial. 'I believe that the government will be able to show at trial direct evidence that Apple knowingly participated in and facilitated a conspiracy to raise prices of e-books,' U.S. District Judge Denise Cote said during a May 23 pretrial hearing, according to Reuters, 'and that the circumstantial evidence in this case, including the terms of the agreements, will confirm that.' Apple's legal counsel is a bit perturbed over her comments. 'We strongly disagree with the court's preliminary statements about the case today,' Apple lawyer Orin Snyder wrote in a statement also reprinted by Reuters. The Justice Department has asserted that Apple, along with those publishers, conspired to raise retail e-book prices in tandem 'and eliminate price competition, substantially increasing prices paid by consumers.' Apple battles Amazon in the e-book space, with the latter company achieving great success over the past few years by driving down the price of e-books and Kindle e-readers; while Apple co-founder insisted in emails to News Corp executive James Murdoch (son of Rupert Murdoch), that Amazon's pricing was ultimately unsustainable, the online retailer shows no signs of flagging with regard to its publishing-industry clout."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Judge Thinks Apple Will Lose E-Book Price-Fixing Case

Comments Filter:
  • Good (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Northern Pike (308389) on Friday May 24, 2013 @01:52PM (#43814983)

    E-book pricing is a sham.

    • Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)

      by afidel (530433) on Friday May 24, 2013 @02:03PM (#43815095)

      Yes, yes it is. When it costs more to buy the ebook than it does to buy a 500 page printed document you know something is fundamentally wrong.

      • Re:Good (Score:5, Interesting)

        by rahvin112 (446269) on Friday May 24, 2013 @02:17PM (#43815241)

        Why do you think every publisher ran for the exits and settled with the Feds? This is a slam dunk case, they have the emails, the meeting notes, they know exactly what happened and it was industry collusion and price fixing under the federal laws. Apple was stupid or arrogant to take this to court. I personally hope the government takes them for several billion. I personally probably paid more than $100 extra because of this price fixing and I've wanted this prosecution from the day the price fixing was publicized.

        As you said, you know the market is broken when the digital price is higher than the same thing printed on dead tree shipped to your door. I personally believe there should be people in jail for what happened here. This illegal price fixing cost the public Billions.

        • Re:Good (Score:5, Interesting)

          by ShanghaiBill (739463) * on Friday May 24, 2013 @02:42PM (#43815523)

          I personally believe there should be people in jail for what happened here.

          I disagree. Jail is expensive and wasteful. It should not be used as a default punishment for non-violent crimes. People should only be incarcerated if they are a physical danger to other people. America already imprisons far more of its population than any other country. We should learn from the rest of the world. Singapore is a good example. If Tim Cook received ten lashes on the bare buttocks with an alcohol soaked raton rod, that would be more than sufficient deterrent, and would be far more cost effective for the taxpayers.

          • by Anonymous Coward

            If Tim Cook received ten lashes on the bare buttocks with an alcohol soaked raton rod, that would be more than sufficient deterrent, and would be far more cost effective for the taxpayers.

            Cost effective? The taxpayers could clean up on pay-per-view!

            • by mill3d (1647417)
              "And now, for this week's spank the CEO sponsored by BigRod (tm)..!"

              Can't wait for that shit.
          • Re: (Score:1, Funny)

            by Anonymous Coward

            I personally think a more fitting punishment would be to force these thieves to personally give free money to poor people.

            Unfortunately, given the constitutional protection against "cruel and unusual punishment," your ten lashes are more likely.

          • You are a fool, with foolish opinions. Corporal Punishment is NEVER the answer to handling an adult. We call that sort of justice cruel and unusual for a reason. What you suggest is blatantly illegal in the United States, and rightly so.
            • Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)

              by ShanghaiBill (739463) * on Friday May 24, 2013 @06:31PM (#43817321)

              We call that sort of justice cruel and unusual for a reason.

              A few lashes with a raton cane is painful, but I think most people would consider it less cruel than going to jail for a couple years. Many people in jail have families, which often fall apart once "dad" is gone, resulting in another generation of criminals. People sentenced to longer sentences are more likely to be recidivist than people receiving shorter sentences for similar crimes. Jail is appropriate for physically violent people, but for others it is counter-productive.

              If Tim Cook goes to jail, that will cost the taxpayers more than $40k in direct expenses, and cost millions more by removing a smart and capable executive from productive activity. If he gets ten lashes on the buttocks instead, he can be back at work the next day, as long as he has a standing desk [wikipedia.org].

              What you suggest is blatantly illegal in the United States, and rightly so.

              Well, it certainly isn't because of public opposition. When an American citizen was sentenced to caning [wikipedia.org] in Singapore for vandalizing cars, Singapore's ambassador went on TV to defend the sentence, and the response from Americans was overwhelmingly in favor of the sentence. Singapore has a far lower crime rate than America. The caning leaves welts, but does not break the skin. Between lashes, it is dipped in alcohol to both sterilize and soften the cane.

              If you had a choice of spending a year in jail, or a few lashes, which would you prefer? Which would stick in your memory better the next time you thought about committing a crime?

              • It doesnt matter what I or the people who supported Singaporean punishment prefer, as long as the 8th stands, its illegal. You base part of your argument on the economics of putting Tim Cook in jail, which has no place in the discussion of JUSTICE. You lost any moral high ground at this point.
                • Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)

                  by ShanghaiBill (739463) * on Friday May 24, 2013 @06:59PM (#43817567)

                  It doesnt matter what I or the people who supported Singaporean punishment prefer, as long as the 8th stands, its illegal.

                  The 8th amendment does not ban corporal punishment. It bans "cruel and unusual" punishment. Caning would not be unusual if it was adopted as a standard sentence, and it should not be considered "cruel" if the canee prefers it over incarceration.

                  You lost any moral high ground at this point.

                  Since under current law, DEATH is considered an acceptable and non-cruel sentence, I don't think advocating spanking puts me very low on the moral slope.

              • by TubeSteak (669689)

                If Tim Cook goes to jail, that will cost the taxpayers more than $40k in direct expenses, and cost millions more by removing a smart and capable executive from productive activity.

                If by productive activity, you mean "presiding over price fixing," then I'm perfectly okay with removing him from productive activity.
                There isn't nearly enough personal culpability for corporate criminals.

                Without google-ing, name [arbitrary number] of major white collar cases in the last [arbitrary number of years].
                You'd think with the massive financial destruction that's been ongoing since 2007, there would be a few highly notable jailings.

              • by Xest (935314)

                "Singapore has a far lower crime rate than America."

                What an utterly disingenuous argument. It also has a completely different culture. Singapore is by and large a police state where you can be charged $5000 and be given a year in jail simply for importing chewing gum or porn into the country. Caning pretty much always goes hand in hand with jail time there as a punishment for crime so your assertion that it's use as a rehabilitative measure separate from jail is false given that fact.

                Saudi Arabia also has l

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          Why do you think every publisher ran for the exits and settled with the Feds? This is a slam dunk case, they have the emails, the meeting notes, they know exactly what happened and it was industry collusion and price fixing under the federal laws

          Probably because from Apple's perspective, all Apple did was let the publishers set their own book prices. That's basically what this case is about. On Amazon, Amazon set the book prices, and Apple said to the publishers they could come to the iBooks store and set their own prices, and get out from under Amazon's thumb. That sort of collusion doesn't seem illegal (but IANAL.)

          Publishers may have set prices higher than dead tree books, which is a shame, but also totally not illegal itself.

          • MSRP (Score:4, Informative)

            by ZombieBraintrust (1685608) on Friday May 24, 2013 @03:05PM (#43815763)

            Probably because from Apple's perspective, all Apple did was let the publishers set their own book prices.

            If you go open a physical book and look at the inside cover you will see something like the following: MSRP $19.99
            MSRP stands for Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Price. It is a suggested price. The seller can sell below this. (stores will slap a 30% off sticker on the book) Legally, suggesting a price is different than enforcing a price with a contract. They don't set prices on physical books because there is case law saying that is illegal. Basically this issue has already been through the courts.

            • Re:MSRP (Score:4, Interesting)

              by ShanghaiBill (739463) * on Friday May 24, 2013 @04:28PM (#43816403)

              there is case law saying that is illegal.

              There is more than just case law. Price fixing by a manufacturer is specifically prohibited by Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act [wikipedia.org]. Resellers can charge any amount they want, including giving a product away for free (maybe as a promotion) and the manufacturer cannot retaliate in any way.

              During the 1990s I worked for a company that sold CDROMs containing free software, and we were occasionally threatened with legal action by authors of these programs, claiming that the software had to be given away free, and charging for it was illegal. We explained to them that they could recommend their program be given away free, but by trying to coerce us into setting the price, even to zero, they were committing a crime.

              • including giving a product away for free (maybe as a promotion) and the manufacturer cannot retaliate in any way.

                I'm not disagreeing with you but I'm reminded of this [slashdot.org].

            • by chrismcb (983081)

              . It is a suggested price. The seller can sell below this.

              You do know for e-books the seller could NOT sell below the "suggested" price. Hence this lawsuit.

          • Re:Good (Score:4, Informative)

            by Rockoon (1252108) on Friday May 24, 2013 @03:06PM (#43815765)

            Probably because from Apple's perspective, all Apple did was let the publishers set their own book prices.

            Wrong. Part of the agreement with Apple was that the publishers would also not sell anywhere else for less than they do in Apples market.

            • by mevets (322601)

              Is this any different from a Most Favoured Customer clause? That is a very common instrument in vendor agreements. Is it somehow different in wholesale agreements?

              • by gl4ss (559668)

                Is this any different from a Most Favoured Customer clause? That is a very common instrument in vendor agreements. Is it somehow different in wholesale agreements?

                well no.. but the case is apparently more about how apple worked towards that end and organized the collusion between the publishers to not sell under a price X anywhere.

              • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

                by Anonymous Coward

                Yes what they did is significantly different from the common 'most favored' clause: The Apple agreement allowed the publisher to set the RETAIL price to $X of which 30% would go to the retailer (apple, amazon etc).Usually the 'most favored clause' will set the buy price for the retailer/distributor, after which time they can sell it at any profit margin they wish.

                The Apple/Publisher collusion specifically prevented anyone to undercut the itunes store on ebooks, preventing the retailer from using certain boo

          • Re:Good (Score:5, Interesting)

            by icebike (68054) on Friday May 24, 2013 @05:32PM (#43816875)

            Probably because from Apple's perspective, all Apple did was let the publishers set their own book prices. That's basically what this case is about.

            No, continue your reading and research. This is FAR from all the case is about. Apple entered into a collusion with the publishers (who have all ran for the exits) to fix the price of e-books across the entire industry, and to trash the first sale doctrine in the process by forcing every reseller to be the Agent of the publisher. [macstories.net]

            There is no way this could have been accomplished previously. Apple did this to raise margins because they wanted and demanded 30% on everything sold thru the iTunes store, but there was not 30% to be had with Amazon working on much slimmer margins. The only way this could be pulled off was for all publishers to simultaneously force all resellers to Agency terms. That required one big (new) reseller with nothing to lose, to agree to it, so that the publishers could preserve the e-book market, and force the smaller resellers to toe the line.

            And while we like to blame Cook, it was really Jobs who formed this conspiracy.

            But the way this lawsuit works the last to agree holds the largest bag. And Apple was too proud to admit its part in this collusion, and as a result they are going to pay up big. Very Big.

        • I personally probably paid more than $100 extra because of this price fixing ... As you said, you know the market is broken when the digital price is higher than the same thing printed on dead tree shipped to your door.

          Of course, you realize that you could have simply bought those dead-tree versions and saved yourself that $100, right?

          • A dead tree book and an ebook are not equivalent on many levels. Each has unique properties the other does not.
            • A dead tree book and an ebook are not equivalent on many levels. Each has unique properties the other does not.

              Possibly, but they share the most important properties for a book, like the words ... :-) The question is whether the "unique" properties of an e vs paper book are worth the extra $100 the parent mentioned. My guess is, for most (set of) books, probably not.

          • by neonKow (1239288)

            That doesn't make it not price fixing. If the only way to get the digital versions is to pay $100 more, and clearly it doesn't cost the publishers that amount to make the books (since the dead-tree versions somehow sell for less), it's still price fixing.

            • That doesn't make it not price fixing. If the only way to get the digital versions is to pay $100 more, and clearly it doesn't cost the publishers that amount to make the books (since the dead-tree versions somehow sell for less), it's still price fixing.

              True. I wasn't saying the game isn't rigged; I was saying he doesn't have to play. No one *forced* him to buy a more expensive e-book version instead of a paper one... (Somehow, that got modded "Troll")

          • by chrismcb (983081)

            Of course, you realize that you could have simply bought those dead-tree versions and saved yourself that $100, right?

            Prior to Apple coming along many ebooks were in the $5 range. After apple came along, the ebook prices were the same or higher than the mass market price (typically 8 or 13)...

        • by trout007 (975317)

          You were the one that decided to buy at that price. How is anyone responsible but you? I'll sell you the chair I'm sitting in for $10,000. If you are stupid enough to buy it how is that my fault?

          • by nelk (923574)

            You were the one that decided to buy at that price. How is anyone responsible but you? I'll sell you the chair I'm sitting in for $10,000. If you are stupid enough to buy it how is that my fault?

            One person/company offering a product at a given price point, you're okay. Colluding with the rest of the chair industry to ensure that ALL chairs cost $10,000, not so much.

        • I imagine that Apple knows they will probably lose - but want to take the "we're innocent" approach. Even if they lose, the Apple Faithful will be able to continue to Believe by deluding themselves that Apple was unfairly dealt with by the feds (i.e. choosing to believe that either Apple was "singled out" (which is wrong - they just didn't settle, while the other players did) or just outright believing Apple was innocent).

          If Apple openly says, "yes, we tried to screw customers", this hurts their image far
      • by CastrTroy (595695)
        I'm not so sure. I can buy 500 page printed books from the dollar store (total cost to me, $1). A paper book actually costs very little to produce, even when you count in distribution and retail space, the price is pretty minimal. EBooks aren't expensive, but the cost of them isn't 0 either. I would probably say that the fixed costs for both ebooks and paper books is probably about the same, and both are probably under $1.
        • by icebike (68054)

          I would probably say that the fixed costs for both ebooks and paper books is probably about the same, and both are probably under $1.

          You are close to being right, except you hand waive away distribution and shipping, and stocking costs of dead tree books, which the publisher does not actually pay for. That component costs way more than electronic distribution.

          But there is also fiction in the so called production costs of ebooks vs paper books. Yes they both require editing. But that editing is done exactly once. You don't edit again when an ebook is released.

          And building an ebook takes LESS time than setting up a press run, (its lite

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        The biggest myth with capitalism is that pricing has ANYTHING to do with costs. It sets a floor under which a company cannot be profitable, but it does nothing to dictate how much things cost above that. Capitalism is about profit. Specifically, maximizing it. Companies and greedy people will set their prices as high as they possibly can in order to maximize profit. Cost has nothing to do with that.

        Therefore, the cost of an E-book is whatever they can get you to pay for it. Just like the cost of an paperb

        • by 0123456 (636235)

          The biggest myth with capitalism is that pricing has ANYTHING to do with costs.

          That 'myth' is nothing to do with capitalism, it's basically the labour theory of value, which people were laughing at even when Marx was promoting it in the 19th century. Of course sane companies charge what their customers are willing to pay, in order to maximize profits.

        • Straw man (Score:5, Informative)

          by ZombieBraintrust (1685608) on Friday May 24, 2013 @04:08PM (#43816243)

          Capitalism is about profit. Specifically, maximizing it.

          That is a nice Straw man you got there. Setting your prices as high as possible is not the same as setting your prices to maximize profit. Lowering prices can lead to more sales resulting in more profit. Free Market Capitalism is about letting supply and demand dictate where the price will be. Apple has attempted to abuse contract law to have the government enforce a price control. Anti Trust laws are about enforcing Free Market Capitalism. They are there prevent control of supply and to prevent price manipulation. What Apple is pushing is Crony Capitalism.

          • by Carewolf (581105)

            It is not a straw man, and you basically agree with the parent post. Companies work to maximize profit, which means setting prices as high as possible as long as it doesn't hurt sales too much (maximize sales*price). This can lead to prices especially in the electronic business that has absolutely nothing to do with cost (most electronics are dirt cheap to make), but when what customers find reasonable is set by what the production cost is, the cost will generally have to follow production cost, or at least

            • but when what customers find reasonable is set by what the production cost is

              I don't agree with the above statement. Most of the time customers have no idea what the production cost is. Customers base their decisions about price based on utility and competition. If they can get the same effect with something cheaper then the price is too high. New patent protected electronics can have a high price because of the artificial scarcity imposed by the patent. Or the price is high because the customer is looking for a status symbol. They are spending money on status not utility.

      • "you know something is fundamentally wrong"

        And that wrong thing is your understanding of microeconomics.

  • by WGFCrafty (1062506) on Friday May 24, 2013 @01:53PM (#43814987)

    Can't prejudice such as this get Apple's case thrown out?

    • by gurps_npc (621217) on Friday May 24, 2013 @02:02PM (#43815089) Homepage
      No. The judge was asked to rule on the strength of a case, given current evidence. He did so.

      Such rulings often determine things such as will bail be required, or in corporate cases, whether or not preliminary injunctions are appropriate.

      • by KGIII (973947)

        She... You insensitive clod.

      • No. The judge was asked to rule on the strength of a case, given current evidence. He did so.

        Is that so? Not according to TFA, it was "an unusual move before a trial", and "that she had read only some of the evidence so far".

    • by DragonWriter (970822) on Friday May 24, 2013 @02:45PM (#43815547)

      Can't prejudice such as this get Apple's case thrown out?

      Prejudice is opinion formed independently and prior to evidence being presented. This is a comment about how things stand based on the evidence that has been presented, which is not, in any way, shape, or form, prejudice. Its just "judice", which, you know, is what judges do.

    • "Can't prejudice such as this get Apple's case thrown out?"

      Quite possibly, which leads me to ask a question.

      If I wanted to manipulate the market, in terms of Apple stock, how would I best go about doing that to my own profit?

      Well, If I am an influential Federal Judge, I can make public statements regarding a lawsuit that appear to weaken Apple and wait for stocks to drop in value and snatch them up, selling them when Apple stocks go back up when everyone realizes that Apple was actually going to benefit gre

    • by icebike (68054)

      Can't prejudice such as this get Apple's case thrown out?

      Apparently not, much to my dismay.

      Judge Koh said that it was clear that Samsung violated Apple Patents with the Samsung tablet, yet that was the ONE device that the biased jury found not to violate ANY patents.

      She has previously issued a Ban on its importation along with her ill advised pronouncements.

      (Don't think Samsung is so dumb they won't bring this up on Appeal).

  • by Anonymous Coward

    We merely got the main players together to allow them to conspire to fix pricing via our market, thus screwing other outlets like Amazon.

    Get over it,
    Steve

  • by boorack (1345877) on Friday May 24, 2013 @02:07PM (#43815151)
    In few short years (three, maybe four) they went from being innovative company creating groundbreaking products to being a pain in the ass. Now they represent the worst aspects of corporate America: from tax evasion to legal system abuses to price fixing to screwing up their own customers on every possible occasion. With their innovation pace fading and their products increasingly lagging behind competitors. Maybe it's time to fire their management and hire some less parasitic, more innovative CEO ?
    • by Black Parrot (19622) on Friday May 24, 2013 @02:22PM (#43815313)

      Jon Stewart had a comment along these lines back when the police raided someone's residence over the loose iPhone prototype (or whatever it was):

      "What happened? Bill Gates is curing AIDS in Africa, and Steve Jobs is kicking down people's doors in Palo Alto!"

      It used to be so simple to keep track of who was the good guys and who was the bad guys...

    • by Anonymous Coward

      In few short years (three, maybe four) they went from being innovative company creating groundbreaking products to being a pain in the ass. Now they represent the worst aspects of corporate America: from tax evasion to legal system abuses to price fixing to screwing up their own customers on every possible occasion. With their innovation pace fading and their products increasingly lagging behind competitors. Maybe it's time to fire their management and hire some less parasitic, more innovative CEO ?

      Ah, who are you referring to here? I'm sorry I can't quite tell by the tax-dodging, customer-screwing accusations if you're referring to Microsoft, Facebook, Apple, or the other 873 companies who do this.

      And unless that innovation you speak of is to not be a greedy fuck, pay an honest share of taxes, charge a fair price to obtain a reasonable profit, all without bowing to the elitist cocksuckers representing the Board demanding millions, nothing will change.

    • by Ryanrule (1657199)

      Well, it was obvious as shit when they put a supply chain guy in charge. The epitome of bean counter. Financial safe choice, but shows a complete lack of balls. Jobs is to blame.

  • A judge without a pro-Apple bias! It's a miracle. Hey, maybe Samsung should counter-sue for more patent violations with this guy so they might actually get a fair trial for once.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    It's amazing how many people assume that since it's a judge it must be a man. If you read the summery her name is Denise and they say in the summery " Apple's legal counsel is a bit perturbed over her comments"

  • If Apples was at $700 a share, then they win all their cases, but when they lost $300 in value for a share, they are easy pickings to be rejected.

    No judge want's to tell the world's highest valued company they are wrong, until they are no longer the highest valued company.

  • amazon has won
    ibooks is crap, and that's saying it as an ipad owner
    the ibook store is crap as well. pain in the a$$ to use
    no web book reader like the kindle
    amazon is cheaper and amazon has kindle singles and now you can write your own fan fiction

    • by geekmux (1040042)

      amazon has won ibooks is crap, and that's saying it as an ipad owner the ibook store is crap as well. pain in the a$$ to use no web book reader like the kindle amazon is cheaper and amazon has kindle singles and now you can write your own fan fiction

      I'll believe the ebook war is finally over when I'm not paying $250 for a college textbook. Until then, save your celebrations, because there are still millions of book buyers out there getting screwed exponentially.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        I once had a college class with an 80 page textbook that cost 200 dollars. Every 5th page or so was a full of blanks lines for a required "journal" entry. Every 20th page was a quiz or test which had to be torn out and handed in. Professor was the books author.

      • by CastrTroy (595695)
        The reason that college textbooks are so expensive is because of many reasons.

        Nobody wants to write them
        The market is actually quite small
        People have no attachment to the books

        If you think college texts are so expensive, go and write your own, and sell it to all the universities. There's not much stopping you from doing this. But writing text books is boring. Nobody does it just for a couple extra bucks because it's fun. And it's definitely not that easy. You also won't get any book signing deals,
    • amazon has won

      Amazon has done no such think, what is the most sick part of this whole thing is the illusion of sides. I hate what Apple did, Someone needs to go to jail...I would say Steve Jobs if he wasn't dead. And Apple banned from selling products in the US. What should be happening is a serious look at why books should be locked to a device(Any Device). The fact is Amazon is offering best value right now, but the battle should be to preserve some kind of portability.

  • I fail to see the victim here. Nobody has to buy an e-book. They can try to fix the price they will sell an e-book at all they want. It requires a buyer to agree to that price for a sale to take place.

    • by mu51c10rd (187182)

      Easy. Would you like all the cell phone carriers to fix the price (removing competition) for service and phones? How about the big farms with the price of soybeans or corn? How about clothing manufacturers? Car manufacturers? Think of a world with zero competition between companies on price...and you will realize why price fixing is a bad idea.

  • by ronmon (95471) on Friday May 24, 2013 @06:02PM (#43817065)

    When ebooks first became available I thought that this was a great opportunity to have access to more of them for a cheaper price. After all, the costs of printing and distributing them is reduced to practically zero. Granted, there are still editing and some other minor costs, but very little in the scheme of things. But before I actually purchased an ebook reader I watched the costs of the books for a while. Quickly it became clear that a dead tree version was almost always cheaper than the ebook version and once I had it, nobody could take it away on a whim or technicality. Suffice it to say that I never bought an ebook or a reader, but I still buy, read and enjoy plenty of great books.

    Screw you, you greedy bastards.

    • by takshaka (15297)

      When ebooks first became available I thought that this was a great opportunity to have access to more of them for a cheaper price.

      I won't be satisfied with ebook prices until I can get an epub for the price of its used physical counterpart. I rarely buy new dead tree books and lament that my money doesn't find its way to the author when I buy used books. My conscience doesn't bother me enough to buy one new book instead of several used ones, of course, but I would love to be able to spend the same amount while actually supporting my favorite authors.

      With no legitimate electronic equivalent of a used book, and with publishers and autho

      • by KGIII (973947)

        Wasn't there some sort of lawsuit in the works (I have no idea of its success, failure, or whatnot) that had the goal of suing to be able to resell used eBooks? I could have sworn there was an article on Slashdot a number of years ago concerning this. I am not sure but I think the person/people were attempting to use the First Sale Doctrine as a way to ensure that they could sell their "used" digital versions after they were done with them just like you can sell your dead tree copies of books?

        With the bulls

Someday your prints will come. -- Kodak

Working...