@bazzacollins it's a monopsonist, like supermarkets. Risk to consumers is harder to find - which is why regulators don't act.
-
-
Replying to @charlesarthur
@charlesarthur Arguably harming consumer choice with Hachette situation, and the way it forces publishers to offer them best prices.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @bazzacollins
@bazzacollins that would be a hard one to win in court. "They made prices lower, your honour!"1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @charlesarthur
@charlesarthur Only if you buy those books from Amazon. Means higher prices if you buy elsewhere.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @bazzacollins
@bazzacollins@charlesarthur 1. Cut prices to the bone. 2. Obliterate competition. 3. Hike prices. 4. PROFIT!!! Notice the lack of ???.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @CraigGrannell
@CraigGrannell@bazzacollins indeed - except (3) is only theoretical, and courts have problems with those.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @charlesarthur
@charlesarthur@bazzacollins I’m not talking about court cases—I’m talking about what’s almost certainly going to happen.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @CraigGrannell
@CraigGrannell@bazzacollins sure. Question is when/how a court should intervene.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @charlesarthur
@charlesarthur@bazzacollins Issue remains pricing, however. US courts very much of opinion that anything lower somewhere = benefit.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @CraigGrannell
@CraigGrannell@bazzacollins generally, except where "harm to consumer" (inc long-term harm) can be shown. eg DOJ v Microsoft.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
@charlesarthur @CraigGrannell The problem with anti-comp law is regulators never intervene until it's too late. DoJ vs MS a case in point.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.