![[self-portrait]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_aph-FWKPAtw/Sb7dbBwgg0I/AAAAAAAAAAU/xefH94KcXQA/S220/LawShark5204a.jpg)
Scrivener's Error| null | |
|---|---|
|
Scrivener's Error |
Law and reality in publishing (seldom the same thing) from the author's side of the slush pile, with occasional forays into military affairs, censorship and the First Amendment, legal theory, and anything else that strikes me as interesting. |
link to: 20:05 [GMT-8]
... and it's an even more reprehensible misuser of intellectual property than its five coconspirators.
By now, this isn't exactly news, but Macmillan has finally capitulated concerning the so-called "agency model"1 and settled the Department of Justice's price-fixing lawsuit concerning e-books. Neither Macmillan nor its president, John Sargent, has accepted responsibility, though.
I had an old fashioned belief that you should not settle if you have done no wrong. As it turns out, that is indeed old fashioned.... I like to believe that we would win at trial. But outcomes are hard to predict with certainty, particularly in a civil case with a low burden of proof. And so we agreed to settle with no admission of guilt.
"A Message [F]rom John Sargent" (08 Jan 2013) (reparagraphed for clarity). Thus, all five publishers have now settled, leaving only Apple as a defendant.
This is a breathtakingly arrogant refusal to take responsibility for anything. "Low burden of proof" in an antitrust action? After Leegin? Mr Sargent obviously has never seen the preparations for even the simplest of antitrust trials... and although this one does tend toward that simplest end of the spectrum (the referenced e-mails and discussions in the complaint are simple and direct proof of collusion), it certainly is not easy for either side. Perhaps he's forgotten that IBM had (literally) 1,000 lawyers working on its antitrust defense. Perhaps he hasn't looked at his own damned legal bills.
What this really calls to mind, more than anything else, is the aphorism that villains never believe they've done anything wrong — that's what distinguishes them from mere common criminals (and makes them so fit for modern politics). Book publishers are not the equivalent of buggy-whip manufacturers: There will be books for decades to come, if not longer. The commercial publishing business model may be doomed, with its artificially high entry barriers2 and insane consignment system, but that's a different issue. An outside threat to one's comfortable corporate profits, however immediate, is not an excuse for unlawful acts — and there's no question that collusion to set prices is unlawful.3
If Amazon's competition was indeed unfair, Mr Sargent, you and your colleagues should have taken advantage of that "low burden of proof" and filed your own antitrust action. We'll ignore that little complication that your own coconspirator — Apple, the remaining defendant in the current matter — had just been through a shadow-boxing antitrust battle of its own, and was about to embark on its own arrogant Quixotic quest to unfairly prevent competition in its core businesses. Instead, you chose to break the law, and any competent antitrust lawyer would have told you "Do not, do not, DO NOT consult your competitors when setting prices or establishing price models." Perhaps you didn't consult a competent antitrust lawyer; I think it more likely, based on other actions, that you didn't consult a lawyer at all. In any event, you broke the law and refuse to accept the consequences as required by law. The rule of law is imperfect — that's why we have things like "civil disobedience" and a Letter From a Birmingham Jail — but the point is that what we're supposed to do is change an unjust law. It is not to take the law into our own hands when someone else acts to our disadvantage... at least not without being prepared to accept the consequences.
Labels: intellectual property, internet, jurisprudence, politics, publishing
Ritual disclaimer: This blog contains legal commentary, but it is only general commentary. It does not constitute legal advice for your situation. It does not create an attorney-client relationship or any other expectation of confidentiality, nor is it an offer of representation.
All material © 2003–13 except where otherwise indicated. All rights reserved. This blawg does not use the Creative Commons License, although I'm usually pretty good-natured about permissions for attributed reuse.
I approve of no advertising appearing on or through syndication for anything other than the syndication itself; any such advertising violates the limited reuse license implied by voluntarily including syndication code on this blawg, and I do not approve aggregators and syndicators whose page design reflects only an intent to use the reference(s) to this blawg without actually providing the content from this blawg.
Sausages?
Internet link sausages, as frequently appear here, are gathered from uninspected meaty internet products and byproducts via processes you really, really don't want to observe; spiced with my own secret, snarky, sarcastic blend; quite possibly extended with sawdust or other indigestibles; and stuffed into your monitor (instead of either real or artificial casings). They're sort of like "link salad" or "pot pourri" or "miscellaneous musings" (or, for that matter, "making law"), but far more disturbing.
I am not responsible for any changes to your lipid counts or blood pressure from consuming these sausages... nor for your monitor if you insist on covering them with mash or sauce.
| Archives |
|---|
Warped Weft
Now live at the new site. I have arranged some of
the more infamous threads that have appeared here
by unravelling them from the blawg tapestry (and hopefully eliminating some
of the sillier typos). Sometimes, the threads have been slightly reordered for clarity.
Links of Interest
Links open in a new window.
Other Blawgs, Blogs, and Journals
These may be of interest; I do not necessarily agree with opinions expressed in them, although the reasoning and writing are almost always first-rate (and represent a standard seldom, if ever, achieved in "mainstream" journalism). I'm picky, and have eclectic tastes, so don't expect a comprehensive listing.
A blawg is sort of like a blog on legal issues, but usually has a lot more links to outside resources (other than other blogs) than does a typical blog. Scrivener's Error is a blawg, not just a blog. You can find other blawgs at < ? law blogs # >.
Optimized for
at 1024x768.
