Amazon ‘Predatory’ and ‘Monopolist’ According to Penguin, Macmillan

Documents filed by publishers Penguin and Macmillan in federal court in Manhattan on Tuesday call Amazon “predatory” and a “monopolist” and assert that the government’s lawsuit alleging a price-fixing scheme between the publisher and Apple is flimsy and based on scattered circumstantial evidence, according to the New York Times.

The harsh rhetoric was part of a 76-page response from Penguin and a 26-page response from Macmillan to the Department of Justice’s lawsuit. Despite not being an official part of the lawsuit, Amazon was named prominently in the responses and labeled as the real enemy of competition in the publishing industry.

Read more at the New York Times.

One thought on “Amazon ‘Predatory’ and ‘Monopolist’ According to Penguin, Macmillan

  1. Rudy

    Two wrongs do not make a right. If one grants that amazon was and is using loss leaders to dominate the e-book/e-reader market, that does not justify collusion by the publishers–publishers who, by the way, have been gobbling up independent imprints for decades–not for the benefit of authors and consumers but to better control the market, publishers who have, like the film industry, spent more and more resources on blockbusters at the expense of midlist to maximize profits. And then there’s their alleged partner in crime, Apple, whose goal was anything but altruistic. Consider also that publishers enable amazon by insisting on DRM, which locks people into a particular e-reader ecosystem, something that does as much or more than the pricing to help amazon dominate the market. Aside: DRM is entirely a publisher decision, not amazon’s; I’ve seen many blog posts and news articles that assume DRM is required by amazon. But amazon sells many e-books from non-Big Six publishers that don’t have DRM.



Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *