OK, I'm coming out of cryogenic storage to tell you to shut up. You opened this subthread with *bizarrely ignorant claptrap*, and should have shut up when the first reply called you out on your lies. But now you're doubling down.

Lincoln could not be the "trigger that started the Civil War" when he was elected *after the war started*, after the majority of the Confederate states had already seceded, the last 4 were already proceeding with secession, and the Confederacy had already started shooting at the Union. Which should have been enough facts to shut you up, but I suppose you enjoy the kind of BS sometimes known as "from the South's perspective": any lie to deny the truth, however bizarrely ignorant.

Lincoln wasn't a "two-bit" lawyer prior to his political career, he was an extremely well accomplished lawyer. And he didn't have "zero experience", he had represented Illinois prominently in the US House of Representatives, and served in the Illinois House of Representatives for 8 years prior to that.

Lincoln was of course recognized as a good leader while destroying the Confederacy, being reelected to do so. That is the very definition of "recognized as good leader": reelected wartime Commander in Chief of the USA. Yes, the US press and many factions are always highly critical of any president; "universally recognized as a good leader" doesn't even belong to FDR.

Oh, how about your BS about Lincoln's "razor close" first election? Lincoln: 1,866,452; Douglas: 1,376,957; Breckinridge: 849,781; Bell: 588,789. That 489,495 margin over #2 was a *landslide* 10.4%, . What the hell are you talking about? You also said something deranged like "but if the South had been voting in the second election". What about "but if the South had freed its slaves instead of seceding"? Because they're equally nonsensical hypotheticals. And your Electoral College split 4 ways because *there were 4 candidates*, no reflection on Lincoln's leadership. But Lincoln's 180 EVs to the combined total of the other 3 at 123 EVs was an even bigger landslide than the popular vote. The words "razor close" don't describe any aspect of Lincoln's *landslide victory* over a full field, representing a new party in a large war-divided country.

And how does maintaining his commitment to Emancipation, even in face of a resigning Cabinet member (showing Lincoln's commitment to including even those who disagreed in his Cabinet, more committed than they were to staying), show anything but deeply effective leadership - as the government didn't suffer, but instead the nation was kept together even despite the war?

Your spin on all that crazy talk is that Lincoln turned out to be a leader who rose to the occasion, despite no reason to expect it. But in fact Lincoln gave all indications of being an exemplary leader from start to finish of his presidency.

Were you perhaps educated about Lincoln out of some "ex" Confederate state textbook? In any case, who taught you that when you're totally wrong you should ignore being proven wrong and double down with even more wrong?

I'm 100% positive that that's absolutely not what happened. Funny sense of re-writing reality you have there. I've heard a term for that before, I'm sure you bandied it about before...

They were timid, afraid to take on Amazon alone. What happened wasn't that Apple asked them to raise their prices across the board by some set amount, what they asked them to do was quit letting Amazon set their prices for them. *That's* what they were happy to do, they just never had the backbone before iBooks.

90% to 60%, and no longer able to bully the publishers around to the same extent as before. I don't know how you can think that doesn't count as being "hurt". Perhaps if that three-letter term I referenced above would come to me, what is it?...

You mean how I now have more plentiful options for eBooks? Wow, I'm soooooo hurt!

No one laid a finger on me. They've offered products which I've willingly paid for. I know that's a strange concept for a large contingent around here.

Glad we cleared that up!

My personal opinion is that this case is either misguided good intentions, or possibly just someone's ambitions playing out. I'd apply a variation on Hanlon's razor, and not attribute it to malicious ambition without some evidence.

I am as well, which is why I've taken up using it against those that tend to throw it out, which I mistook you for. There's a strong streak of crazy here on Slashdot, and maybe I'm foolish to try, but I'd like to think exposing their hypocrisy might do some good.

Yeah, I know, you can't reason with religious ferver...

It's not illegal, but it can be predatory.

I'd call both Amazon and Walmart predators. Not simply for exerting pressure, but for the overbearing and inequal manner in which they do it. But I'm fine with us not agreeing on that. The main thing we need to see eye to eye on this is simply that I'm not saying Amazon is doing anything illegal simply for negotiating from a strong position (nor Walmart, for that matter).

I do think there is at least a bit of anti-trust concern with their "if you don't deal with us on eBooks, we won't carry your paper books" tactics, but I'm basically ambivalent, and would err on the side of not pulling out the anti-trust guns if pushed to make a choice.

If they are over-charging, people won't buy them and they will have to lower their prices. Paper books still exist.

I don't think you understand how supply and demand works. There's no "set price" for a book unit. The price in the market is reflective of demand, not of the physical cost of the books.

It's funny that you think I'm on someone's "side". I'm just describing how things are.

That's not illegal. And this whole thing is absurd because it levels the playing field. Amazon can no longer force publishers into shitty deals, which is what was happening before Apple entered the picture.

Amazon would tell publishers "you will sell to us at this (absurdly low) price, or we won't carry your print book". They are the real predator here.

It's only a "chestnut" because people use it to mean "someone who likes something I don't like", which, quite ironically, is almost universally more fanboyish than the person being called a fanboy.

I personally think "fanboy" is a good term (to be a fan of something), but the OSS/Linux/Android crowd perverted it to mean the above.

My apologies, I jumped the gun.

That's impossible. The publishers have to collude together. Apple "colluding" with them individually (which is exactly what they did), is called standard business. A contract between two companies is not collusion (unless they are on the same side of the supply or distribution aspect and represent a monopoly on a product or commodity).

If but that you mean the idiots who hate Apple (or MS, or Google) for no reason other then they prefer the products from another company, you have me confused with the Slashdot peanut gallery. It's a common mistake for the members of said gallery to see anyone who defends "Evil Company X" as a "fucking rabid fanboi".

Lol.

The very first sentence of the Wikipedia link (emphasis mine):

Price fixing is an agreement between participants on the same side in a market to buy or sell a product, service, or commodity only at a fixed price, or maintain the market conditions such that the price is maintained at a given level by controlling supply and demand.

Setting a minimum price for a product is not price fixing. Publishers are free to set a minimum price for their books. What they aren't allowed to do is collude together to set a fixed price (minimum or otherwise). Also, the book sellers (like Apple, Amazon, B&N, etc.) aren't allowed to collude to set fixed prices either.

But the seller of a product can set a minimum sales price.

Apparently so, since that's not price fixing. Price fixing is setting a fixed price. Not a "MINIMUM" (does all caps make it true or something?). Also, it requires collusion between either the suppliers or the distributors (in order to manipulate either the supply or the demand to enforce the fixed price), neither of which happened.

Book publishers are well within their rights to set a minimum price for their products.

Please, try again.

That's not a fixed price.

As far as using "their dominance in the mobile market", there's so much wrong there I'll just make a list:

1. Apple does not have an app monopoly (required for this to be illegal)
2. App "dominance", even monopoly, has no bearing on book sellers (how is Apple supposed to leverage this against them?).
3. Even assuming they have a monopoly (they don't, but just for argument's sake), in what way did they exploit this?
4. It's funny how supposedly "Android is winning", but somehow Apple is a monopoly.
5. Publishers could have easily not gone with Apple's offer. Amazon was eBook monopoly at the time (which is exactly why they went with that deal, to leverage against Amazon!), and are still the dominant eBook seller (60% market share).
6. There are still books exclusive to Amazon, so clearly this deal isn't as hard core as you make it sound.

This was just a shrewd business deal which gave power back to the publishers and busted the Amazon monopoly (which they were actually abusing against other book sellers, and even the publishers themselves!).

That's one of only two places where it has to be. Either the publishers get together and agree on a fixed price, or the distributers all get together and agree on a fixed price. Without one or the other, you can't really have collusion or price fixing. Also, laughably, you actually need a fixed price for price fixing (it's right there in the term!).

Please, try again.

Not across the board, and that's not illegal anyway.

More choices, breaking of a monopoly that was strangling the publishing industry.

That's not collusion. Amazon has exclusive book deals as well. Does that mean they "colluded to remove their books from iBooks"?

Price-fixing is setting a fixed price (that should be obvious), and that is done by manipulating supply and demand (like what DeBeers does with diamonds, but there needs to be an arrangement between many suppliers of diamonds for this to be illegal).

So the real question is, how is this price-fixing? The prices are variable from book to book and publisher to publisher, and the same book across different services can be sold at various prices. And, finally, there's no collusion between publishers.

A cartel would be an agreement between the publishers. Do they have an agreement amongst themselves? No. They all have separate, independent agreements with Apple, which is completely legal. Not just completely legal, but that's exactly how business works. You open a store and make deals with suppliers to provide goods for your store. How do you think it's supposed to work?

Try again, fanboy.

It's quite... fascinating, how you can defend a monopoly and demonize the company that broke the monopoly, doing the very thing you just defended the monopoly for doing in the first place!

Apple entered the book market and competed against Amazon doing the very thing you laud Amazon for doing: they competed on price!

That's some highly potent fanboy fanaticism in action!