E-book revolution: The danger of the lawsuit against Apple
Leah Kucera | Student LifeAs students, we generally consume far more books than the average individual because textbooks are required for classes. In the long term, e-books will largely replace physical books because they are usable across multiple platforms, and are more portable. With Apple potentially vacating the e-book business, Amazon will be left as the largest e-book distributor by far. Should this happen, Amazon, which already controls nearly 60 percent of all e-book sales, would be given such a large market share that it would essentially be able to set prices as it chooses. Previously, Amazon had only lowered prices as a motivation for consumers to purchase e-books over printed books. Since Apple unveiled its Books store, the e-book market has exploded. Over time, profit motives and straightforward economic principles will inevitably drive Amazon to raise prices as long as consumers will continue to purchase e-books.
I doubt it will ever get that far. Apple will likely not be forced out of the e-book market and will simply settle with the federal government. Should that happen, the government’s lawsuit will be a boon for consumers, once again allowing competition to force prices down. In that regard, this lawsuit will be key in determining the future of electronic print media. Generally, it is a move in the right direction, against uncompetitive practices. While this lawsuit is completely necessary, I would also caution the prosecutors in this case about becoming overzealous; it may do far more harm than good in the long term. Either way, the transition from the printed page to electronic media will completely revolutionize how the written word is consumed. This lawsuit has the potential to define who will sell e-books for the foreseeable future and how much they will cost.

Actually, the lawsuit is not required at all. We are taught to.believe that monopolies should be avoided at all cost. They may abuse of their scarcity power and charge consumers with monopoly prices, making society worse-off.
But monopolies are not always dangerous. It all depends on the barriers to enter or leave the market. Amazon may charge lower prices to drive competition out of the market, but the moment they start charging higher prices new competitors will enter the market lowerong prices again. The low entry barriers force amazon to keep their prices very low to mantain the gained monopoly. But this monopoly does not make society worse off. The lawsuit does.
“As students, we generally consume far more books than the average individual because textbooks are required for
classes.”
Where is your information to support this claim?
You must not be a law student. Apple and the publishers are not in trouble for forming a monopoly. They are in trouble for forming a cartel. Monopolies are not per se illegal. Using the power a monopoly affords IS.
When apple colluded with the publishers to artificially inflate prices by switching to the agency model. (where publishers get paid directly and apple gets 30%) You can see that it would be in apple’s best interest to raise prices.
The way things were is better. Retailers paid a price for a bulk of an item, getting a discount. Subsequent sales to consumers would be at a markup. In that model there is competition to determine who makes the sale (those with the lowest markup) Apple also forced a most-favorable-nation clause which further destroyed competition. This is textbook cartel behavior, and as such apple SHOULD be forced out of the ebook market, pay a huge fine and have to work with regulators to prevent relapsing to this destructive business model.