I don't like price rigging but reading the material around the case I don't think it was unfair of Apple to try and charge more with its partners through their own venue.
I'm gonna play armchair legal analyst here and say this is a smack down by the government because Apple didn't want to settle and pay the fine. Because they thought they were in the right. I tend to agree.
Let me clarify since people are already down voting because they disagree: What if Walmart told Hasbro that it could sell its GI Joe action figures for $5 more than K-Mart could? Then they went to negotiate an agreement to purchase as many as possible. Would it not be in Hasbro's best interest to sell as many as possible through Walmart? When K-Mart comes to negotiate it will have to make a justification for why it can't charge more, that's how markets work. K-Mart will either convince Hasbro to still sell the items for cheaper or it will have to renegotiate.
Now throw in the fact that these were not real-life items. There is no limitation on how many items each retailer can acquire. The number is infinite.
Does it really seem so terrible now? Try not to appeal to emotion when making the decision.
The most favored nation clauses and the subsequent agency deals that were pushed on competing ebook sellers by the publishers make it clear it wasn't just Apple and partners working in their own venue to raise prices. It was a tactic to use the iPad's launch as a moment of uncertainty that would allow the publishers to raise prices across the entire industry.
Edit: To address your added analogy, I agree. Your proposed example does not seem terrible. It is also not at all close to what happened with Apple and the book publishers. It wasn't one company increasing prices successfully at one store and then shopping the new deal to other stores. It was nearly the entire industry swiftly pushing new deals designed to increase prices and break Amazon's position of power in the industry. The increased prices weren't due to the success of the prices in the iBookstore, but the legally binding clauses and assurances from Apple and the other publishers that they would present a united front. If Hasbro, Mattel, and every other major toy manufacturer raised prices to K-Mart at the same time due to suggestions from Walmart, I would object on intellectual and emotional levels. And I am sure the DoJ would too.
The modify your hypothetical so it fits the Apple facts:
Hasbro then threatens to withdraw all GI Joes from Kmart. KMart can no longer sell any GI Joes--even if acquired from third party resellers. Walmart knows this, and indeed suggested this negotiation strategy to Hasbro.
Of course, this has happened before. This is why the MSRP is now only a "suggested" price and why a retailer is free to sell at whatever price it chooses, however such price affects its own margins.
I don't like price rigging either, but then again, I also don't like sushi, yet I don't approve of the government using violence to restrict sushi restaurants. I just don't buy sushi.
I'm gonna play armchair legal analyst here and say this is a smack down by the government because Apple didn't want to settle and pay the fine. Because they thought they were in the right. I tend to agree.
Let me clarify since people are already down voting because they disagree: What if Walmart told Hasbro that it could sell its GI Joe action figures for $5 more than K-Mart could? Then they went to negotiate an agreement to purchase as many as possible. Would it not be in Hasbro's best interest to sell as many as possible through Walmart? When K-Mart comes to negotiate it will have to make a justification for why it can't charge more, that's how markets work. K-Mart will either convince Hasbro to still sell the items for cheaper or it will have to renegotiate.
Now throw in the fact that these were not real-life items. There is no limitation on how many items each retailer can acquire. The number is infinite.
Does it really seem so terrible now? Try not to appeal to emotion when making the decision.