The Justice Department, "Big Six" Publishers, and Amazon

Shakespeare?

In what must have been this year's world's worst kept secret, the Justice Department (DOJ) finally came out and publicly accused five of New York's "Big Six" publishers of collusion. The epicenter for the alleged illegal activity was e-book pricing, with "consumers" as the ostensible victims. Three of the five publishers are reportedly intent on settling with the DOJ, with Apple, Pearson, and Macmillan determined to have their day in court.

Notably, the European Commission has pursued a more or less parallel case. Rumors of settlements in that action have been reported.

The DOJ's brief, part of which I read this morning courtesy of a Financial Times link, is at times unintentionally funny. Its citing of Mafia-like dinners in a New York restaurant, the name of which was misspelled in the DOJ brief, bordered on something from a plot-challenged movie. However, the DOJ's intent to "help consumers" is serious stuff. The question is whether the legal action will, in fact, aid e-book buyers. It will certainly help Amazon, whose race to the price bottom is motivated by monopolistic intent and the firm's CEO's desire to hijack an industry.

Well, what would happen if Amazon combined monopolistic distribution clout of "book-style content" with publishing ambitions? If your answer is "nothing good," you're on the right track.

What the DOJ announcement signified was something far more momentous than allegations of a tawdry criminal conspiracy in what was once a genteel business. It signalled the triumph of the tech world, its data collection capacity, the value of bits and bytes over mere words, and the "rationalization" of the distribution of what was once called "the printed word." Do you think this is a desirable outcome?