It is a pity that his argument is a load of bollocks.
As I understand it, he argues that an e-books price fixing cartel is in the interests of all, including the consumer, because otherwise, companies such as Amazon will lower the price to a point (whilst continuing making a loss), such that all others e-book sellers are unable to compete long term.
Or, have I misunderstood his five pages of cartoon genius?
Price competition that results in monopoly is not in the long-term interests of consumers. This is the same argument that lies behind anti-dumping legislation.
I'm not convinced by it either, but the lawyer does have a fair point that it is hard to demonstrate the seriousness of the danger without being allowed space to document his view of the economics of e-book competition.
Because it is a non-sequitor. It uses hypothetical future bad behavior (which itself isn't proven) to justify an actual "bad" behavior to compensate before it occurs.
But, I am anti-anti-trust, so I don't have a problem with collusion of this sort; any inefficient collusion will eventually bloat and be disrupted (unless protected by the government as a sanctioned monopoly).
Yes, that's exactly what he's saying. Though, in his cartoon he makes it clear that this is only OK as a one-time event to correct what Amazon is doing (i.e. selling below cost in an attempt to put competitors out of the market and thus preventing the market from being able to efficiently price eBooks).
As I understand it, he argues that an e-books price fixing cartel is in the interests of all, including the consumer, because otherwise, companies such as Amazon will lower the price to a point (whilst continuing making a loss), such that all others e-book sellers are unable to compete long term.
Or, have I misunderstood his five pages of cartoon genius?