Transplanting a Seattleite

What we have here is either (a) someone who isn't thinking things through or (b) someone who is hoping to sucker one of the parties to this dispute (presumably Amazon) into doing something that would get them on the Wrong Side of an Antitrust Case.

Hachette and Amazon are competitors. Both publish work which is not published elsewhere. Over the last few years, Amazon has been expanding its publishing lines as well as expanding its options for self-publishers. The most recent expansion is probably designed to make it more possible for people we would otherwise think of as self-pubbers to be eligible for writing awards and writing groups, which are bastions of cultural legitimacy currently accessible only to authors who receive TradPub endorsement in the form of minimum advances, separation of publishing entity from author, etc. The person in the Konrath blog post, Lee Child, specifically says in an earlier post in the same forum that Amazon wants to be the biggest/only publisher and put other publishers out of business.

Whether Amazon has such a desire or not is largely irrelevant to the following analysis. Amazon _is_ a publisher which is in competition with Hachette to buy works produced by authors and then, er, publish them. If Amazon then turns around and refuses to do business with Hachette, it could be construed as an attempt by Amazon to turn its monopsony power as a purchaser of published works for resale into market power in its other role as a publisher of works for direct sale to customers and also to other retailers of books.

Actually, it would be pretty damn easy to construe it that way.

I have no idea what the particular issues are between Hachette and Amazon in their relationship as supplier of published works and purchaser of published works for resale. I have no opinion, therefore, as to who is right or who is wrong in that negotiation. I am very clear, however, that if either refuses to do any business with the other (in the minimum sense that Amazon will buy published works from just about anyone for resale, and Hachette will sell the works they publish to just about anyone for direct use or resale -- that is, each has terms upon which they will do business with all comers), it will look suspiciously like a punitive measure to improve their market power position.

Hachette _might_ be able to get away with refusing to deal with Amazon (at least from an antitrust perspective -- from a business perspective, not so much), except for the fact they are already under heightened scrutiny because of their previous efforts in concert with other large publishers. And Hachette would undercut its ability to buy or sell itself to competitors in an effort to improve its negotiating position with respect to Amazon, which may be the post-Price-Fix strategy.

Amazon cannot get away with this kind of refusal to deal with its competitor/suppliers. Governments would take an interest. Customers would be troubled. Authors would be concerned. It probably wouldn't hurts its sales, particularly, as Lee Child noted, but you cannot pretend that the rest of the politico-economic environment just doesn't exist.

You are correct in observing that "no retailer is forced by law to carry every wholesale line". But a retailer that shut out a previously major supplier because of a dispute about an area in which they compete is going to enjoy some heightened scrutiny and concomitant legal costs.