Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
63,194
30,136



ibooks-icon.png
Last year, Apple lost a monumental e-book antitrust case that alleged the company had colluded with publishers to raise the price of e-books. As a result, Apple was forced to submit to a cumbersome external antitrust monitor and the company agreed to pay out $450 million as part of a settlement with several class action lawyers and state district attorneys.

Throughout the lawsuit, Apple maintained its innocence, and in February, the company formally filed for an appeal, asking the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn the original ruling. In the appeal filing, Apple called the judge's decision a "radical departure" from modern antitrust law.

As of this week, Apple's case is being heard in appeals court, and it appears that things are going in the company's favor thus far. According to a report from Reuters, some of the judges "appeared sympathetic" to Apple's argument that its agreements with e-book publishers were "pro-competitive."

One of Apple's main arguments during the e-book antitrust case focused on Judge Cote's treatment of the company. Apple believes it was treated unfairly because Cote opted to ignore the positive impact that Apple had on introducing competition into the e-book market at a time when Amazon had a 90 percent market share.

Rather than being treated as a new entrant into the e-book market, which would have demanded a "rule of reason" analysis that judged Apple's impact on improving competition in a way that was good for consumers, Apple's role was viewed as "per se illegal" and automatically labeled anticompetitive despite Amazon's large command of the e-book market.
Circuit Judge Dennis Jacobs asked a Department of Justice lawyer why it was wrong for the publishers to get together to defeat a "monopolist" that was using "predatory pricing."

"It's like the mice getting together to put a bell on the cat," Jacobs said.
Circuit Judge Debra Livingston also said it was "troubling" that Apple's normally "perfectly legal" contracts were labeled as a scheme. A lawyer for Apple told the judges "We think the conduct here was innovative and pro-competitive." Should Apple win its appeal, it may not have to pay the $450 million settlement it reached in July. If the case is overturned, Apple will pay no fines, and if it's sent back to Judge Cote for a retrial, Apple will pay just $50 million to consumers and $20 million in attorney fees.

Article Link: Apple's Antitrust E-Book Case Enters Appeals, Outlook Good for Apple
 

Zimmy68

macrumors 68000
Jul 23, 2008
1,989
1,606
What is this, Fox News?

Everything I am reading, Apple has no chance and the mountain of evidence that the original judge had is very sound.

http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/...il&utm_term=0_0bb2959cbb-3446655f4c-304719213

Attorneys for the U.S. Department of Justice counter that Apple did considerably more than “hear out” the publishers—and that Judge Cote got the case exactly right. In the DoJ’s appeal filing, U.S attorneys point out that the evidence against Apple was “overwhelming.” And, despite Apple’s dispute over “isolated pieces of evidence,” the judge “articulated the proper standard, and correctly applied it.”

Good luck Apple and Fast Eddie, tap dancing out of this one.
 

napabar

Suspended
Jun 12, 2008
316
513
What is this, Fox News?

Everything I am reading, Apple has no chance and the mountain of evidence that the original judge had is very sound.

http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/...il&utm_term=0_0bb2959cbb-3446655f4c-304719213



Good luck Apple and Fast Eddie, tap dancing out of this one.


Are you daft? The case against Apple is weak. Did you not read the appellate judges comments? Even they are finding it hard to believe.

Come back when you actually have read the article and put your anti-Apple, anti-business bias to rest.
 

2457282

Suspended
Dec 6, 2012
3,327
3,015
I never understood what Apple did that was wrong. I still don't. Clearly I am not a lawyer and I am sure there is some strange law that creates a technicality that is being employed. However, for the average Joe (or Jose in my case :D), what makes sense is that Apple came in and provided the first viable option to Amazon. And have prices or competition improved since they were found guilty? No.

I hope this appeal will at least clarify what the heck the crime was in Joe/Jose terms.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mrxak

Oletros

macrumors 603
Jul 27, 2009
6,002
60
Premià de Mar
Are you daft? The case against Apple is weak. Did you not read the appellate judges comments? Even they are finding it hard to believe.

Come back when you actually have read the article and put your anti-Apple, anti-business bias to rest.

Appellate judges? It was one of the three.
 

Zimmy68

macrumors 68000
Jul 23, 2008
1,989
1,606
Are you daft? The case against Apple is weak. Did you not read the appellate judges comments? Even they are finding it hard to believe.

Come back when you actually have read the article and put your anti-Apple, anti-business bias to rest.

Weak??? They lost the case! That is why they are appealling.
Hhahahaha


Keep drinking the Kool-aide.
 

Zimmy68

macrumors 68000
Jul 23, 2008
1,989
1,606
I never understood what Apple did that was wrong. I still don't. Clearly I am not a lawyer and I am sure there is some strange law that creates a technicality that is being employed. However, for the average Joe (or Jose in my case :D), what makes sense is that Apple came in and provided the first viable option to Amazon. And have prices or competition improved since they were found guilty? No.

I hope this appeal will at least clarify what the heck the crime was in Joe/Jose terms.

In a quick snapshot, here goes...

Amazon was selling ebooks, mostly for $9.99.

Jobs and Fast Eddie came up with a scheme to get into the ebook market for their new iPad, without having to compete with price (the last thing they wanted to do).
So they colluded with a bunch of publishers, who didn't like Amazon having so much control, to agree that the price would have to be set at $14.99, no sales, nothing.
If Amazon didn't like it, they couldn't sell the book at the price they wanted to.

And bad news for Apple, they caught Jobs on video admitting to it when asked about how to compete with Amazon, "it will cost the same".

oof.
 

thekeyring

macrumors 68040
Jan 5, 2012
3,485
2,147
London
In a quick snapshot, here goes...

Amazon was selling ebooks, mostly for $9.99.

Jobs and Fast Eddie came up with a scheme to get into the ebook market for their new iPad, without having to compete with price (the last thing they wanted to do).
So they colluded with a bunch of publishers, who didn't like Amazon having so much control, to agree that the price would have to be set at $14.99, no sales, nothing.
If Amazon didn't like it, they couldn't sell the book at the price they wanted to.

And bad news for Apple, they caught Jobs on video admitting to it when asked about how to compete with Amazon, "it will cost the same".

oof.

Why is that illegal? Arguably, they were challenging Amazon's monopoly on ebooks, right?
 

cmwade77

macrumors 65816
Nov 18, 2008
1,071
1,200
I never understood what Apple did that was wrong. I still don't. Clearly I am not a lawyer and I am sure there is some strange law that creates a technicality that is being employed. However, for the average Joe (or Jose in my case :D), what makes sense is that Apple came in and provided the first viable option to Amazon. And have prices or competition improved since they were found guilty? No.

I hope this appeal will at least clarify what the heck the crime was in Joe/Jose terms.
Ok, let me explain this in simple terms that might make it clear how this is a crime or at least could be construed as one.

I create a product called XYZ and sell it to Amazon for $7 each. Amazon then sells it for whatever price they want to sell it for, but I always get $4.99 each for them. Amazon can sell it below their cost for all I care, I get my money after all. But let's just say that Amazon was selling it for $8.

Now Apple comes along and says I will sell XYZ for whatever price you want me to sell it for, but I will take 30% to cover our costs and make a profit.

Ok, so far there is no problem here as far as the law is concerned, as it is simply a different business model that Apple chose to use.

So, I chose to sell through Apple for $9.99, which nets me slightly less than from Amazon, but I figure I will make enough sales to make up for the lower dollar amount. And I may not be able to go any cheaper due to my costs per unit.

But now, Apple comes in and says, oh but there's one more catch, you can't allow Amazon to sell it cheaper than we are selling it.

Now, I have to go to Amazon and say you can't sell the product for less than $9.99, which means a $1.99 increase over their previous price and that is simply so that I can sell through Apple and comply with their most favored nations clause.

This is the part that I think most people forget about and don't realize how much it really did increase the amount consumers are paying for eBooks.

Competition is good and drives prices down, most favored nations clauses are bad and drive prices up.
 

Oletros

macrumors 603
Jul 27, 2009
6,002
60
Premià de Mar
It was two of the three.

Yes, my fault, I didn't read the second one, thanks

----------

Ok, let me explain this in simple terms that might make it clear how this is a crime or at least could be construed as one.

I create a product called XYZ and sell it to Amazon for $7 each. Amazon then sells it for whatever price they want to sell it for, but I always get $4.99 each for them. Amazon can sell it below their cost for all I care, I get my money after all. But let's just say that Amazon was selling it for $8.

Now Apple comes along and says I will sell XYZ for whatever price you want me to sell it for, but I will take 30% to cover our costs and make a profit.

Ok, so far there is no problem here as far as the law is concerned, as it is simply a different business model that Apple chose to use.

So, I chose to sell through Apple for $9.99, which nets me slightly less than from Amazon, but I figure I will make enough sales to make up for the lower dollar amount. And I may not be able to go any cheaper due to my costs per unit.

But now, Apple comes in and says, oh but there's one more catch, you can't allow Amazon to sell it cheaper than we are selling it.

Now, I have to go to Amazon and say you can't sell the product for less than $9.99, which means a $1.99 increase over their previous price and that is simply so that I can sell through Apple and comply with their most favored nations clause.

This is the part that I think most people forget about and don't realize how much it really did increase the amount consumers are paying for eBooks.

Competition is good and drives prices down, most favored nations clauses are bad and drive prices up.

The problem was not the MFN clause, the problem was forcing all the stores, including Google Play, B&N, Sony, Kobo, etc change to the agency model
 

mw360

macrumors 68020
Aug 15, 2010
2,032
2,395
Ok, let me explain this in simple terms that might make it clear how this is a crime or at least could be construed as one.

I create a product called XYZ and sell it to Amazon for $7 each. Amazon then sells it for whatever price they want to sell it for, but I always get $4.99 each for them. Amazon can sell it below their cost for all I care, I get my money after all. But let's just say that Amazon was selling it for $8.

Now Apple comes along and says I will sell XYZ for whatever price you want me to sell it for, but I will take 30% to cover our costs and make a profit.

Ok, so far there is no problem here as far as the law is concerned, as it is simply a different business model that Apple chose to use.

So, I chose to sell through Apple for $9.99, which nets me slightly less than from Amazon, but I figure I will make enough sales to make up for the lower dollar amount. And I may not be able to go any cheaper due to my costs per unit.

But now, Apple comes in and says, oh but there's one more catch, you can't allow Amazon to sell it cheaper than we are selling it.

Now, I have to go to Amazon and say you can't sell the product for less than $9.99, which means a $1.99 increase over their previous price and that is simply so that I can sell through Apple and comply with their most favored nations clause.

This is the part that I think most people forget about and don't realize how much it really did increase the amount consumers are paying for eBooks.

Competition is good and drives prices down, most favored nations clauses are bad and drive prices up.

Most favoured nation clauses aren't illegal, so how have you explained to us why it's a crime?

If your customers can't get your product for a fair price they can just buy someone else's instead.

----------

Yes, my fault, I didn't read the second one, thanks

----------



The problem was not the MFN clause, the problem was forcing all the stores, including Google Play, B&N, Sony, Kobo, etc change to the agency model

No, that's not illegal either. It was the timing of all publishers switching at the same time which was deemed a conspiracy.
 

Iconoclysm

macrumors 68040
May 13, 2010
3,090
2,414
Washington, DC
But, but, but, a Judge prejudging a case before the trial has started is very bad, isn't?

This is an appeal...they're dealing directly with the DoJ...nice try!

----------

Weak??? They lost the case! That is why they are appealling.
Hhahahaha


Keep drinking the Kool-aide.

If it wasn't weak somehow, there would be no appeal. Please hold the unnecessary laughter when you reply.
 

mw360

macrumors 68020
Aug 15, 2010
2,032
2,395
In the "forcing" was implied "all the accused publishers forced at the same time"

Ok, I don't really see that in your post, but ok.

The point is, it's not illegal to control the price of your own product, no matter by what draconian means. It's illegal when you and a competitor control both your prices in a coordinated effort.
 

Iconoclysm

macrumors 68040
May 13, 2010
3,090
2,414
Washington, DC
In a quick snapshot, here goes...

Amazon was selling ebooks, mostly for $9.99.

Jobs and Fast Eddie came up with a scheme to get into the ebook market for their new iPad, without having to compete with price (the last thing they wanted to do).
So they colluded with a bunch of publishers, who didn't like Amazon having so much control, to agree that the price would have to be set at $14.99, no sales, nothing.
If Amazon didn't like it, they couldn't sell the book at the price they wanted to.

And bad news for Apple, they caught Jobs on video admitting to it when asked about how to compete with Amazon, "it will cost the same".

oof.

Aha, so now I see that you don't really have that firm a grasp over what happened at all...why are you on this site?
 

johngordon

macrumors 68000
Apr 19, 2004
1,731
956
Ok, let me explain this in simple terms that might make it clear how this is a crime or at least could be construed as one.

I create a product called XYZ and sell it to Amazon for $7 each. Amazon then sells it for whatever price they want to sell it for, but I always get $4.99 each for them. Amazon can sell it below their cost for all I care, I get my money after all. But let's just say that Amazon was selling it for $8.


Now Apple comes along and says I will sell XYZ for whatever price you want me to sell it for, but I will take 30% to cover our costs and make a profit.

Ok, so far there is no problem here as far as the law is concerned, as it is simply a different business model that Apple chose to use.

So, I chose to sell through Apple for $9.99, which nets me slightly less than from Amazon, but I figure I will make enough sales to make up for the lower dollar amount. And I may not be able to go any cheaper due to my costs per unit.

But now, Apple comes in and says, oh but there's one more catch, you can't allow Amazon to sell it cheaper than we are selling it.

Now, I have to go to Amazon and say you can't sell the product for less than $9.99, which means a $1.99 increase over their previous price and that is simply so that I can sell through Apple and comply with their most favored nations clause.

This is the part that I think most people forget about and don't realize how much it really did increase the amount consumers are paying for eBooks.

Competition is good and drives prices down, most favored nations clauses are bad and drive prices up.[/QUOTE]

That's pretty much my understanding too.

But with a caveat regarding the the BIB.

You might not care how much Amazon sells your product for, but I think the book publishers did, and further weren't necessarily expecting Amazon to sell so much at a loss.

If the book publishers thought their product was worth $x, then if Amazon come along and start selling their product for less, it might be fine in the short term, but in the long run the publishers were, I think, concerned that their product would be artificially devalued.

Amazon weren't selling it at its true value, as they were taking hits to sell Kindle's.

Presumably that was what motivated the publishers - they saw Apple's entry as a way out of the path they had gone down with Amazon.

The article is interesting to a degree, but having said all of the above I would have thought that Apple and the publishers are on shaky ground because of the collusion.
 

mw360

macrumors 68020
Aug 15, 2010
2,032
2,395
Exactly, an in this case "the original ruling as the judge's decision was a" are the author's own words and not a quote.

And is there something contentious about these words? If so, what?
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.