Steve Jobs Email in E-Book Case Provides Insight Into Thinking Process

[MacRumors]

Thus far in the ongoing e-book price fixing case, Apple has maintained that it was indifferent to what business model book publishers adopted with Amazon. However, an email from Steve Jobs to Eddy Cue submitted today by the U.S. Department of Justice appeared to undermine Apple's argument, according to Fortune:

"I can live with this as long as they move Amazon to the agent model too for new releases for the first year. If not, I'm not sure we can be competitive ..."

Apple's chief counsel quickly noted that the email was never sent, and AllThingsD now reports that Jobs later sent a longer, more detailed email with his complete thoughts on the negotiations with book publishers.

"I can live with this, as long as they also agree to the other thing you told me you can get: The retail price they will set for any book will be the LOWER of the applicable "iTunes" price below OR the lowest wholesale price they offer the book at to anyone else, with our wholesale price being 70% of such price. For example, normally our retail price for a $26 book will be $12.99 and we will pay 70% of that, or $9.10. However, if they offer the same book to Amazon for a wholesale price of, say $12.50, then our retail price for the same book shall be set at $12.50 and we will pay 70% of that price for the book."

The emails provide some insight into Jobs' thought process during the negotiations. The draft and final versions of the email show that Jobs initially appeared to have strong feelings on how Amazon's pricing would have to be affected, but then according to the emails' timestamps he reconsidered his position within two hours to offer a different angle and concern about the negotiations.

The testimony portion of the case is now in the second week, with Cue set to take the stand tomorrow.

Article Link: Steve Jobs Email in E-Book Case Provides Insight Into Thinking Process

 

[iMikeT]

Fascinating to see this and seeing how Jobs thinks and is involved in negotiations.

 

[komodrone]

Steve would have never let...uh n/m

 

[donutbagel]

Too bad they didn't get more serious about this. iBooks (not the laptop) are too much of a pain to use.

 

[cuda12]

Wonder how the government got that email :/

 

[appleguy123]

Wonder how the government got that email :/

Probably from a subpoena, which is perfectly legal.

 

[Zachari]

Wonder how the government got that email :/

NSA + Verizon (most likely)

 

[lolkthxbai]

NSA + Verizon (most likely)

E-book pricing is not a threat to national security...

 

[Zachari]

E-book pricing is not a threat to national security...

It's called "a joke".

 

[ufwa]

Something doesn't look right in this. Unless what is be shown by allthingsD isn't what's actually shown in court or the pictures got mixed up in posting. But from their article it doesn't look like it as they elaborate on the content.

the DOJ email has a received time stamp 1/14/2010 @ 18:23:09

Apple claims what the DOJ submitted it was a "draft" entering into evidence the "final" email.

Apple's email has a received time stamp of 1/14/2010 @ 18:21:39

Why would an email that's a "draft" have a received time stamp?

Also the time stamp of the "draft" occurs about 2 minutes AFTER than the "final". Shouldn't the "draft" have an earlier time stamp? Apple's contention is that Steve later sent a more complete email.

 

[vmachiel]

Spoiler alert: the case closes with a sum of money being paid. Not much will change

 

[macUser2007]

Spoiler alert: the case closes with a sum of money being paid. Not much will change

Unfortunately, this is the most likely outcome.

Apple really screwed the ebook market for consumers, as well as for small retailers, many of whom went out of business.

Even if Apple disgorges all of their ebook profits, they'll still be ahead, as they used ebooks to sell hardware.

The bankrupt small retailers and consumers will get cold comfort.

 

[AppleMark]

Genius....

 

[Laird Knox]

Unfortunately, this is the most likely outcome.

Apple really screwed the ebook market for consumers, as well as for small retailers, many of whom went out of business.

Even if Apple disgorges all of their ebook profits, they'll still be ahead, as they used ebooks to sell hardware.

The bankrupt small retailers and consumers will get cold comfort.

The DoJ says that Apple caused an increase in the price a consumer pays and your assertion is that this forced out the smaller vendors? It didn't have anything to do with Amazon undercutting the industry rates? Oh Kay

 

[mrxak]

Unfortunately, this is the most likely outcome.

Apple really screwed the ebook market for consumers, as well as for small retailers, many of whom went out of business.

Even if Apple disgorges all of their ebook profits, they'll still be ahead, as they used ebooks to sell hardware.

The bankrupt small retailers and consumers will get cold comfort.

Laughable assertion. Amazon drove the small retailers out of business, not Apple. Apple just entered the market for the first time having a model that could compete with Amazon's juggernaut.

Before Apple entered the market, there is no competition. After Apple entered the market, there is competition. For some reason the DoJ has a problem with this???

 

[Mactendo]

wonder how the government got that email :/

Prism.

 

[numlock]

Laughable assertion. Amazon drove the small retailers out of business, not Apple. Apple just entered the market for the first time having a model that could compete with Amazon's juggernaut.

Before Apple entered the market, there is no competition. After Apple entered the market, there is competition. For some reason the DoJ has a problem with this???

what is the basis for your assertion that before apple entered there was no competition and after the agency model was enforced there was competition?

btw i dont know you can read the emails and exchanges listed and think of the word competition

 

[samcraig]

Before Apple entered the market, there is no competition. After Apple entered the market, there is competition. For some reason the DoJ has a problem with this???

You really don't understand what this case is about, do you? If you do - maybe you can explain why, if true, the DOJ should not have a problem with collusion?

Then you could tell me why the major publishers all immediately settled out of court.

Things like that...

 

[mrgraff]

I find it interesting that both the draft and final email are available. Usually when I write an email, it gets saved as a draft as I write it, but then it becomes the final email as soon as I send it. Never have I created a draft and then created a new email based on the draft, sent it and then also held on to the draft.

 

[JUiCEJamie]

Wonder how the government got that email :/

Maybe from Eddy Cue? (He's not dead).

 

[samcraig]

I find it interesting that both the draft and final email are available. Usually when I write an email, it gets saved as a draft as I write it, but then it becomes the final email as soon as I send it. Never have I created a draft and then created a new email based on the draft, sent it and then also held on to the draft.

New feature in iO7 ?

 

[Bubba Satori]

NSA + Verizon (most likely)

E-book pricing is not a threat to national security...

It's called "a joke".

Is there an app that explains humor?

 

[mcfmullen]

Prism.

Not admissible in court. Yes, the gov't spies on you. No, it isn't legal. Evidence gathered isn't admissible in court. They'd still need a warrant to gather the same evidence legally first then use it against you. Keep your conspiracy theories out of here.

 

[Boomchukalaka]

I find it interesting that both the draft and final email are available. Usually when I write an email, it gets saved as a draft as I write it, but then it becomes the final email as soon as I send it. Never have I created a draft and then created a new email based on the draft, sent it and then also held on to the draft.

Might the draft have been on a server?

 

[Mactendo]

Not admissible in court. Yes, the gov't spies on you. No, it isn't legal. Evidence gathered isn't admissible in court. They'd still need a warrant to gather the same evidence legally first then use it against you. Keep your conspiracy theories out of here.

wtf. It was a joke, but ok. What 'conspiracy theories', PRISM is a reality. Keep your orders of what to do out of there.