The government is protecting the markets. The goal is not to protect consumers, even if that is one effect of the laws involved here.
These laws were written long before "consumers" were an identified interest group. The intent was to remove barriers to the workings of a free market, and not to "protect consumers".
Apple rasied that objection, and the judge dealt with it specifically:
"Cue asserted fromthe witness stand, Apple did not raise prices;the Publishers raised prices. Apple claims it should not beheld liable for the “business decisions” the PublisherDefendants made in the early part of 2010.
Apple is correct that the conspiracy required the fullparticipation of the Publisher Defendants if it were to achieveits goals. It is also correct that the Publishers wanted tochange Amazon’s pricing policies and to raise e-book prices, andthat they had wanted to do that for many months before Applearrived on the scene.
But, those facts do not erase Apple’s ownintentions in entering into this scheme. Apple did not want tocompete with Amazon on price and proposed to the Publishers amethod through which both Apple and the Publishers could eachachieve their goals.
The record is equivocal on whether Apple itself desired highere-book prices than those offered at Amazon. It is unequivocalthough that Apple embraced higher prices so convincingly thatthe Publishers believed that Apple was content with, and evenwanted, higher prices, and that Apple’s cooperation with thePublisher Defendants enabled themto raise prices.Apple was an essential member of thecharged conspiracy and was fully complicit in the scheme toraise e-book prices even though the Publisher Defendants alsohad their own roles to play"
Last edited:
