Apple to Pay $450 Million E-Book Settlement After Supreme Court Declines to Hear Appeal

Discussion in 'iOS Blog Discussion' started by MacRumors, Mar 7, 2016.

  1. MacRumors macrumors bot

    MacRumors

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2001
    #1
    [​IMG]


    [​IMG]
    Apple will have to pay a $450 million settlement in the protracted e-books antitrust case, which saw the company found guilty of conspiring with publishers to inflate the prices of e-books back in 2014 (via Bloomberg).

    In October, Apple submitted an appeal to overturn the guilty ruling, but today the United States Supreme Court declined to question the verdict, meaning Apple must now comply with that 2014 settlement.

    Specifically, the amount will be broken down to have $400 million paid out to e-book customers, $20 million to the states, and $30 million in the form of legal fees. The case saw Apple fighting an accusation that in 2010 it colluded with five publishers -- HarperCollins, Simon and Schuster, Hachette Book Group, Macmillan, and Penguin -- to fix the prices of e-books in order to become a dominant presence in a market overshadowed by companies like Amazon.

    Apple has maintained its innocence throughout the initial trial and subsequent appeals, arguing that its deals helped introduce a healthy degree of competition to a market that had been bordering on a monopoly controlled by Amazon. A group of authors submitted an amicus brief supporting such a statement back in December.
    On the publisher side, the five in question have already signed a $166 million settlement deal with the states and consumers, which have trickled down to customers in the form of refunds.

    Article Link: Apple to Pay $450 Million E-Book Settlement After Supreme Court Declines to Hear Appeal
     
  2. spiggott macrumors newbie

    spiggott

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2002
    #2
    Hmmm, the price of e-books hasn't really dropped since they "caught" Apple conspiring to raise the prices.
     
  3. Benjamin Frost Suspended

    Benjamin Frost

    Joined:
    May 9, 2015
    Location:
    London, England
    #3
    Apple should not have paid this fine.

    Regardless of what the law may say, they were morally right in this matter, and Amazon were the culprits.

    This is the same US government that wishes to trample on our freedom and snuff it out forever.
     
  4. Goatllama macrumors 6502a

    Goatllama

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2015
    Location:
    Mountaintop Lair
    #4
    I guess the court decided it was time to close this book.
     
  5. kagharaht macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2007
    #5
    So all this talk about Amazon being the real guilty party is all BS? Apple really did break the law here since the supreme court sees no problem with the e-Book antitrust case.
     
  6. Rogifan macrumors Core

    Rogifan

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2011
    #6
    Maybe they declined this case because they know they'll be getting another one soon. The phone unlock case is definitely going to the Supreme Court.
     
  7. HiVolt macrumors 6502a

    HiVolt

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2008
    Location:
    Toronto, Canada
    #7
    Apple's iBooks is crap anyway, limited only to Macs & iOS devices.

    Amazon may not be perfect, but the content is available on all the platforms, as it should be.
     
  8. WordsmithMR macrumors 6502

    WordsmithMR

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2015
    Location:
    Murica
    #8
    $30 million in legal fees. That's all I took out of this article.
     
  9. jayducharme macrumors 68040

    jayducharme

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Location:
    The thick of it
    #9
    This whole case resulted in nothing but a loss for consumers and Apple. Maybe Apple will realize that, when the government is concerned, they can no longer play by the book.
     
  10. KPOM macrumors G5

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2010
    #10
    Too bad the Supreme Court didn't take this up. The DOJ used a ridiculous standard of antitrust that will now stand. They didn't even allege that Apple conspired to raise prices itself. I wonder if it might have turned out different if Scalia were still alive.
     
  11. Chuck Kostalnick macrumors demi-god

    Chuck Kostalnick

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2015
    Location:
    San Fransisco, California
    #11
    Nothing like Apple trying to break Amazon's monopoly, only to have the government blame Apple for being anti-competitive...
     
  12. FloatingBones macrumors 65816

    FloatingBones

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2006
    #12
    Where are the candidates telling us how stupid this entire lawsuit was? Have any commented about it?
     
  13. Muscle Master macrumors 6502a

    Muscle Master

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2010
    Location:
    Philadelphia
    #13
    As Bobby Axlerod would say... "the cost of doing business" lol
     
  14. jonnysods macrumors 603

    jonnysods

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2006
    Location:
    There & Back Again
  15. KALLT macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2008
    #15
    Says who? We have courts to settle such questions with binding decisions. In this case more judges found against Apple.
     
  16. Art0fLife macrumors member

    Art0fLife

    Joined:
    May 31, 2014
    #16
    That's all I got from this. Amazon has (and has had for a very long time) a monopoly on the market. Apple attempted to break it with the very ******, absolutely useless iBook system... Failed, but had every right to try. This feels more like Apple getting punished for fighting the government in other areas (that are definitely more important and I am sure Apple sees it the same). Amazon is the only one to look at if one wants to punish people who put a monopoly on ebooks or inflating prices (good grief they have went up extreme amounts over the years through Amazon and they do so more and more the tighter a grip Amazon is allowed to get here).

    I just don't grasp how trying to break a monopoly by trying to introduce competition is a bad thing. I hate iBook, it's clunky and worse than useless but they had every right to try.
     
  17. Muscle Master macrumors 6502a

    Muscle Master

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2010
    Location:
    Philadelphia
    #17
    Amazo
    Amazon don't rip people off.. Now do they?
     
  18. samcraig macrumors P6

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #18
    Actually - Apple's takeaway should be don't collude with publishers to enter a market. Instead, perhaps, decide on a different profit/margin strategy.

    What's your definition of Monopoly? And if Apple wanted to disrupt Amazon - they could have done it in other (legal) ways. They chose one method. It didn't work.

    It's a tired argument to say that they will decide to start gouging customers on price. Because they moment they do that, other companies will come in and grab their marketshare with lower prices. Overall, Amazon has kept pricing low or in line.
     
  19. bsolar macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2011
    #19
    It's not a bad thing as long as you try to do it through legal means. If you try to do it through illegal means you can still end up in trouble since "the end justifies the means" doesn't always work as justification and in this case it didn't.
     
  20. kcamfork Suspended

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2011
    #20
    Is everybody on here daft? Amazon innovated the ebook market with the kindle. That's why they pretty much owned it. Apple knew they couldn't compete on price, so they broke the antitrust laws, which are put in place to protect consumers. They knew this was wrong and did it anyway. Prices were raised. I ended up paying more because of it, millions of Americans did too.

    Apple should have to pay this fine. It's pretty damn clear they were in the wrong.

    The Apple apologists on this site are sometimes just frustratingly baffling.
     
  21. macfacts macrumors 68040

    macfacts

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2012
    Location:
    Cybertron
    #21
    How does Amazon have a monopoly? Publishers are free to set what ever price they want to sell to Amazon (and Amazon is free to set what price they want to sell to readers). Publishers can sell where ever they want.

    Apple wanted all books to be same price across all platforms and all stores (Apple can't compete on price so they wanted to force it with an illegal contract), and got a large group of different publishers together at the same time to discus this (illegal).

    Edit: and just having a monopoly isn't illegal.
     
  22. orbital~debris macrumors 6502a

    orbital~debris

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2004
    Location:
    England, UK, Europe
    #22
    Out of interest, where's that iBooks icon (as used in the MR post) from?
    Was it some kind of pre-release version used in a beta (the current version has curved page edges)?
     
  23. Stella macrumors G3

    Stella

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2003
    Location:
    Canada
    #23
    A popcorn worthy thread. Entertaining.
     
  24. smulji macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2011
    #24
    Unless, of course, some of the judges are corrupt & bought by Amazon lobbyists.
     
  25. Stella macrumors G3

    Stella

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2003
    Location:
    Canada
    #25
    Tin foil hat. You may want to remove it.
     

Share This Page

62 March 7, 2016