MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
54,103
15,890



iBooks.png
With Apple and the U.S. Department of Justice headed back to court today for a hearing on the government's proposed penalties for Apple, GigaOM highlights several developments in the case. Of particular interest is a letter from DOJ attorney Lawrence Buterman arguing that an objection to the proposed penalties by the publishers that were part of the case is direct evidence of why the penalties are needed to protect consumers.
"A necessary component of this Court's decision finding Apple liable for horizontal price-fixing is that the publishers themselves were engaged in a horizontal price-fixing conspiracy...[There] is reason to believe the Publisher Defendants may be positioning themselves to pick things back up where they left off as soon as their two-year clocks run. Indeed, the very fact that the Publisher Defendants have banded together once again, this time to jointly oppose two provisions in the Proposed Final Judgment that they believe could result in lower ebook prices for consumers, only highlights why it is necessary to ensure that Apple (and hopefully other retailers) can discount ebooks and compete on retail price for as long as possible."
Apple has called the proposed penalties, which would force the company to allow competitors to bring back direct links to their e-book stores in their App Store apps and nullify existing "agency model" contracts with publishers, "draconian" and "punitive". Apple could also end up being liable for as much as $500 million in damages.

At today's hearing, Apple will also argue for a stay on further court proceedings until its appeal can be heard, proposing that a jury trial be held in October 2014. The DOJ is arguing against a stay and suggesting that an appeal trial should be held beginning in April 2014.

Update: Associated Press reports that Judge Denise Cote has denied Apple's request for a stay of the case pending appeal.
A judge on Friday refused a request by Apple to temporarily suspend her ruling that it violated antitrust laws by conspiring with publishers to raise electronic book prices in 2010.

Judge Denise Cote, ruling from the bench in Manhattan federal court, declined to withdraw the effect of last month's ruling while Cupertino, Calif.-based Apple Inc. appeals.

The maker of iPods, iPads and iPhones continues to fight what it calls "false accusations."

Article Link: DOJ Says Publishers Are Again Colluding in Objecting to Proposed Apple Penalty in E-Book Case
 

ValSalva

macrumors 68040
Jun 26, 2009
3,756
209
Burpelson AFB
So the publishers collude, with or without Apple and yet Apple is the one who has to be punished. What a joke.
 
Comment

Dulcimer

macrumors 6502a
Nov 20, 2012
801
273
Ugh, what a mess. On one hand, Apple and the publishers did collude to bring up prices, which is bad for consumers. On the other, Amazon's loss leader strategy with ebooks would practically create a monopoly, which is bad for consumers and the publishers. Now that this thing could be pushed all the way to 2014 is even more aggravating.

Regardless, the DoJ has no right telling Apple what they should do with their App Store.
 
Comment

Banyan Bruce

macrumors regular
Jun 8, 2009
148
13
Devon, UK
Rough Justice

This all seems a bit like using a very large hammer to crack a walnut to me.
You're damned with the publishers and without them. Frankly, I'd just like to see the publishers swing and let Amazon jerk the leash.

DOJ are playing very hardball, although this seems to be the American way these days. It's not a subtle, clever, clear or elegant punishment, just harsh.
 
Comment

Porco

macrumors 68040
Mar 28, 2005
3,192
6,349
lol, If this was all a story in a book people would say it was too far-fetched. :D
 
Comment

bbeagle

macrumors 68040
Oct 19, 2010
3,440
2,727
Buffalo, NY
50% of the members here at MacRumors are colluding AGAINST Apple, saying bad stuff against Apple.

50% of the members here at MacRumors are colluding FOR Apple, saying nice things about Apple.

DOJ! DOJ!
 
Comment

ThisIsNotMe

Suspended
Aug 11, 2008
1,849
1,062
Don't you just LOVE the progressive perversion of the commerce clause being used as a tool to tell business what they can and cannot do?

You make it impossible for a corporation to conduct business in the United States and then bitch and moan when they offshore jobs and keep profits overseas.

Why would a corporation reward a population and the government it elects when that population/government does everything within its legal (and made up) power to prevent that corporation from doing business?

Fight the good fight Apple. Keep that ~$100 billion overseas and invest in companies in other countries!!!
 
Comment

dBeats

macrumors 6502a
Jun 21, 2011
636
214
And still nobody cares about what the Authors and Mom and Pop Bookstores think.....At this rate they'll be no more books sold at all. What a mess...
 
Comment

joshuarayer

Suspended
Jan 28, 2009
62
1
Ugh, what a mess. On one hand, Apple and the publishers did collude to bring up prices, which is bad for consumers. On the other, Amazon's loss leader strategy with ebooks would practically create a monopoly, which is bad for consumers and the publishers. Now that this thing could be pushed all the way to 2014 is even more aggravating.

Regardless, the DoJ has no right telling Apple what they should do with their App Store.

I would have to say you are wrong on both counts of it being bad. If Amazon is willing to buy an ebook for $10 and sell it for $7, then that is great for the consumers because they get it for cheaper and great for the publisher because they arent getting a cut in pay like the 30% cut from Apple. I agree that it could be viewed as a monopoly if no one ever bought ebooks from B&N or Apple though.
 
Comment

Kabeyun

macrumors 68040
Mar 27, 2004
3,113
5,841
Eastern USA
"Banded together"? Banded together?! Really?!
So any time more than one entity shares an opinion it's a conspiracy?

Good lord.
 
Comment

ArtOfWarfare

macrumors G3
Nov 26, 2007
9,275
5,415
Is there a process for throwing out the DOJ immediately other than having a revolution? IE, some kind of special election the states can demand or something?
 
Comment

Kabeyun

macrumors 68040
Mar 27, 2004
3,113
5,841
Eastern USA
I agree that it could be viewed as a monopoly if no one ever bought ebooks from B&N or Apple though.

Yeah, it could be "viewed" like that. Imagine if Carlos Slim Helu, with his $73,000,000,000 fortune decided to pay publishers whatever they wanted for e-books and sell them to us for a nickel. What does he care? His billion-dollar businesses cover the loss a billion times over and he still goes to bed filthy rich. Plus no one buys e-books from anyone else. And while they're shopping for e-books, maybe they'll buy an America Movil phone card.

Now you understand the Amazon e-book model. And the DOJ has a problem with ... wait for it ... Apple.
 
Comment

Consultant

macrumors G5
Jun 27, 2007
13,313
33
How about DOJ investigate
- Amazon's predatory monopoly
- high health care price in the US
- Google / Samsung using SEPs as weapons
 
Comment

Solomani

macrumors 601
Sep 25, 2012
4,220
9,098
Slapfish, North Carolina
Is there a process for throwing out the DOJ immediately other than having a revolution? IE, some kind of special election the states can demand or something?


The head of the DOJ is the Attorney General. In this case, it's Obama's BFF pal Eric Holder. The office is appointed by the President. It is not an elected position, hence you cannot vote him out of office.

Highly unlikely that POTUS will throw out one of his own close pals from office.
 
Comment

ValSalva

macrumors 68040
Jun 26, 2009
3,756
209
Burpelson AFB
The publishers didn't fight the case and have already paid the damages awarded against them. Only Apple chose to fight the case.

So the publishers have nothing to lose now, as evidenced by the DOJ statement. What a mess for Apple.

This has been a rough week. First Firefox 23 stops supporting the <blink> tag and now this! ;)
 
Comment

69650

Suspended
Mar 23, 2006
3,367
1,877
England
So the publishers collude, with or without Apple and yet Apple is the one who has to be punished. What a joke.

The publishers have all already pleaded guilty and agreed to pay fines. Apple was the only one who refused to settle and take it to court.
 
Comment

herr_neumann

macrumors 6502
Mar 27, 2003
327
4
Roseville, Ca
I am guessing this attorney was not on the team that negotiated with the publishers to finalize their settlements. He probably should have talked to his colleagues that did finalize those settlements before proposing something that would violate them. You can only overreach so far before you get slapped down.
 
Comment

gatearray

macrumors 65816
Apr 24, 2010
1,130
232
I would have to say you are wrong on both counts of it being bad. If Amazon is willing to buy an ebook for $10 and sell it for $7, then that is great for the consumers because they get it for cheaper and great for the publisher because they arent getting a cut in pay like the 30% cut from Apple. I agree that it could be viewed as a monopoly if no one ever bought ebooks from B&N or Apple though.

I thought that was called "dumping" and is illegal. It's only used as a means to crush competition by making it impossible for any other business to compete, while Amazon can afford to take the loss for a while until the other guys go out of business.
 
Comment

TMay

macrumors 68000
Dec 24, 2001
1,520
1
Carson City, NV
I would have to say you are wrong on both counts of it being bad. If Amazon is willing to buy an ebook for $10 and sell it for $7, then that is great for the consumers because they get it for cheaper and great for the publisher because they arent getting a cut in pay like the 30% cut from Apple. I agree that it could be viewed as a monopoly if no one ever bought ebooks from B&N or Apple though.

If price is the only factor, then selling at a loss undercuts sellers that require a profit to operate, i.e., most anybody in business.

Amazon sells best sellers at a loss and makes it up on sales of unrelated products. To me, that is predatory pricing.
 
Comment
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.