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

iBooks.pngWith 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."

Popular Stories

iPhone 17 Pro 3 4ths Perspective Aluminum Camera Module 1

New iPhone 17 Pro Details: Brighter Display, Best Battery Life, and More

Wednesday September 3, 2025 5:33 am PDT by
Apple's iPhone 17 Pro and iPhone 17 Pro Max models will feature a number of significant display, thermal, and battery improvements, according to new late-stage rumors. According to the Weibo leaker known as "Instant Digital," the iPhone 17 Pro models will feature displays with higher brightness, making it more suitable for use in direct sunlight for prolonged periods. The iPhone 16 Pro and...
iPhone 17 Pro Iridescent Feature 2

iPhone 17 and iPhone 17 Pro Prices Estimated Ahead of Apple Event Next Week

Tuesday September 2, 2025 1:50 pm PDT by
Just one week before Apple is expected to unveil the iPhone 17 series, an analyst has shared new price estimates for the devices. Here are J.P. Morgan analyst Samik Chatterjee's price estimates for the iPhone 17 series in the United States, according to 9to5Mac: Model Starting Price Model Starting Price Change iPhone 16 $799 iPhone 17 ...
Apple Watch Ultra 2 Complications

Apple Watch Ultra 3 Coming Next Week: Eight Reasons to Upgrade

Thursday September 4, 2025 7:38 am PDT by
We're only days away from Apple's "Awe dropping" fall event scheduled to take place on Tuesday, September 9 – and along with the new iPhone 17 series, we're going to get a new version of the Apple Watch Ultra for the first time since 2023. By the time the Ultra 3 is unveiled, it will have been two years since the previous model arrived. The intervening period has left plenty of room for...
iPhone 17 Pro Iridescent Feature 2

iPhone 17 Pro Clear Case Leak Reveals Three Key Changes

Sunday August 31, 2025 1:26 pm PDT by
Apple is expected to unveil the iPhone 17 series on Tuesday, September 9, and last-minute rumors about the devices continue to surface. The latest info comes from a leaker known as Majin Bu, who has shared alleged images of Apple's Clear Case for the iPhone 17 Pro and Pro Max, or at least replicas. Image Credit: @MajinBuOfficial The images show three alleged changes compared to Apple's iP...
iPhone 17 Pro Dark Blue and Orange

iPhone 17 Release Date, Pre-Orders, and What to Expect

Thursday August 28, 2025 4:08 am PDT by
An iPhone 17 announcement is a dead cert for September 2025 – Apple has already sent out invites for an "Awe dropping" event on Tuesday, September 9 at the Apple Park campus in Cupertino, California. The timing follows Apple's trend of introducing new iPhone models annually in the fall. At the event, Apple is expected to unveil its new-generation iPhone 17, an all-new ultra-thin iPhone 17...
iPhone 17 AIR Loud Feature

iPhone 17 Air Could Start at $1,099 With 256GB Storage, 1TB for $1,499

Thursday September 4, 2025 2:54 am PDT by
Apple's upcoming iPhone 17 Air will have a $1,099 starting price providing 256GB of base storage and will max out at $1,499 with a 1TB option, according to the latest TrendForce report. Apple will offer three price/storage tiers for the all-new ultra-thin iPhone 17 model, which replaces last year's iPhone 16 Plus in the lineup. Here's how TrendForce sees them breaking down: 256GB — $1099...

Top Rated Comments

ValSalva Avatar
158 months ago
So the publishers collude, with or without Apple and yet Apple is the one who has to be punished. What a joke.
Score: 30 Votes (Like | Disagree)
ThisIsNotMe Avatar
158 months ago
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!!!
Score: 18 Votes (Like | Disagree)
nagromme Avatar
158 months ago
I think I understand....

1. Amazon has a near monopoly (monopsony?)

2. Amazon can do whatever they want (it was Amazon who requested the DoJ pursue this matter in the first place)

3. Many companies are affected (if not outright killed off) by Amazon's predatory practices

4. If those companies make a peep, they are "colluding" against poor Amazon!

5. How could all the publishers respond at the same time? It's almost as though they're all responding to the same thing that just happened. Nah... collusion.
Score: 14 Votes (Like | Disagree)
Solomani Avatar
158 months ago
Wow, the DOJ is looking more and more pathetic.

I'm glad that the DOJ is showing its true colors in this new accusation: paranoid and incompetent.
Score: 14 Votes (Like | Disagree)
TheZeitgeist Avatar
158 months ago
This is what one gets not being corrupt.

DC is a shakedown operation, so if you're not plugged in you get mugged.

This is why Bozo buying the Washington Post is such a good deal. Everyone in DC-NY corridor wonders how the digitized Wal-Mart clown will make money on a dying antique newspaper, but they don't get it - he bought influence, he bought his way into the social circle of the DOJ, Congresscritters, etc. No matter the clowns in power, Bozo has access to them with not the business of the Post but the social institution - the lunches and cocktail parties and all the rest. That's where power is in DC.

Apple is a good example of what happens when you don't grease the DC skids. They make all this money, are an American icon more effective than any propaganda, employ thousands, and make popular stuff. But they don't play the game...so you see Tim Cook be whipping boy in Congress, this DOJ shakedown, etc. Meanwhile Amazon runs vast sweatshop warehouses with a predatory money-losing business model - and gets away with it.

But they play the game better than Apple does, indeed with the WaPo purchase obviously play it better than any other digital business.
Score: 13 Votes (Like | Disagree)
gatearray Avatar
158 months ago
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.
Score: 13 Votes (Like | Disagree)