“What started as a small ‘gotcha’ moment in the cross examination of a mid-level Apple executive last week grew into a federal case — literally — on Monday, the ninth day of testimony in U.S.A. v. Apple,” Philip Elmer-DeWitt reports for Fortune.
“The latest McGuffin in the Department of Justice’s antitrust case against Apple is an e-mail signed by Steve Jobs and addressed to Eddy Cue — the Apple senior vice president whom the government claims was the ‘ringmaster’ of a conspiracy to raise the price of e-books in 2010,” P.E.D. reports. “The evidence was first sprung on Keith Moerer, the head of Apple’s iBookstore, by Dan McCuaig, a DOJ attorney, in the last hour of the sixth day.”
Advertisement: Limited time offer – 25% off Parallels Desktop 8 for Mac – Run windows on your Mac – Faster
P.E.D. reports, “The evidence was first sprung on Keith Moerer, the head of Apple’s iBookstore, by Dan McCuaig, a DOJ attorney, in the last hour of the sixth day. Moerer and his colleague Kevin Saul had both testified that Apple was ‘indifferent’ to what kind of agreement the publishers signed with Amazon, then the dominant e-book seller with a 90% market share. But in an e-mail in response to some price cap changes proposed by Eddy Cue, Jobs [seemed to contradict that].”
Much more in the full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: The whole thing has always been absurd.
As we wrote the day the DOJ filed this lawsuit, “The U.S. DOJ is plainly inept.”
Once again: Killing real competition for the appearance of competition is just plain stupid.
Related articles:
Steve Jobs, Winnie the Pooh and the iBookstore Launch – June 17, 2013
Apple set to present its defense in e-book antitrust case – June 17, 2013
Steve Jobs was initially opposed to entering the e-book market – June 14, 2013
U.S.A. v. Apple: DOJ’s last best chance in e-book case has passed – June 14, 2013
Obama admin trying to throw the book at Apple; U.S. DOJ goes after an innovator whose market entry reduced prices – June 13, 2013
Apple’s Eddy Cue denies price-fixing allegations at U.S v. Apple e-books trial – June 13, 2013
Apple fires back at DOJ with email Steve Jobs actually sent – June 13, 2013
Is Steve Jobs’ unsent email a smoking gun in Apple e-book case? – June 12, 2013
Winds shift toward Apple in U.S. DOJ’s e-book trial – June 12, 2013
Day 5 of the Apple ebooks trial: Publishing execs testify; Rupert Murdoch’s role – June 11, 2013
U.S. v. Apple iBookstore case could go to the Supreme Court – June 5, 2013
Apple accuses DOJ of unfairly twisting Steve Jobs’ words in e-book case – June 4, 2013
U.S. DOJ prosecutors accuse Apple of driving up e-book prices – June 3, 2013
U.S. v. Apple goes to trial; DOJ claims e-book price-fixing conspiracy with Apple as ringmaster – June 3, 2013
U.S. DOJ takes Apple to trial alleging e-book price-fixing – June 2, 2013
In pretrial view, judge says leaning toward U.S. DOJ over Apple in e-books case – May 24, 2013
Penguin to pay $75 million in e-book settlement with US State Attorneys General – May 23, 2013
The hot mess that is Apple’s e-book legal fight with U.S. DOJ – May 16, 2013
Apple: Deals with publishers improved e-books competition – May 15, 2013
Apple tells U.S. DOJ of tough talks, not collusion, with publishers – May 15, 2013
EU ends e-book pricing antitrust probe into e-book pricing; accepts offer by Apple, four publishers – December 13, 2012
Apple, publishers offer EU e-book antitrust settlement – September 19, 2012
Judge rubber-stamps U.S. e-books settlement – September 6, 2012
Apple, four publishers offer e-books antitrust concessions, says source – August 31, 2012
Apple bashes Amazon, calls U.S. DOJ settlement proposal ‘fundamentally unfair, unlawful, and unprecedented’ – August 16, 2012
U.S. antitrust settlement with e-book publishers should be approved, feds say – August 4, 2012
U.S. Justice Department slams Apple, refuses to modify e-book settlement – July 23, 2012
U.S. senator Schumer: Myopic DOJ needs to drop Apple e-books suit – July 18, 2012
Apple’s U.S. e-books antitrust case set for 2013 trial – June 24, 2012
U.S. government complains, claims Apple trying to rush e-books antitrust case – June 21, 2012
Barnes & Noble blasts U.S. DOJ e-book settlement proposal – June 7, 2012
Apple: U.S. government’s e-book antitrust lawsuit ‘is fundamentally flawed as a matter of fact and law’ – May 24, 2012
Federal Judge rejects Apple and publishers’ attempt to dismiss civil case alleging e-book price-fixing – May 15, 2012
Court documents reveal Steve Jobs email pushing e-book agency model; 17 more states join class action suit – May 15, 2012
Apple vs. Amazon: Who’s really fixing eBook prices? – April 17, 2012
Apple: U.S. DOJ’s accusation of collusion against iBookstore is simply not true – April 12, 2012
Apple not likely to be a loser in legal fight over eBooks – April 12, 2012
16 U.S. states join DOJ’s eBook antitrust action against Apple, publishers – April 12, 2012
Australian gov’t considers suing Apple, five major publishers over eBook pricing – April 12, 2012
DOJ’s panties in a bunch over Apple and eBooks, but what about Amazon? – April 12, 2012
Antitrust experts: Apple likely to beat U.S. DOJ, win its eBook lawsuit – April 12, 2012
Why the market shrugged off the Apple antitrust suit – April 11, 2012
What’s wrong with the U.S. DOJ? – April 11, 2012
Macmillan CEO blasts U.S. DOJ; gov’t on verge of killing real competition for appearance of competition – April 11, 2012
U.S. DOJ hits Apple, major publishers with antitrust lawsuit, alleges collusion on eBook prices – April 11, 2012
U.S. DOJ may sue Apple over ebook price-fixing as early as today, sources say – April 11, 2012
One small question – given the IRS targeting of political enemies – does Amazon and Google donate more to the Democrats than Apple?
DOJ’s first question in response to Amazon’s crybaby fit about Apple and publishers being “mean” to them should have been: “Have you been playing nice in the sandbox?” Their second question about Amazon’s desire for DOJ to sue for anti-trust should have been: “So what’s in it for you?”
All this over an irrelevant, unsent email written by somebody that’s no longer here to defend what he wrote.
What is needed is complete information rather than a single piece taken out of context.
The DOJ’s case hinges on speculation about the intent of a dead man.
There cannot be any determination by the judge of what Steve Job’s intent was. If anything his intent can only be clarified by Eddie Cue who was his partner and point man in this negotiation, not a prosecutor who never knew the man and who obviously wants to interpret the ambiguous language in this email.
Not only is it pretentious to try and stand in Steve Jobs’ shoes, but Steve Jobs’ life record shows him to be a person that always stood firm for the benefit of the customer and fairness, making this speculation totally out of character. If speculation is game, at least base it on a track record and the people who had forst hand knowledge of his intent by participation.
This has to be the worst Department of Justice in recent history. From bullying Aaron Swartz literally to death, to attempted cover ups and stalling of the Fast and Furious investigation, to spying on AP reporters, to this farce of a collusion trial, it’s complete and total thuggery.
Is there no part of this Administration that isn’t a poster organization of amateur hour?
I had to search who Aaron Swartz was.
Plus, lets not forget that the judge sounded like she made her mind before the trial even started.
About Aaron Swartz:
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/01/aaron-swartz/
http://jeremiahgrossman.blogspot.com/2013/01/aarons-suicide-system-contributed.html
“Aaron was steadfast in his dedication to building a better and open world,” writes Internet Archive founder Brewster Kahle. “He is among the best spirits of the Internet generation. I am crushed by his loss, but will continue to be enlightened by his work and dedication.”
Well why doesn’t Jobs just testify. Oh, he’s dead. Right. In that graveyard with his billions buried with hyme.
@x
As always, thanks SO much for your insightful contribution. Such a pleasure to read your thoughtful and illuminating prose. A great addition to the discussion.
blahblahblah
My conclusion: The DOJ is desperate to justify this absurd case. FAIL.