Apple fires back at DOJ with email Steve Jobs actually sent

“After the Justice Department presented an e-mail Wednesday that appeared to undermine Apple’s e-book antitrust defense, the company submitted the actual e-mail as sent by then-CEO Steve Jobs to Eddy Cue, showing content and tone that differed from the draft version,” Steven Musil reports for CNET. “Apple, which is accused of conspiring with book publishers to fix e-book prices, has maintained that it was uninterested in the pricing models used by publishers in deals with other retailers. The Justice Department submitted a terse e-mail sent by Jobs to Cue, who oversees all of Apple’s digital stores and its Web services, that it said proved Apple wanted to force Amazon to adopt the agency model favored by Apple.”

I can live with this as long as they move Amazon to the agent model too for new releases for the first year. If not, I’m not sure we can be competitive… – email from Steve Jobs to Eddy Cue, unsent draft

Musil reports, “However, Apple lawyers fired back later in the day, calling that e-mail an unsent draft and presenting what it said was the actual e-mail that Jobs sent, without the language suggesting that publishers needed to force Amazon toward the agency model.”

Steve Jobs' email to Eddy Cue: "Book Prices Thoughts"
Steve Jobs’ email to Eddy Cue: “Book Prices Thoughts”

Full article here.

Related articles:
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


  1. So, according to the Department of Justice, price fixing and collusion is when prices are lowered in favor of the customers. And, if this is the case, then if Apple fixed prices to make them higher and more in favor of companies, such as Amazon, then they would not be in trouble. Seems like the veneer is wearing thin on this sham, and Amazon’s role, and possibly Barnes & Noble’s role, should be investigated.

    1. It isn’t about B&N (they should be bragging about their brick and mortar store experience)…. All about Amazon…

      In any case, what a waste of our tax $ and our time.

  2. It looks to me as if an overwhelming desire to smack down Apple lead to such a bias in their own review of the evidence that the DOJ lawyers couldn’t see the weakness of their case. Did a desire for personal aggrandizement cloud someone’s judgment?

    1. “Amazon was the driving force behind the Government’s investigation,” Apple claimed in a legal memo filed Wednesday to protest the DOJ’s proposed settlement. “And it told a story to the Government that has yet to be scrutinized. Amazon talked with the Government repeatedly throughout the investigation, even hosting a two-day meeting at its Seattle headquarters. In all, the Government met with at least fourteen Amazon employees — yet not once under oath.”

      1. Amazon supported the Obama administration more vigorously than Apple. Amazon demanded “fair recompense” for the money they sent and the administration obeyed in exchange for “continue contributions” all according to standard practices. This set in motion the Department of Injustice persecution of Apple.

        1. Interesting speculation, Freek. You assert this as truth, but I don’t believe that you have one iota of legitimate evidence. Your case is weaker than the DOJ’s.

          You have an amazing capacity for raging conspiracy paranoia.

        1. Perhaps I’m mistaken here, but:

          (a) it was under Attorney General Holder, that this waste-of-money-and-time lawsuit was initiated;
          (b) even if not initiated by him, it has certainly been continued and not shut down;
          (c) Mr. Obama appointed Mr. Holder;
          (d) as a famous and respected Democrat, Harry S Truman, said, for the President “the buck stops here.”

          Mr. Obama is as responsible for what his appointees do as Mr. Bush (43), Mr. Clinton, Mr. Bush (41), Mr. Reagan, Mr. Carter, etc., etc., etc. It’s part of the job. Any president who doesn’t like that should, as did Mr. Nixon, resign.

          1. And here you show how little you both know about politics and history.

            Truman was hopelessly unqualified when Roosevelt died (getting the VP nomination only due to back-alley business deals to push out Wallace), Truman fired one of our greatest-ever generals (MacArthur) in the middle of the Korean War for idiotic reasons (Truman apparently thought he knew more about running a war than MacArthur), the economy took a dump after he took office, and he’s largely responsible for starting the 40-year Cold War with the Soviets because he thought he could play cowboy and bully them around. He had the lowest-ever Presidential approval ratings when he left office.

            Gosh, sounds a lot like George W. Bush….guess you must like him, too. BTW, only Dubya’s approval ratings were lower than Truman’s when he left office.

            Revisionists have worked hard to improve Truman’s rating (undeservedly)….I guess they better get started on Dubya’s now.

            So, while you’re criticizing the Obama administration for what I agree is a “waste of time and money lawsuit,” don’t forget the TRILLION or so dollars wasted by his predecessor (as well as thousands of lives) in invading Iraq unnecessarily.

            1. Craig,

              Thank you for the history lesson on Truman (albeit unnecessary). And I believe the commenter above said that GWB was responsible for the people below him; which means he was indeed criticizing ALL who have screwed up and said that the highest office is where the blames lies.

              I will agree with you that GWB spent a huge amount of money on the stimulus (that, by the way, was approved by a democrat run House & Senate), but you seriously can’t give GWB crap about that and then give the current administration a pass on the TWO subsequent stimulus packages that were put in after the fact. Or maybe you can. And for the record, most true conservatives were against the first stimulus package.

              Curious on your thoughts.

        2. botvinnik is simply anti-government. He is incredibly suspicious of any and all government actions and can sniff out a conspiracy anytime and anywhere, regardless of how ridiculous and unlikely that conspiracy may sound. Paranoia has nothing on botvinnik. His rants are not worth your time, as he has proven repeatedly on this forum.

          1. Botvinnik is a Jeffersonian democrat whose posts here resonate his conviction there is no future for a free America without the ongoing battle against any tyranny from any source that endangers the liberties guaranteed in the Constitution.
            “botvinnik is simply anti-government.” is ludicrous since the function of government and the oath of every elected official is to defend, preserve and protect said constitution.
            Melvin, on the other hand, is a driveling buffoon whose forté is splattering Rachel Maddow regurgitant on the hallowed walls of MacDailyNews.

            1. No bill can become law without the signed approval of the President of the United States, unless a veto is overridden by a two-thirds vote of both the House and the Senate. You might consider reading the Constitution, asshat.

            2. It is amusing in the extreme that you think the NSA, CIA, etc. are under the direct control of POTUS. In theory, yes. In reality? You must be joking.

            3. Actually there is a time limit on a veto. If the U.S. President does not sign a bill within 10 days while the U.S. Congress is in session the bill automatically becomes law.

              Article 1, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution states:

              If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a Law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a Law.

              You might consider reading the Constitution, asshat.

            4. on second thought, considering how many taxpayer financed vacations Obama Messiah and his lovely wife, Mr. Ed,’s certainly possible that he wasn’t available to sign a bill within ten days.

        1. As well as when you have online chats. Companies can monitor the keystrokes before you hit send. So even if you delete and re-type something, the agent on the other end sees the whole thing.

          1. That’s true enough, if the government had the resources to actually READ the BILLIONS of text messages and emails generated every day. They don’t. Ergo, end of tinfoil conspiracy theories.

            1. People aren’t reading each individual message. Machines and systems are scanning billions of messages for key words (and other heuristic AI datatype) and flagging it for an analyst to review.

            2. Not tinfoil hat, one of the biggest problems is the fact that there storing all of that info, and then going through it for later use. They should not store personal info at all.

              I happen to know. The facility there building here in Utah is the worlds largest data storage facility. It is being built by the NSA, and is overseen by them as well. It is being built on an army base too for security (Camp Williams).

    1. So verify true with the corruption inherent in the system it is almost laughable that these people/politicians who earn fortunes doing the dirty work of industry are put in the effective position of investigator, judge and jury.

  3. I don’t understand why the DOJ is allowed to look at draft emails. What are they, the thought police? If they didn’t find this email in Eddie Cue’s In box, did they find it in SJ’s Draft folder, or in his Sent folder? How hard can it be to get this right?

    1. They likely issued a subpoena for all emails or anything else that might be evidence, and I would say that Apple complied completely, turning over everything that was relevant. The problem is that the DOJ attorneys didn’t seem to understand what the evidence demonstrated.

  4. Amazon better get their share of DOJ investigation time. Commenters from the article link shows the desperation of iHaters to prove Apple Guilty. Crazy iHaters!

  5. If it was a “draft” wouldn’t only Steve saw it? Gotta wonder why they would even include such a weak piece of evidence ……

    With the sent email posted by Apple …. Have to wonder what the DOJ has left?

  6. I read this story at CNet.

    In the comments section, the ihaters are accusing Apple of faking the longer email because of the timestamps.

    I think the ‘draft’ email has a Received(Date) about 90 seconds after the one Apple says was actually sent.

    Other commenters are saying the draft must have been sent because of the ‘Received(Date)’

    People have offered explanations for this, but the ihaters aren’t buying it.

    Anyone here with real knowledge, who can explain the timestamp anomaly? (No clueless dick head responses from sfgh please)

    I’m just wondering if this causes any difficulty for Apple to explain.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.