U.S.A. v. Apple: Things are looking up for Apple as e-book trial concludes

“It may be telling that before the case went to trial the Department of Justice thought it would need 30 hours to prove that Apple (AAPL) had conspired with five book publishers to raise the price of e-books, while Apple’s lawyers only wanted 27 hours to defend their client,” Philip Elmer-DeWitt reports for Fortune. “The two sides settled on 29 hours apiece.”

“But after three weeks of testimony — and with summations scheduled for Thursday — Apple said it needed two and half hours to make its closing arguments while the DOJ thought 90 minutes would suffice,” P.E.D. reports. “It was as if Apple wanted to luxuriate in a well-constructed defense, and the government couldn’t wait to walk away from a case that hadn’t gone its way.”

Advertisement: Sonos ZonePlayer Wireless Music System: Superior Sound, Wireless Control.

Read more in the full article here.

Related articles:
U.S.A. v. Apple judge: ‘The issues have shifted’ – June 19, 2013
U.S.A. v. Apple e-book U.S. District Judge Denise Cote just loves her Apple iPad – June 19, 2013
In U.S.A. v. Apple e-books case, witness Barnes & Noble VP Theresa Horner was everything Apple could hope for – June 19, 2013
The Apple e-books trial takes a detour into the absurd – June 18, 2013
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


      1. Keep in mind the Apple was innocent but publishers did use apple to raise prices. That is not in dispute and they should have paid far more.

        I also wish Apple sould sue the publishers and DOJ to get its legal fees back.

  1. Just to remind everyone before the Obama-bashing begins: the great majority of MDN readers live in states where the local Attorney General has filed a similar suit against Apple. At least half of those Attorneys General are Republicans. The suits are bad law, but they don’t reflect partisan politics.

  2. I wonder should all things go the way they should (i.e. Apple is found innocent) if the Amazonian gorilla will be targeted or not. It might be on the endangered species list or something.

  3. Obama administration: all bark and no bite. I’m sure giving weapons to those hardcore Islamists in Syria will go over about as well as this case.

    The Rand Paul presidency can’t get here soon enough.

    1. Rand Paul Presidency? You can’t be serious, though if you are, care to share why he would get the vote of those population segments that don’t vote Republican in any appreciable numbers, such of the vote that Republicans transitionally don’t? Such as Latinos, African-Americans, Asian-Americans, women in general, and so on.

      1. Nah, his momma found out about all the dirty words he used and took away his computer for a week. She also notified his principal, so he won’t be able to use his junior high school’s computers.

  4. Bunch of you already say Apple wins. Based on what? Some guy thinks 90 minutes indicates the gov knows it is a lost cause. You know it might be the gov thinks it is a win and Apple wants some extra time to beg for mercy. It seems a little early for celebrating. Just saying.

  5. My thoughts are that Apple did nothing wrong or illegal, but we’re dealing with the government here. Reasonableness is not the State’s middle name, so I have no positive feelings or expectations about the outcome of this.

    I’m trying to be as pessimistic as possible to avoid being disappointed/enraged by a possible anti-Apple verdict.

    Regardless of the judge’s decision, I expect it to be appealed.

  6. Apple was not singled out in this case remember the book publishers settled. Apple was determined to prove they did nothing wrong but the same cannot be said for the book publishers, hence the reason they settled. The DOJ was obviously prodded by the likes of Amazon and Google to protect their future positions and probably knowing very well that Apple would not settle, Amazon and Google essentially decided to press Apples legal team hoping for probably some relief on the patent front. I hope the DOJ sees it’s way towards punishing Amazon and Google but they should have been more thorough in their research before bringing the case to trial. The real culprits in my opinion, the publishers are guilty of collusive behavior but they settled for pennies on the dollar while the DOJ glared too droolingly at Apple’s deep pockets and Steve Jobs unsent emails before checking if they really had a case. In other words they wanted Apple to be guilty. Wanting it and being able to prove it are on different ends of the scale beam.

  7. After following all this the problem to me seem to be Apple’s 30% cut or Amazon’s subsidising of E-books which makes other outlets none competitive. And it can’t be illegal so subsidising things and it can not be illegal for publisher to set ther own prices even if that would mean higher prices… And I don’t think Apple wanted to rise e-book prices even though that would have been the outcome. The main problem probably is that amazon is selling books subsidised and therefor ebook prices are artificially low.

Reader Feedback

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