Apple’s bid to suspend ruling in e-books case denied by judge as Cupertino seeks appeal

“A New York district court judge on Friday denied Apple’s request to suspend a ruling that found the company guilty of e-book price fixing while it seeks an appeal,” Mikey Campbell reports for AppleInsider.

“Presiding Judge Denise Cote refused Apple’s request to temporarily stay her decision, which would have given the company time to seek an appeal of the penalties laid out by the U.S. Department of Justice, according to in-court reports from The Associated Press,” Campbell reports. “Concluding Friday’s hearing, Judge Cote proposed a new settlement plan that would stagger Apple’s deals with the five book publishers to stymie another price fixing arrangement.”

Campbell reports, “According to The New York Times, the proposal is a less intensive version of the DOJ’s sought guidelines.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: Hopefully, somewhere along this particular endless gauntlet, Apple will get lucky and run into a judge with a brain.

[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “Fred Mertz” for the heads up.]

Related articles:
U.S.A. v. Apple: U.S. District Judge Denise Cote erred during e-books trial, Apple says – August 9, 2013
U.S.A. v. Apple: Cupertino wants a stay in e-books case; DOJ claims publishers are conspiring again – August 9, 2013
U.S.A. v. Apple: DOJ seeks wide-ranging oversight of iTunes Store – August 2, 2013
Apple rejects U.S. DOJ’s proposed e-book penalties as ‘a draconian and punitive intrusion’ – August 2, 2013
U.S.A. v. Apple: DOJ wants to force Apple to revamp e-book practices – August 2, 2013
U.S.A. v. Apple: Cupertino could get smacked with $500 million bill in ebook case – July 25, 2013
U.S.A. v. Apple verdict could end the book as we know it – July 11, 2013
U.S. DOJ unwittingly causes further consolidation, strengthens Amazon’s domination of ebook industry – July 11, 2013
Where’s the proof that Apple conspired with publishers on ebook pricing? – July 10, 2013
U.S.A. v. Apple ruling could allow U.S. government to monitor, interfere with future Apple negotiations – July 10, 2013
Judge Denise Cote likely wrote most of her U.S.A. v. Apple ebooks case decision before the trial – July 10, 2013
U.S.A. v. Apple: NY judge rules Apple colluded to fix ebook prices, led illegal conspiracy, violated U.S. antitrust laws – July 10, 2013


  1. If there were even the tiniest, flimsiest doubt about this judge being biased against Apple, this ruling killed it.

    The DOJ has proposed penalties that directly violate the agreements that the five publishers have directly with the DOJ. Yet this judge does not even consider stopping this — just, at best, “staggering it”.

    It is common practice in cases like this to stay the penalties until the Appeals Court gets its say. Hell, even in the huge Microsoft Internet Explorer case where Microsoft was found to have illegally used its monopoly position with Windows to illegally extend its presence in browsers by integrating the browser into Windows itself the penalties were stayed until the Appeals Court heard the case. And that case had a much, much bigger impact on the computing world than this case ever will.

    So what happens if these draconian measures go into effect, the publishers and Apple are severely negatively affected and Amazon keeps losing money and buying market share back — then the Appeals Court overturns it all? Who wins then? Certainly not the public. Certainly not Apple or the publishers. Only Amazon.

    Also since these measures force Apple to force the publishers into contracts directly violating the publishers’ agreements with the DOJ, does the DOJ then get to go after Apple for forcing the publishers to violate those agreements? The DOJ and this judge seem to have that in mind too.

    Either this judge is in Amazon’s pocket or she’s a complete egomaniacal idiot. I can’t figure out which. Maybe it’s both.

  2. That judge already had a decision made before the trial. She needs to be reviewed and assessed for:

    1: Stupidity for not understanding Facts or Proof.

    2: Why, even when glaring looking at factual evidence vindicating Apple, she still ignores the true facts and rules against Apple.

  3. Judge Denise Cote needs to up her intake of Nembutal and go to sleep for a long time. Another brain dead judge who has no comprehension of the underlying meaning of monopoly in a technological online bookstore context in that you can only assert a monopoly if you are in a position of exerting market dominance.

    In terms of selling books online the iTunes Store is but a fraction of the size of the Amazon online store so in relative terms Amazon is in a monopolistic position when compared to Apple. The conclusion to be drawn here is that the judge has no understanding of how an online store works, what an agency model is and what predatory pricing within the context of controlling the pricing mechanism in an open online market means.

    A failure of the Anerican education system. Perhaps if she read more books instead of dithering around with her dildo she would know how to buy a book on the iBookstore.

  4. What a weird way to phrase this statement. Why not say “The SAME district court judge that ruled against Apple backed up her own ruling.” Samsung and Android get to profit for years while having been found guilty of patent infringement, yet Apple can’t sell books during their appeal. The Justice Department is really out to punish Apple. I wonder who put the contract out on Apple and why. This is the real story for any real reporter.

    “A New York district court judge on Friday denied Apple’s request to suspend a ruling that found the company guilty of e-book price fixing while it seeks an appeal,” Mikey Campbell reports for AppleInsider.”

  5. This is like something out of an old Science Fiction book I read.

    It was about America in the future. It is a dystopian America, ala 1984 and other dystopias, but it is more like the America we have now, where the totalitarianism is of the creeping sort. They don’t have the jackbooted thugs marching down the street, but the government is in control of so many things that life and freedom were greatly stifled.

    At one point they started installing government representatives in companies to make sure that the companies were following government directives.

    One of the government cronies says to the owner of a business they’re pressuring… ” What good are laws, if the right people don’t break them ? ”

    I looked at our real government saying they were going to install a representative at Apple to oversee Apple’s pricing practices, and it was just too close to this old book to be funny anymore.

    1. “… just too close to this old book to be funny anymore.”

      I doubt the book was funny to begin with.

      Fwiw, this DoJ vs. Apple scenario (our country and the world) seems to be more and more like the background of Atlas Shrugged.

Reader Feedback

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