Apple’s e-book appeal to higher court: Toss out the verdict, or give us a real judge

“Apple pulled no punches in the 65-page brief it filed Tuesday, asking a higher court to overturn the controversial results of last year’s e-book antitrust trial and placing blame for the outcome squarely on the shoulders of the judge who heard the case,” Philip Elmer-DeWitt reports for Fortune.

“In Apple’s view, U.S. District Judge Denise Cote was not only wrong about the law when she ruled that the company orchestrated a conspiracy with publishers to fix the price of e-books, she wrong about the facts as well,” P.E.D. reports. “The key issue of law is the same one that was raised in at trial: That the antitrust rules that restrain the actions of direct competitors are not the same as those governing the actions of a vertical player — as Apple was in its dealings with the publishers.”

“The key issue of fact has to do with the judge’s timeline of the case,” P.E.D. reports. “‘The district court’s judgment and injunction should be reversed, and judgment should be entered for Apple,’ the brief concludes. ‘In the alternative, a new trial before a different district judge should be granted.'”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: We’re about to find out the answer to the question we asked back in early January:

Can Apple get a real judge to look at this eventually, as opposed to a stupid puppet?

Lady Elaine Fairchilde (left), Judge Denise Cote (right), or vice versa
Lady Elaine Fairchilde (left), Judge Denise Cote (right), or vice versa

Related articles:
In pretrial view, judge says leaning toward U.S. DOJ over Apple in e-books case – May 24, 2013
Lawyers have complained for years that Judge Denise Cote pre-judges cases before she enters the courtroom – August 14, 2013

U.S. Federal Puppet Denise Cote: ‘Apple’s reaction to the existence of a monitorship underscores the wisdom of its imposition’ – January 16, 2014
Judge Denise Cote denies Apple request block her friend as ‘antitrust compliance monitor’ – January 13, 2014
Antitrust monitor Bromwich rebuts Apple accusations of ‘unconstitutional’ investigation – December 31, 2013
Apple seeks to freeze its U.S. e-books ‘antitrust monitor’ – December 15, 2013
The persecution of Apple: Is the U.S. government’s ebook investigation out of control? – December 10, 2013
Apple’s Star Chamber: An abusive judge and her prosecutor friend besiege the tech maker – December 5, 2013


  1. Whenever I read this kinda low standard judges taking care of protecting us the consumers and the IP of great non open sourced innovative companies, Apple, Dyson to name a few, I feel very upset and indeed angry. How low this team of judges can be, huh?

  2. Couple of things
    Apple is right to fight this as far as possible now. The class action law suits will cost billions.

    Apple has to enter the unsavory business of political lobbying. Their competitors (Google and Amazon among others) are using this with skill and great reward.

    1. So true. Google for one. I used to buy into their free services but for more than a decade of knowing them by taking tech for granted, I despise them now. A hyper-outstanding ad agency speaking of great virtue in name of tech openness, yet using all these political soft skills, thus regardless of virtue, to batter “other” die-hard innovative tech companies.

    2. Maybe money won’t fix this. Maybe Apple has to let the NSA take part in every step of every design in the future. Rebrand every product with NSA instead of “i”, and maybe fill the board of directors with these nazi KGB creeps. Oh, and put cameras with microphones on everything so big brother can always watch you intimately. That would make Google jealous as well. Apple has to surrender to the unelected unaccountable omnipotent taxpayer-funded secret government that rules the government. Steve Jobs would never have let the NSA get the hooks into Apple that the NSA have today.

      1. Prove that the NSA has it’s ‘hooks into Apple’.
        The NSA has no need to, it gets all the info it needs from further along the data stream, the ISP’s.
        Apple has already stated publicly that it has not, and will not, hand over any personal info unless forced to by legal requirement.

        1. Can’t prove it, but I also rightly suspected ten years ago that phone calls were tapped by a secret police. I read that encryption on apple products is nothing to the NSA and that iCloud is accessible to them as well. Maybe even the microphone and camera gets remotely controlled. Some people put tape over their device camera. Public statements by states or companies are just noise today, backed by the muscle of the powers that be ready to step on dissent. More prisoners in USA than in China, a state without human rights.

  3. Apple can take this all the way to the Supreme Court if they wish.

    Another part of me wants Apple to beat Amazon at their own game. Sell books at cost or less and kill the e-book market for Amazon. If the courts says it’s okay then go for it.

    1. Amazon can only do that because that practice works only for digital stores that ALSO deal with hard copies of books.

      Apple had the digital-only store aspect completely right. The only change that could’ve made sure it was no longer demonized is removal of the ‘most favoured nation’ clause, as it would not allow publishers to bypass its intended effect by raising prices elsewhere, instead of just allowing Apple to match discounted prices made available to rivals.
      This could’ve also ensured Barnes stayed competitive against Amazon, without requiring collusion with Apple.

  4. The puppet admitted publicly that Apple was guilty before the trial even started. That alone should be worth another judge at least. Any real judge would not publicly comment guilt or judgement before a trial has even started. Coyte has had a record of pre-judging cases she handles and the verdicts are usually the same if she says in the beginning there guilty then her ruling is usually guilty. The puppet needs to be removed for a real judge that looks at the facts and not give any pre-determined outcome until all the facts are heard period. Most of the legal community said Apple was not guilty based on the facts and testimony that was given in the first trial. Except that Coyte is a puppet and not a real judge so because of her prejudice her verdict was guilty and she would not let Apple use any of its evidence or testimony to counter it. Lame prejudice excuses she would cut anything that Apple had to keep her ruling. There should be rules that should be in place to remove garbage like Coyte.

Reader Feedback

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