The big ‘if’ in Apple’s e-book settlement

“Apple has struck a deal with 30 states attorneys general who had demanded hundreds of millions of dollars in damages on behalf of book buyers in the their states,” Phillip Elmer-Dewitt reports for Fortune. “By settling, the two sides avoided a jury trial that was set to begin next month.”

“No money will change hands until Apple’s appeals of Judge Cote’s controversial ruling – which it has said it will take to the Supreme Court, if necessary — are exhausted,” P.E.D. reports. “Judge Cote last year ruled that Apple had illegally conspired with five book publishers to raise the price of e-books. To many observers — not just Apple’s lawyers — the ruling seemed to turn U.S. antitrust law on its head. Apple in 2010 was trying to break into a market over which Amazon exercised monopoly control.”

P.E.D. reports, “The dollar amount Apple settled on with the states is still under seal. But the letter that was made public acknowledges that Apple is still appealing the original antitrust finding. As part of the deal, the states have agreed that, as the letter puts it, ‘any payment to be made by Apple under the settlement agreement will be contingent on the outcome of that appeal.'”

Lady Elaine Fairchilde (left), U.S Federal Puppet Denise Cote (right), or vice versa
Lady Elaine Fairchilde (left), U.S Federal Puppet Denise Cote (right), or vice versa

More info and link to the letter to the puppet from Apple’s attorneys in the full article here.

[Thanks to MacDailyNews readers too numerous to mention individually for the heads up.]

Related articles:
Apple’s Star Chamber: An abusive judge and her prosecutor friend besiege the tech maker – December 5, 2013
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

Apple offers discounts on Hachette books that Amazon won’t sell – June 17, 2014
Apple settles e-book antitrust case with U.S. states; contingent on outcome of Apple’s appeal. – June 17, 2014
Stephen Colbert goes after Amazon, offers ‘I didn’t buy it on Amazon’ stickers – June 5, 2014
Amazon’s Bezos has gone too far: The e-book monopolist may finally face a court of law – May 25, 2014
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
Apple takes aim not just at court-ordered e-books monitor, but also at U.S. District Judge Denise Cote herself – December 2, 2013
U.S.A. v. Apple: Judge Denise Cote assigns DOJ monitor in Apple ebook price-fixing case – October 17, 2013
U.S.A. v. Apple: Judge issues injunction against Apple in ebooks antitrust case; largely in line with what DOJ wanted – September 6, 2013
U.S.A. v. Apple: Judge Denise Cote says Apple needs third-party supervision after ‘blatant’ ebook price fixing – August 28, 2013


  1. To be honest, Apple’s e-book case is one of the most outrageous and brazen case of corruption in business.

    In the times when Amazon abuses its monopoly power left and right, we have this nasty case of corrupt bureaucracy of Washington going along with Amazon lobbyists and judge who (after she will retire) will get millions of dollars from the Amazon law firm as “consultant”.

    1. Nonsense. The deed is done, if she ain’t been paid by now why pay her later. You think she would sue them, telling the world she had a deal? Not the way it works.

      1. That’s pretty naive. In our current revolving-door legalized bribery system, the buyer makes sure to take care of THIS person because they want the future people-who-aren’t-technically-being-bribed to do what they want. It’s understood that if you do what the powerful people want, they will take care of you. Go look up “revolving door politics”
        Wikipedia link:

        I’m not accusing the judge of that here, but don’t think that someone has to worry about being taken care of if they do what is understood to be the desire of those with money.

  2. Apple knew that judge Cote had already decided the upcoming case as well and no amount of evidence will change her mind. Apple knew the maximum fine of $800 million was a certainty and was limiting the damage in case all appeals for the original verdict are exhausted.
    I really hope her bizarre ruling gets overturned, but I fear that the appeals court will protect judge cote.

Reader Feedback

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