Apple asks U.S. Supreme Court to toss e-books antitrust decision

“Apple Inc has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn an appellate court decision that found the iPad maker conspired with five publishers to increase e-book prices,” Nate Raymond reports for Reuters.

“If upheld, the decision would also force Apple to pay consumers $450 million under a 2014 settlement with 33 state attorneys general and consumers that was contingent on the company’s civil liability being upheld,” Raymond reports. “Apple in its petition said the June decision by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York contradicted Supreme Court precedent and would ‘chill innovation and risk-taking… The Second Circuit’s decision will harm competition and the national economy.'”

Raymond reports, “The 2nd Circuit’s ruling followed a July 2013 decision by U.S. District Judge Denise Cote after a non-jury trial that Apple played a ‘central role’ in a conspiracy with publishers to eliminate retail price competition and raise e-book prices.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: Hopefully, the Court takes the case and quickly overturns this travesty that’s been perpetrated by a clueless U.S. DOJ and rubber-stamped by the vapid U.S. federal puppet Denise Cote. This fiasco has caused more than enough damage already.

SEE ALSO:
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 says Apple e-books antitrust monitor’s term to end – October 13, 2015
U.S. DOJ says Apple e-books antitrust monitor no longer necessary – October 13, 2015
Apple is its ‘own worst enemy,’ U.S. antitrust monitor Bromwich claims – October 6, 2015
WSJ: U.S. Supreme Court should strike down the risible antitrust campaign against Apple – July 1, 2015
Apple is headed to the Supreme Court over e-book antitrust case? – June 30, 2015
Apple loses appeal in e-book price-fixing case – June 30, 2015
George Priest: Apple should win its e-book appeal – December 15, 2014
Obama’s DOJ brings in its big guns to Apple e-book appeal – December 11, 2014
U.S. Federal Puppet Denise Cote says she’s troubled by Apple $450 million e-books settlement deal – July 24, 2014
U.S. Federal Puppet Denise Cote: Apple cannot escape U.S. states’ e-book antitrust cases – April 15, 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

12 Comments

  1. I’d sure like to see the look on Eric Holder and Denise Cote’s face when the Supremes do that. Hopefully Apple can then sue the DOJ for their legal expenses too and Cote & Koh as well become permanent laughing stocks on the bench. Real justice would then be meted out.

      1. We can only hope, though I think marginal anti-trust cases in a new age needing re-interpretation in the digital age should get their attention. (Yeah just what old people or judges love and can get their heads around, right?)

    1. Oh yea. Between the politicians greed for ever more money to waist and that Apple is not giving them a backdoor in iOS, I highly doubt this will get overturned.

  2. This is very good to hear. One way or another we’ll all get to see the “candle power” of the SC in action. If they do overturn we’ll be hearing cat calls of legislation by the judiciary from the left and right. If they don’t overturn… dark days ahead.

  3. If overturned, we might need to be prepared for other media companies to switch exclusively to the Agency model. For example regardless of where you purchase your digital movie/music/magazine the price will be the same regardless of file format..

    1. Great article. Here are just two key point from that:

      What Apple did upon entering the ebook market is almost identical to what it did when it first introduced iTunes. With iTunes, Apple went to all the major record labels and demanded that they agree on set pricing and other terms so that customers could have a consistent experience when they purchased songs. No one accused Apple of violating anti-trust laws when they did that, certainly not the Department of Justice. Likewise, no one is accusing Apple of violating anti-trust laws in their most recent musical deal, where they basically did the same thing for music streaming.

      There hasn’t been any prior case where anti-trust laws were imposed on a company before it entered a new market. The case against Apple is breaking new, novel, and bizarre, legal ground. All the more so, because at the time Apple made these new ebook deals, Amazon had 90% of the ebook trade. As many, including Judge Jacobs, have pointed out, if there were any anti-trust issues in 2012 related to ebooks, the focus should have been on Amazon’s market share, not trying to prevent a new competitor from entering the market.

      1. On the first point, I don’t think Apple had a Most Favored clause for the ITunes major labels’ agreement since pricing didn’t seem to affect prices at competitor’s ‘stores’. That may have been all the difference in the ebook case. If the MF clause had been phrased something like “Price ebooks at iBookstore to be no greater than lowest wholesale price offered to competitors (plus amount to cover Apple’s 30%)”, no one would have batted an eye since Apple’s agreement would not ‘force’ a publisher’s hand to change agreements with other vendors to an Agency model to not lose money.

Leave a Reply to twimoon1 Cancel reply

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