Why Apple thinks they can win their e-book antitrust case at the Supreme Court

“It’s no accident that the petition Apple submitted to the Supreme Court last week begins with a reference to Leegin Creative Leather Products, a manufacturer of fancy cowboy belts,” Philip Elmer-DeWitt reports for Fortune. “Or that the case known as Leegin v. PSKS comes up 81 times in the 250-page document.”

“Apple’s appeal rises or falls on Leegin,” P.E.D. reports. “And Leegin, it turns out, is a precedent this Supreme Court knows well.

“Seven of the nine justices who would hear Apple’s appeal were sitting on the high court in 2007 when Leegin was decided,” P.E.D. reports. “And five of them saw things Apple’s way—or so the company believes… The petition is admirably lucid and almost Jobsian in its simplicity.”

Read more in the full article – recommendedhere.

MacDailyNews Take: Correct this travesty, U.S. Supreme Court!

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

Why Apple took its ebook antitrust battle to the U.S. Supreme Court – October 30, 2015
Apple asks U.S. Supreme Court to toss e-books antitrust decision – October 29, 2015
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

[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “Arline M.” for the heads up.]

20 Comments

    1. off topic…if you’ve not seen “Steve Jobs: The Lost Interview” it is superb…how amazingly correct Jobs was in predicting the future of computing in this 1995 interview is startling. It lays out Jobs’s philosophy on about everything. It is presently on Netflix to watch.

  1. The other reason they think they can win is that the case was bullshit from the get-go. Apple put a major dent in Amazon’s near-monopoly. Persecuting Apple was nothing more than Amazon’s lobbyists delivering what they were paid to do.

    -jcr

  2. The _per se_ rule is archaic and overly simplistic to be relevant in many cases. Yet it is easily mis-applied once judges ascertain its (simplistic) criteria are established: (1) evidence of discussion among market participants, and (2) a subsequent rise in prices.

    The bigger question to any judge interested in pro-competition is why ANY company would willingly agree to sell e-books to a middleman like Amazon on a wholesaler basis when it is against their own best-interests? Presumably, the publishers were duped by Amazon. (If so, is Amazon possibly guilty of fraud? Or even collusion with the DOJ to put legitimate competitors off their trail?) In any event, once the publishers realized their error, are they not entitled to correct their business decision? The DOJ, in its findings against the publishers, is essentially saying “no”. The DOJ is telling the publishers that they are not entitled to make a new business decision based on additional market information (…being undercut by its own middleman).

    In a sane world, Apple would win this case. And if Apple wins the case, the publishers’ cases must be reversed and their fines refunded. Then the publishers should collectively sue Amazon (too bad they cannot sue the DOJ; can they sue individual judges, though?) for fraud, anti-competitive behavior, and damages. And ya, they should immediately sell their e-books through Amazon on the Agency Basis whereby Amazon makes an appropriate commission on sale but has no say over the publishers’ selling prices of their books.

  3. So, in 2007 the DOJ proposes the idea of “reasoned” judgements to replace the black-and-white “per se” judgement. The Supreme Court agrees and the precedent is set. Then just four years later, the DOJ turns a 180° to apply a “per se” prosecution against Apple, completely ignoring their OWN recommendations from 2007. How screwed up is that?

      1. Once again, a decent start descending into a dismal and tired political post. botty, you just don’t seem to realize that there are many things in this world that do not involve President Obama, and not just the ones that you favor.

          1. Please S.T.F.U. No one appreciates it when you routinely hijack discussion threads. Go post on a political hate speech blog. And one more thing: get a life.

            1. Read the substantive comments above. Then read your sophomoric hi-jacks of those considerate statements. Are you in, like, Junior High School? Or are you brain damaged? Or maybe do you have a personality disorder? Please do us all a favor and take your comments to another website. Thank you. It is nothing personal. We just think you are an idiot. Or you have a personality disorder. Honestly, you should talk with a therapist about your feelings. They are not healthy.

  4. I have little confidence that Apple will win on this one.

    Leegin has little direct correlation: the roles are reversed (Apple is the distributor here, Leegin was the source; the publishers controlled pricing not Apple, Leegin controlled pricing; Apple wanted sourcing from as many sources as possible, Leegin wanted to limit sourcing).

    Even if the SCOTUS decides to use the “rule of reason” rather than the “per se” criterion, there is little certainty that the SCOTUS won’t still rule in favor of the DOJ.

Reader Feedback

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