Apple presses U.S. Supreme Court to take up appeal, overturn ebooks verdict

“Apple is pulling out all the stops in its bid to overturn a ruling that it fixed ebook prices,” Jeff John Roberts reports for Fortune. “n a new filing to the Supreme Court, the company insists the federal government and a lower court made a crucial legal error, and warns the result could be a ‘long shadow’ on the digital economy.”

“After losing in the lower courts, Apple AAPL 0.29% is slated to pay a $450 million penalty under a settlement with class action lawyers—unless the Supreme Court steps in and reverses the case,” Roberts reports. “Apple initially petitioned the top court in October.”

“Apple’s latest argument, which it put before the Supreme Court on Friday, is pretty technical but it boils down to this: even if Apple did participate in the publishers’ conspiracy, the lower court should not have found the company to be automatically liable,” Roberts reports. “The reason is that Apple was not part of a horizontal conspiracy involving competitors, but instead was part of a vertical agreement involving suppliers. The federal government’s own submission to the Supreme Court is wrong, Apple says, because it makes the legal mistake of classifying Apple as a horizontal competitor.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: The federal government is wrong? Shocker.

This absolute fiasco was caused by an incompetent DOJ and a complicit, blank-eyed federal puppet. Apple is right to fight this travesty to the very, hopefully righteous, end.

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

In amicus brief, Authors Guild, ABA, B&N back Apple; urge U.S. Supreme Court to overturn ebooks verdict – December 3, 2015
Why Apple thinks they can win their e-book antitrust case at the Supreme Court – November 3, 2015
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

5 Comments

  1. Were the publishers and Apple in cahoots to engage in nefarious anti-competitive practices? Or were they simply trying to rectify a bad business decision on the part of publishers to sell ebooks to Amazon on the wholesaler basis (instead of the agency basis)?

    Is what they did collusion? Or were they just talking openly about a common business issue and non-criminal possible solutions ?

    Should the DOJ require publishers to adhere to a bad business decision — namely, to sell ebooks to Amazon on the wholesaler basis, which legally allows Amazon to sell the publishers’ ebook titles at any price of its choosing, including undercutting the publishers prices for its only truly profitable paper book titles?

    Or should the DOJ allow publishers to change the basis of sale of its ebooks to the agency basis, in which the publishers retain legal title as well as the right to set the product selling prices, with the distributor, such as Amazon, earning an appropriate commission on the sale?

    Personally, I believe the DOJ position is creating restraint of trade by prohibiting the publishing industry from modifying its business decisions in its best interests, and the best interests of a healthy competitive market for paper books and for ebooks, too.

    The legal decision should be overturned. Either way, this court case will have far-reaching business impact.

Add Your Feedback

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