U.S. Supreme Court rejects Apple appeal over $450 million e-book case

“The Supreme Court has rejected an appeal from Apple Inc. and left in place a ruling that the company conspired with publishers to raise electronic book prices when it sought to challenge Amazon.com’s dominance of the market,” The Associated Press reports.

“The justices’ order on Monday lets stand an appeals court ruling that found Cupertino, California-based Apple violated antitrust laws in 2010,” AP reports. “The 2-1 ruling by the New York-based appeals court sustained a trial judge’s finding that Apple orchestrated an illegal conspiracy to raise prices. A dissenting judge called Apple’s actions legal, ‘gloves-off competition.'”

“Apple Inc. must pay $450 million to end an antitrust suit after the U.S. Supreme Court refused to question a finding that the company orchestrated a scheme to raise the prices for electronic books,” Greg Stohr reports for Bloomberg. “The accord calls for Apple to pay $400 million to e-book consumers, $20 million to the states, and $30 million in legal fees.”

“At the Supreme Court, Apple argued that its actions enhanced competition by providing consumers with a new e-book platform. The company said overall e-book prices have fallen in the years since the introduction of iBookstore [sic],” Stohr reports. “‘Following Apple’s entry, output increased, overall prices decreased, and a major new retailer began to compete in a market formerly dominated by a single firm,’ the company said in its appeal.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: Travesty. Justice was not served in this case.

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 Readers “Fred Mertz” and “JES42” for the heads up.]


  1. Well at the end of the day, the top court of Apple’s country has ruled.

    Apple may not have won in the court system but they fought for what they believe in and many here no doubt believe that this was a travesty of justice, and that might be right, but it’s the justice of these wee people.

    1. It is a victory of the rule of men over the rule of law. That is the travesty. We can no longer rely on what the law has established and worry more now that the law is what a single individual sitting on a bench is going to decide on a whim. . . and there are enough Liberal Judges on appellate courts to back those whims, instead of backing up the edifice of the established LAW. That is the true travesty of this decision.

      I am convinced that had Justice Scalia, who had penned the US Supreme Court’s guidance on such cases that Apple had relied on in its appeal, the Court would have had enough votes to hear Apple’s appeal to support its previous rulings on the matter, as the dissenting justice of the appeals court was certain was going to happen when he roundly criticized his colleagues for their reliance on cases that pre-dated the Supreme Court’s guidance to make their majority ruling upholding the trial judge. He relied strongly on the US Supreme Court’s guidance and his dissent was purely based on that guidance, which would not have allowed Apple to even be indicted!

      1. Great post Swordmaker, along with the other ones you’ve made about this case. I’m rather quite sad at hearing the decision. Your perspective which I think many share. Your comment “It is a victory of the rule of men over the rule of law.” is sure a sad sign of the times.

  2. Apple was so clearly in the wrong here that what’s surprising is that the Supreme Court would even consider the case. It was a scheme to control the market and close out competition, pure and simple.

Reader Feedback

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