Apple battles U.S. over scope of e-books injunction

NEW YORK Fri Aug 23, 2013 2:21pm EDT

A man looks at his Apple iPad in front an Apple logo outside an Apple store in downtown Shanghai March 16, 2012. REUTERS/Aly Song

A man looks at his Apple iPad in front an Apple logo outside an Apple store in downtown Shanghai March 16, 2012.

Credit: Reuters/Aly Song

Related Topics

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The United States offered to ease the terms of a proposed civil injunction against Apple Inc for conspiring to raise e-book prices, but the company said the revised proposal is still designed to "inflict punishment" and must be rejected.

At issue is how to ensure that Apple does not violate antitrust law, following a July 10 ruling by U.S. District Judge Denise Cote in Manhattan that it had conspired with five major publishers to undermine pricing by rivals including Inc, which dominates the market for electronic books.

Apple says the government is overreaching by insisting that it hire an external monitor, let e-book retailers add hyperlinks to their own websites in their e-book apps without charge, and face limits on how it negotiates for other content including movies, music and TV shows.

Cote must approved any injunction.

In a court filing, the U.S. Department of Justice, joined by 33 U.S. states and territories, suggested halving the length of its previously proposed injunction to five years from 10, with leave to seek as many as five one-year extensions if needed.

At Cote's suggestion, they also recommended that Apple hold staggered negotiations with the publishers starting in two years, hopefully minimizing the chance of future collusion, and removed previously proposed language that they said Apple had claimed would hurt its ability to run its popular App Store.

But in rejecting other changes that the company wanted, and while expressing a desire not to "unnecessarily harm Apple," the governments said the Cupertino, California-based company's continuing refusal to admit it did anything wrong warranted tough medicine.

"Quite simply, Apple wants to continue business as usual, regardless of the antitrust laws," the filing said. "This court should have no confidence that Apple on its own effectively can ensure that its illegal conduct will not be repeated. There must be significant oversight by someone not entrenched in Apple's culture of insensitivity to basic tenets of antitrust law."


In a separate court filing, Apple said the proposal for an external monitor "exceeds the bounds of even criminal price-fixing cases," and reflects an effort "to use this civil injunction to inflict punishment, which is impermissible."

The company said its own proposed remedies are stringent enough, and enable it to remain "one of the world's most innovative companies, while acting consistently with both the letter and spirit of the antitrust laws."

Apple has said it is appealing from Cote's July 10 ruling.

The five publishers, all of which have settled with regulators, include Lagardere SCA's Hachette Book Group Inc, News Corp's HarperCollins Publishers LLC, Penguin Random House LLC, CBS Corp's Simon & Schuster Inc, and Verlagsgruppe Georg von Holtzbrinck GmbH's Macmillan.

Cote has scheduled a May 2014 trial to determine damages, which could total hundreds of millions of dollars.

She had ordered both sides to hold talks to resolve their differences over an injunction, but the talks failed. The governments said some of Apple's proposals were even less restrictive than what the publishers had accepted.

Gina Talamona, a Justice Department spokeswoman, was not immediately available for comment. Tom Neumayr, an Apple spokesman, was not immediately available for comment.

The case is U.S. v. Apple Inc et al, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 12-02826.

(Reporting by Jonathan Stempel; Editing by Leslie Gevirtz)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see
Comments (5)
ZodBuster wrote:
Apple complains to Wall St
Wall St tells Obama and DOJ the rules.
All is well
Welcome to a new world…

Aug 23, 2013 10:46pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
rob53 wrote:
@Zod, you have it backwards. The DOJ is going crazy and the judge predetermined the bogus trial before it even began. Amazon is a monopoly the DOH is doing nothing about. The judge refused to listen to several Apple people because their testimony was not what she wanted to hear. If you are commenting about Obama vetoing the ITC ruling, that was about FRAND/SEP abuse by Samsung. All Apple is trying to do is start a business where the book publishers set the price, not Amazon. What’s wrong with that? Do you feel everything should be free? That seems to be what the DOJ feels. Amazon is selling at a loss to corner the market and has already driven out many book stores. Amazon is all that’s left. Once this trial goes to appeal the verdict will be overturned. The DOJ has no right to shut Apple iBookstore down, which is what they are trying to do.

Aug 24, 2013 3:08pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
forteinjeff wrote:
This court of law went TO FAR. Let people make their own choices about where and how they want to buy e-books. When some witnesses are NOT heard, neither are we.

Aug 25, 2013 10:03am EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.