Apple hit with U.S. injunction in e-books antitrust case

NEW YORK Fri Sep 6, 2013 6:50pm EDT

A woman holds up an iPad with the iTunes U app after a news conference introducing a digital textbook service in New York in this January 19, 2012, file photo. REUTERS/Shannon Stapleton/Files

A woman holds up an iPad with the iTunes U app after a news conference introducing a digital textbook service in New York in this January 19, 2012, file photo.

Credit: Reuters/Shannon Stapleton/Files

Related Topics

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A U.S. judge who found Apple Inc conspired to fix e-book prices imposed new restrictions on the iPad maker on Friday, limiting its agreements with publishers.

U.S. District Judge Denise Cote in New York also said she would appoint an external monitor to review Apple's antitrust compliance policies, procedures and training for two years.

The injunction was narrower than the U.S. Justice Department had sought, in line with Cote's statement last week that she wanted it "to rest as lightly as possible on how Apple runs its business."

The department had sought a broader injunction that could have affected Apple's agreements with suppliers of movies, music and TV shows.

Cote ruled on July 10 that Apple was liable for conspiring with five publishers to raise e-book prices above those established by the dominant retailer in the market, Amazon.com Inc.

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.

The terms of Friday's judgment will expire after five years, but Cote's order allows for extensions in one-year increments if necessary.

The Justice Department welcomed the injunction.

"Consumers will continue to benefit from lower e-book prices as a result of the department's enforcement action to restore competition in this important industry," Assistant Attorney General Bill Baer said in a statement.

Apple said it would appeal the injunction.

"Apple did not conspire to fix e-book pricing," said company spokesman Tom Neumayr. "The iBookstore gave customers more choice and injected much-needed innovation and competition into the market."

Apple's shares rose 0.6 percent to $498.22 on Friday.

It faces a separate trial on damages demanded by states that are pursuing related claims.

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

(Reporting by Nate Raymond; Editing by Eddie Evans and Ken Wills)

FILED UNDER:
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 http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (5)
Curmudgeon wrote:
And this is why I continue to refuse to get drawn into Apple’s ecosystem.

Sep 06, 2013 12:06pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Mathion wrote:
Apple demands 30% of the sale price for everything. This is why they conspired with publishers to fix prices. Publishers weren’t willing to pay Apple that much to sell ebooks on their store. Apple still doesn’t get that it broke the law.

“The iBookstore gave customers more choice and injected much-needed innovation and competition into the market.”

More choice? What choice? Rigging the market at higher prices? Amazon had the same books for less. Competition? Hardly. They fixed the prices, and set them higher to boot. That’s not competition. That’s called unfair business practices.

All for their 30%.

Sep 06, 2013 12:36pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
George.S wrote:
Just a slap on the wrist, this. should be read “Apple must behave legally for 5 years as punishment for breaking the law”
Surprising, actually, as Apple typically gets away with all sorts of stuff in the US with the court and patent system siding with them, even when it’s blatantly obvious they were wrong.

Sep 06, 2013 1:01pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.