Apple urges U.S. appeals court to void 'radical' e-books ruling

NEW YORK Wed Feb 26, 2014 10:30am EST

The Apple logo is pictured at its flagship retail store in San Francisco, California January 27, 2014. REUTERS/Robert Galbraith

The Apple logo is pictured at its flagship retail store in San Francisco, California January 27, 2014.

Credit: Reuters/Robert Galbraith

Related Topics

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Apple Inc urged a U.S. appeals court to throw out a judge's "radical" finding that it violated antitrust law by manipulating electronic book prices, and blamed publishers for running a conspiracy it claimed to know nothing about.

The request on Tuesday night came after U.S. District Judge Denise Cote in New York concluded last July after a nonjury trial that Apple had played a "central role" in illegally scheming as early as December 2009 with five publishers to raise e-book prices and impede competitors such as Amazon.com Inc.

The publishers previously agreed to pay more than $166 million to settle related antitrust charges.

Apple introduced e-books in 2010 to help boost sales for its then-new iPad tablet.

In a filing with the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York, Apple said it "had no knowledge that the publishers were engaged in a conspiracy" at any time.

It said it lawfully took advantage of market "discord" and the publishers' own frustrations with Amazon, and "kick-started competition in a highly concentrated market, delivering higher output, lower price levels, and accelerated innovation."

Cote's decision "is a radical departure from modern antitrust law," Apple said. "If allowed to stand, the ruling will stifle innovation, chill competition, and harm consumers."

The Cupertino, California-based company asked the 2nd Circuit to reverse Cote's decision or else give it a new trial before a different judge.

Apple also again faulted Cote's appointment of Washington lawyer Michael Bromwich to monitor its antitrust compliance, calling that oversight unconstitutional.

The U.S. Department of Justice, which brought the case, was not immediately available on Wednesday for comment. That agency is expected to reply in writing to Apple's request.

In her decision, Cote also found Apple liable to 33 U.S. states for antitrust violations. She is expected to consider possible damages later this year. Apple said the states and private plaintiffs sought more than $800 million of damages.

On February 10, the 2nd Circuit rejected Apple's request to halt Bromwich's oversight during its appeal.

The case is U.S. v. Apple Inc, 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 13-3741.

(Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by Lisa Von Ahn)

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)
Russell.l wrote:
“Apple Inc urged a U.S. appeals court to throw out a judge’s “radical” finding that it violated antitrust law by manipulating electronic book prices, and blamed publishers for running a conspiracy it claimed to know nothing about.”

Then explain this…

“…records of Apple saying it “cannot tolerate a market where the product is sold significantly more cheaply elsewhere.” And some of the most damning statements, Cote said, came all the way from the top of Apple.

“Compelling evidence of Apple’s participation in the conspiracy came from the words uttered by Steve Jobs, Apple’s founder, CEO, and visionary. Apple has struggled mightily to reinterpret Jobs’s statements in a way that will eliminate their bite. Its efforts have proven fruitless.”
In one statement, Jobs told James Murdoch that Amazon’s $9.99 sales were “eroding the value perception” of its products, and that Apple would be trying higher price points. This was confirmed at launch.
“Jobs’s purchase of an e-book for $14.99 at the Launch, and his explanation to a reporter that day(Walt Mossberg from All Things D) that Amazon’s $9.99 price for the same book would be irrelevant because soon all prices will “be the same” is further evidence that Apple understood and intended that Amazon’s ability to set retail prices would soon be eliminated.”

Jobs’ statements, Cote said, “remain powerful evidence of conspiratorial knowledge and intent.”

http://www.theverge.com/2013/7/10/4510338/apple-found-guilty-of-ebook-price-fixing

Feb 26, 2014 6:09pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Russell.l wrote:
“Apple Inc urged a U.S. appeals court to throw out a judge’s “radical” finding that it violated antitrust law by manipulating electronic book prices, and blamed publishers for running a conspiracy it claimed to know nothing about.”

Then explain this…

“…records of Apple saying it “cannot tolerate a market where the product is sold significantly more cheaply elsewhere.” And some of the most damning statements, Cote said, came all the way from the top of Apple.

“Compelling evidence of Apple’s participation in the conspiracy came from the words uttered by Steve Jobs, Apple’s founder, CEO, and visionary. Apple has struggled mightily to reinterpret Jobs’s statements in a way that will eliminate their bite. Its efforts have proven fruitless.”
In one statement, Jobs told James Murdoch that Amazon’s $9.99 sales were “eroding the value perception” of its products, and that Apple would be trying higher price points. This was confirmed at launch.
“Jobs’s purchase of an e-book for $14.99 at the Launch, and his explanation to a reporter that day(Walt Mossberg from All Things D) that Amazon’s $9.99 price for the same book would be irrelevant because soon all prices will “be the same” is further evidence that Apple understood and intended that Amazon’s ability to set retail prices would soon be eliminated.”

Jobs’ statements, Cote said, “remain powerful evidence of conspiratorial knowledge and intent.”

theverge com/2013/7/10/4510338/apple-found-guilty-of-ebook-price-fixing

Feb 26, 2014 6:15pm EST  --  Report as abuse
MalcolmTucker wrote:
I was doing some research on Anti-Trust. There’s a fascinating article about “Standard Oil” that I found on Wikipedia and other websites.

After reading about “Standard Oil”… I know Apple is guilty!

Feb 26, 2014 8:07pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.