Apple Sued by U.S. Gov't, Won't Even Dignify it With a Public Response
April 11, 2012 4:50 PM
comment(s) - last by
Apple and UK firm appear ready to fight DOJ lawsuit on e-book collusion, despite other publishers settling
The U.S. Department of Justice has filed a formal antitrust lawsuit against gadgetmaker Apple, Inc. (
) and several top book publishers, claiming they conspired to drive up profits at the expense of free competition.
I. Apple Profits From E-Book Price Bump
Controversial business mogul Rupert Murdoch, owner of News Corp. (
), sent shockwaves through the e-book industry when he
brokered a deal with Apple
to sell best-sellers for as much as $14.99 USD on the
first generation iPad
But the so-called "agency pricing" scheme didn't necessarily benefit the publishers.
The e-book price increase was the brain-child of late Apple CEO Steve Jobs.
[Image Source: The New York Times]
It all stemmed from a scheme spearheaded by late Apple CEO Steve Jobs. He wrote one of the publishers in an email published by the DOJ, "Throw in with Apple and see if we can all make a go of this to create a real mainstream e-books market at $12.99 and $14.99."
Walter Isaacson biography
of the late chief executive, Mr. Jobs recalled his pitch as, "We'll go to [an] agency model where you set the price, and we get our 30%, and, yes, the customer pays a little more, but that's what you want anyway."
Under the scheme, Apple would get 30 percent of the cost -- similar to its app revenue split. That worked out to about $3.90 USD on a $12.99 book, or $4.50 on a $14.99 book. While the publisher's total take might have been a bit higher than the cut of the $9.99 e-book pioneer Amazon.com, Inc. (
) charged, it was clear Apple was pocketing the majority of the price increase.
II. Cornerstone of Deal was Apparent Collusion
But the publishers bought the deal, as it allowed them to push for similar terms with Amazon. In fact, Apple's deal reportedly demanded that any publisher selling books in iTunes could not sell its books for a lower price at a rival outlet. The publishers used the deal as ammo to broker more lopsided deals with Amazon in that they pocketed a higher rate and bumped the price.
Faced with threats of severed supply, Amazon begrudgingly caved in and
raised its prices
. The publishers' gamble had paid off.
The price transition was widely viewed as more destructive to Amazon's sales than Apple's given that Amazon sold to budget-savvy customers, where as Apple peddled its product to consumers willing to pay steep markups for perceived quality.
Apple's e-books deal offered little benefit to consumers. [Image Source: Getty Images]
Amazon already offered cross-platform e-books and unlike Google Inc.'s (GOOG) efforts, Apple's iPad e-book store did not look to offer out-of-print works. In other words, while the iPad drove up e-book prices, it did little to put e-books in the hands of consumers that would not already have had them. Thus the deal did not seem to benefit anyone but Apple and the publishers, at the expense of customers.
But just because Apple's deal wasn't good for customers, didn't necessarily mean it was illegal. Or did it?
III. DOJ Takes Action
Antitrust laws in the U.S. and Europe prevent top competitors in a market from making joint pricing decision (colluding) to drive up prices on consumer goods. By all appearances that was precisely what Apple and the publishers had just orchestrated.
Thus over a year after the iPad launch, pressure on Apple began to turn up:
Dec. 6, 2011: The
European Commission opens a formal antitrust investigation
in e-book price fixing.
Dec. 7, 2011: The U.S. Department of Justice
opens up a sister investigation
into the price fixing.
Mar. 1, 2012: Top e-book publisher Random House (owned by private German firm Bertelsmann AG) announced it is bumping prices for libraries
by 300 percent
Mar. 7, 2012: Apple's
third generation iPad
Mar. 8, 2012: Rumors break that the DOJ
is preparing to sue Apple
Apr. 11, 2012: Rumor had it that the
suit would land today
The U.S. DOJ today made good on rumors and
filed a suit
against Apple and five publishers -- News Corp.'s HarperCollins; CBS Corp.'s (
) Simon & Schuster; UK publisher Pearson plc's (
) Penguin and MacMillan units; and The Hatchett Group, a subsidiary of French publisher Hatchette Livre, which in turn is a child of French conglomerate Lagardère (
Only Apple and one publisher are fighting the suit. Apple wouldn't even dignify the U.S. government with a public response. [Image Source: AP]
To recap, that's two U.S. media conglomerates, plus Apple, a UK media congomerate, and a French multi-industry conglomerate who have been targeted in the suit.
Sharis Pozen, head of the DOJ's antitrust division, told reporters, "This took place at the highest levels of these companies. Executives knew full-well what they were doing.This action drove up e-book prices virtually overnight. Let me be clear: When companies enter agreements that prevent price competition, that is illegal."
Similar litigation is expected to drop shortly in the EU.
IV. Publishers Rush to Settle, Apple and UK Publisher Alone Vow to Fight
While the EU tends to seek punitive damages, the primary goal of the DOJ appears to be to enable a market "reset" scrapping the price-fixing provisions of Apple's deal and forcing e-book makers to cooperate with Amazon on lower priced options.
The deal could be a big boost to Amazon's
increasingly promising tablet efforts
. It could also boost Barnes & Noble, Inc. (
have proven a solid challenger to larger players like Amazon or Apple.
The settlement and reduced e-book pricing could add extra fuel to Amazon's Kindle Fire.
Ms. Pozen discusses the potential of settlement, stating, "The settlement will begin to undo harm and restore price-competition. It will result in lower e-book prices and provide a more open and fair marketplace."
So far, HarperCollins [
], the Hatchette Group [
], and Simon & Schuster [
] -- also the target of lawsuits from state attorney generals -- agreed to settle.
Apple and the Pearson plc subsidiaries refused to settle. This could put them in a pretty bad spot. While the other publishers refused to admit guilt in their settlements (as is typically the case), their decision to opt to quickly settle looks rather damning.
The Cupertino gadgetmaker did not even dignify the U.S. government with a public response, yet. But soon it may have to respond in court.
DOJ [press release]
This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
RE: Time for a revolution? Yes, because the law is not working.
4/12/2012 8:59:44 AM
LOL. We don't need to see the results to realize Apple will care nothing at all about the fine. Microsoft, Intel etc. They will all continue to break every law they can because if you make 60bil over 10 years (Intel) and the govt only slaps a puny 1.4bil you just laugh and continue to break every law possible. Microsoft made a good 30bil before getting nailed for around 3-5bil (after multiple suits paid to EU, etc). What do you think that tells a business? If I was a business that even made a billion and you fined me half of that every year I'd still break the law every year until you fined me MORE than I MADE by screwing you. Get off your high horse, all companies will do this (that's what the monopoly laws are supposed to stop). In these cases even the EU's fines are ridiculously tiny.
Apple will only learn if this is a $15-25billion fine. The punishment to business doing this should be tied to the size of their bank accounts :) The highest Microsoft paid to the states (13 if memory serves, that nailed them) was around 25million (california I think). They basically paid under a 400 million to remain a monopoly. WTF? Microsoft should be 3 companies and should have had all profits stripped that were made during the law breaking crap. They are STILL a freaking monopoly! Ideally I'd take 50-75 billion from apple and spread it evenly to their competitors :) That would be the last time a company decided it was worth ripping us off. Or heck, just fine them the 50-75 billion and start a public non profit internet company that will put faster pipes all across the country so we can all get internet at unlimited for say $30 like it should be at 50-100Mbit.
If it only takes a good $20bil to upgrade a whole network I say take it from the thieving companies and build us an A$$ kicking network OWNED BY THE PUBLIC. With provisions that no company can ever buy it or own it. If they see they make nothing and it always costs MORE to BREAK the law than follow it, this crap would end quickly.
RE: Time for a revolution? Yes, because the law is not working.
4/12/2012 8:56:09 PM
They aren't a monopoly, and they never were....
"The plaintiffs alleged that Microsoft abused monopoly power on Intel-based personal computers in its handling of operating system sales and web browser sales. The issue central to the case was whether Microsoft was allowed to bundle its flagship Internet Explorer (IE) web browser software with its Microsoft Windows operating system."
And what they bundle with their OS, really should be of no concern to anyone.
"If you look at the last five years, if you look at what major innovations have occurred in computing technology, every single one of them came from AMD. Not a single innovation came from Intel." -- AMD CEO Hector Ruiz in 2007
DOJ Could Sue Apple As Soon As Today Over E-Books, Works to Settle With 5 Publishers
April 11, 2012, 9:15 AM
Kindle Fire Moves 4.7 Million Units, Cuts Into iPad's Market Share
March 14, 2012, 11:29 AM
DOJ Threatens Apple, Book Publishers with Lawsuit Regarding E-Book Sales
March 8, 2012, 9:55 AM
Random House Raises E-Book Prices for Libraries as Much as 300 Percent
March 5, 2012, 10:14 AM
Apple Launches Third Generation iPad with Retina Display, LTE; 16GB iPad 2 Drops to $399
March 7, 2012, 1:29 PM
Apple Rakes in $10.2B Profit for Fiscal Q2; Announces 7-for-1 Stock Split
April 23, 2014, 4:39 PM
The Price is Right: OnePlus One Packs Hot Spec for Only $299
April 23, 2014, 3:37 PM
Google Unveils Solar Panel Lease Plan for Homeowners
April 23, 2014, 9:56 AM
Quick Note: Apple Invites Companies to “Copy” Its Environmental Record
April 22, 2014, 7:58 AM
OnePlus One Images Leak Ahead of April 23 Launch
April 21, 2014, 5:19 PM
Nike Axes FuelBand Team, Exits Wearable Device Market
April 21, 2014, 4:58 PM
Most Popular Articles
A Bug's Life: Female Cave Bugs Have Penises, Penetrate Males for Three Days
April 17, 2014, 7:20 PM
HTC Hires Former Samsung Marketing Chief Who Developed "Galaxy" Brand
April 18, 2014, 6:00 PM
NASA Finds "Habitable Zone" Planet Sized Similar to Earth
April 18, 2014, 3:13 PM
Mounties Arrest 19-Year-Old Who Delayed Canada's Tax Filing w/ Heartbleed
April 17, 2014, 3:24 PM
Thanks to Government Crackdown, Chinese "Porn Cop" Has Watched 600K Adult Videos
April 21, 2014, 12:00 PM
Latest Blog Posts
Facebook Aims to Provide Internet to "Every Person in the World" with Drones, Satellites
Apr 1, 2014, 10:20 AM
Retail Mobile Sites Experience Outages in Light of Simplexity's Bankruptcy
Mar 14, 2014, 8:48 AM
Tesla vs. BMW: Who Has the Safer EV?
Feb 1, 2014, 2:56 PM
Justice Leaks Details of Next HTC One Two Flagship Phone
Dec 5, 2013, 4:04 PM
Global Cyber Espionage Concerns Reveal Growing Cyber Armies
Nov 29, 2013, 11:04 AM
More Blog Posts
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. -
Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information