Print 40 comment(s) - last by retrospooty.. on Jul 12 at 12:06 PM

A trial for damages is soon to come

It's official: Apple lost the e-books battle.

U.S. District Judge Denise Cote in Manhattan ruled today that Apple tried to raise the prices of e-books through an agency model with other book publishers. This ruling came after a non-jury trial, which ended on June 20.

The e-books fiasco started in April 2012, when the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) sued Apple and the five book publishers over anticompetitive practices concerning e-book sales. These book publishers were Hachette Livre (Lagardère Publishing France), Harper Collins (News Corp., U.S.A.), Simon & Schuster (CBS Corp., U.S.A.), Penguin (Pearson Group, United Kingdom) and Verlagsgruppe Georg von Holzbrinck (owner of inter alia Macmillan, Germany).
The book publishers were accused of partaking in an agency sales model with Apple, which meant that publishers were allowed to set the price of a book and Apple would take a 30 percent cut. In addition, the publishers could not let rivals sell the same book at a lower price. Traditionally, publishers sell physical books to retailers for about half of the cover price, which is considered a wholesale model. Retailers then had the ability to sell those books to customers for a lower price if they wanted to.

But when e-books came along, this model was challenged. Amazon started selling best sellers for as low as $9.99 to encourage its Kindle e-reader sales. Publishers were not happy. Apple then came along with iBooks, and publishers began to worry that it would take over the book industry the way Apple's iTunes took over the music industry, where customers would choose to purchase cheap, digital books instead of physical books.

However, Apple attempted to resolve this when it struck a deal with publishers to implement the agency model in 2010. This helped Apple at the time of its iPad and iBooks launch. But its deal with publishers made it seem like an attempt to thwart Amazon's dominance.

Back in May, Cote sided with DOJ in a preliminary hearing after an old email from former Apple CEO Steve Jobs was presented as evidence in the e-books case. The email (dated in 2010) from Jobs to James Murdoch of News Corporation said, "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.”

Last month, Lawrence Buterman (a DOJ lawyer) said that Apple's move to increase e-book prices hurt consumers by costing them "millions of dollars." 
"Apple told publishers that Apple - and only Apple - could get prices up in their industry," said Buterman. "Overall, average prices of e-books went up, costing consumers millions of dollars."
All of the five book publishers have already settled with the DOJ, and now, Apple has received its answer as well after a trial that began June 3. But a trial for damages is soon to come. 

Source: Reuters

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Damages
By hpglow on 7/10/2013 12:05:27 PM , Rating: 2
I've never been to prison or even really had issues with the law, but I would exchange a couple years of freedom for even a couple mil in profits. I think the penalty has to start getting complicated. Big fine + prison time + community service + paying your competitors advertisement budget sounds good to me. If that isn't enough to deter these companies than we can put responsible people in the stocks in a busy city somewhere and subject them to public ridicule.

Unfortunately US law is designed to protect these people.

RE: Damages
By retrospooty on 7/10/2013 12:07:00 PM , Rating: 2
"I've never been to prison or even really had issues with the law, but I would exchange a couple years of freedom for even a couple mil in profits"

Would you if you were already a multi-millionaire? I wouldn't, no way, not even a consideration.

RE: Damages
By Alexstarfire on 7/10/2013 2:29:02 PM , Rating: 2
I believe he was saying he'd give up a couple million in profit to avoid jail time. Based on that, you seem to be saying that you'd rather go to jail to save a couple of million dollars even though you're already a multi-millionaire.

Can one of you clarify?

RE: Damages
By retrospooty on 7/10/2013 2:44:27 PM , Rating: 2
I thought he was saying he would go to jail for a couple years for a couple million dollars. I was saying If I were already a multimillionaire, I would not go to jail for a couple more million, or any logical amount. Billions? Maybe, but not for a couple million.

"The whole principle [of censorship] is wrong. It's like demanding that grown men live on skim milk because the baby can't have steak." -- Robert Heinlein

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki