Photo: appleheadlines.com
Following the Department of Justice’s proposed settlements for the iBooks court case, Apple has submitted a response to the court that clearly shows the company is in no way interested in the suggested changes. The 31 page document is summarized quite well by the initial introduction:
Plaintiffs’ proposed injunction is a draconian and punitive intrusion into Apple’s business, wildly out of proportion to any adjudicated wrongdoing or potential harm. Plaintiffs propose a sweeping and unprecedented injunction as a tool to empower the Government to regulate Apple’s businesses and potentially affect Apple’s business relationships with thousands of partners across several markets. Plaintiffs’ overreaching proposal would establish a vague new compliance regime—applicable only to Apple—with intrusive oversight lasting for ten years, going far beyond the legal issues in this case, injuring competition and consumers, and violating basic principles of fairness and due process. The resulting cost of this relief—not only in dollars but also lost opportunities for American businesses and consumers—would be vast.
Here is the response in its entirety (via TNW):
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Reminds me of Rearden against Fair Share LAW…
They’re trying to throw Apple a bone here and Apple is being stupid. Apple is in the wrong and they should know it. This will only end worse for Apple.
Um, no? Have you followed any of this up until now? Not only was Apple never in the wrong, but this proposed “settlement opportunity” by the U.S. government is an embarrassment. Not that I would expect anything less at this point, the government is utterly defunct according to the contract that established it.
But this is beyond ridiculous. Draconian is absolutely the right word, and I would add absolutely preposterous to the phrasing.
You’re completely delusional if you think Apple didn’t do anything wrong here. If Microsoft had done anything like this you’d be screaming for Ballmer’s head. This is the definition of anti-competitive behavior.
Apple wants publishers to set their own prices for their books.
Amazon on the other hand, wants to sell books below cost, thus strong arming writers and publishers into selling only to Amazon, since no one would wanna buy a book that costs more. Amazon in turn, will incur losses at first, but would later have established a greater monopoly and pushed away all other online bookseller. Amazon can then reap profits by charging whatever they want.
It’s a dirty technique, and the DOJ sided with it. Just goes to show how corrupt lawyers and judges can be.
They were convicted of a crime. It’s *supposed* to be punitive.