Skip to main content

Some judges in ebook appeal express sympathy with Apple’s position

Some of the judges in Apple’s appeal of last year’s ebook trial verdict appear sympathetic to the company’s argument that its deals with publishers helped, rather than hindered, competition, reports Reuters.

Circuit Judge Dennis Jacobs asked a Department of Justice lawyer why it was wrong for the publishers to get together to defeat a “monopolist” that was using “predatory pricing.”

“It’s like the mice getting together to put a bell on the cat,” Jacobs said.

The court had earlier heard evidence that at the time Apple entered the ebooks market, Amazon held a 90% market share … 

Another Circuit Judge, Debra Livingston, had said it was “troubling” that Apple had been accused of antitrust action over contracts that would normally be “perfectly legal.”

Justice Department lawyer Malcolm Stewart argued that none of the publishers would have entered into the deals alone, and that they were knowingly acting to drive up ebook prices. Apple’s lawyer, Theodore Boutrous, described Apple’s conduct as “innovative and pro-competitive,” observing that while the prices of some ebook titles increased, average prices across the ebook market as a whole fell.

The case continues.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

You’re reading 9to5Mac — experts who break news about Apple and its surrounding ecosystem, day after day. Be sure to check out our homepage for all the latest news, and follow 9to5Mac on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn to stay in the loop. Don’t know where to start? Check out our exclusive stories, reviews, how-tos, and subscribe to our YouTube channel

Comments

  1. drhalftone - 10 years ago

    I would think that Amazon’s public spat with Hachette makes a perfect Apple defense.

    • windlasher - 10 years ago

      MY thoughts exactly – Proves Apple’s point – Amazon is the bully on the playground and needs to be reigned in.

    • iSRS - 10 years ago

      While I agree with you, two wrongs don’t make a right could be the argument.

      Not that i think Apple was directly involved. I am not saying the publishers didn’t work together, but for Apple to be the puppet master/ring leader makes little to no sense

      • airmanchairman - 10 years ago

        It’s been a baffling case of “put the blame on the new entrant” so far, and the hope (not necessarily the expectation) is that things could change from here on in.

        Meanwhile, apparently there were, prior to the charges being levelled against the publishers and new-entrant Apple, undisclosed and unrecorded meetings between the Department of Justice and the CEO of the incumbent monopolist company in the matter.

        Would love to have been a fly on the wall at that meeting. Whatever could have transpired, or was talked about? Quite likely the forthcoming plans of “the mice to place a bell around the neck of the Cat”?

      • drhalftone - 10 years ago

        I don’t know what the alternative really is other than for the publishers to ask the DOJ to investigate Amazon for their monopolistic practices. The publishers basically said that unless they were all in it together, they felt powerless to stop Amazon from forcing a pricing structure on them. What doesn’t make sense is how Amazon could force prices on publishers yet give each publisher a separate, individually negotiated contract unless they had unreasonable power to do so. Steve Jobs was a megalomaniac but so is Jeff Bezos. In this case, it seems like Jeff got everything he wanted from the DOJ. And the writers and publishers got the shaft.

  2. zBrain (@joeregular) - 10 years ago

    this should be the title of the article: “Some judges in ebook appeal express sympathy with Apple’s position, after seeing “the song” ad…”

  3. rahhbriley - 10 years ago

    Finally some frickin’ sanity in this case.

  4. b9bot - 10 years ago

    Cote and the DOJ were in it together. Cote made up her mind before the trial started and no matter what the testimony or the evidence she came to her predetermined conclusion that Apple was guilty. Even though Apple was certainly NOT! It looks like these judges in the appeals court see things in the reality and it is quite clear that Apple did absolutely nothing wrong nor did the publishers and Amazon is the guilty party in this case period.

  5. Edison Wrzosek - 10 years ago

    Do I detect a hint of that long lost commodity, Common Sense, in the statement by Circuit Judge Dennis Jacobs? I thought that was extinct!

    This whole anti-trust action by the DoJ has been nothing short of a farce, and I hope that not only does this case get dismissed, but that they turn all their attention to Amazon!

    BTW, while they’re at it, how about disbar and fire that idiot Judge Denise Cote, she’s a freaking useless moron, that’s likely in the back pocket of some congressmen… She basically declared Apple guilty even before the proceedings began!

  6. moofer1972 - 10 years ago

    They went after the wrong company, hands-down.

  7. Taste_of_Apple - 10 years ago

    I really hope they win. If there’s any example of lack of common sense, this is it. Maybe Amazon should go on trial for their actual monopoly on the e-book market. Or at the very least for releasing the Fire Phone.

Author

Avatar for Ben Lovejoy Ben Lovejoy

Ben Lovejoy is a British technology writer and EU Editor for 9to5Mac. He’s known for his op-eds and diary pieces, exploring his experience of Apple products over time, for a more rounded review. He also writes fiction, with two technothriller novels, a couple of SF shorts and a rom-com!


Ben Lovejoy's favorite gear

Manage push notifications

notification icon
We would like to show you notifications for the latest news and updates.
notification icon
You are subscribed to notifications
notification icon
We would like to show you notifications for the latest news and updates.
notification icon
You are subscribed to notifications