DOJ gives opening arguments against Apple

Katie Marsal:

The U.S. Department of Justice’s opening statements in its antitrust lawsuit against Apple have been published online, laying the groundwork for what the government hopes will prove illegal collusion between Apple and book publishers that led to higher prices.

I think the DOJ is going to have a tough time proving this. Tim Cook recently said at the D Conference that Apple wouldn’t admit to something they didn’t do. Cook is going to fight this and good for them.



  • Crabbit_git

    This is an odd one.

    Amazon have been undercutting and squeezing publishers and ultimately authors to keep the price of digital works low.

    Apple come along and prices increase? Surely this is good for Authors?

    Writers can’t do stadium tours like musicians to bolster their earnings.

  • http://twitter.com/JessiDarko Jessica Darko

    This is so obviously a political witch hunt it’s not even funny. Amazon’s near monopoly– gained by engaging in dumping and clearly in violation of anti-trust, was threatened, so they got their boys in washington (obama’s boys, a corrupt administration to begin with) to go after their competitor.

    Offering the same deal to multiple parties is not “collusion” or a “conspiracy”.

    Offering a better deal than amazon to those parties is not “anti-competitive” it’s COMPETITIVE.

    Requiring that anyone selling on your store not set higher prices for you than they do for others is not “price fixing” or any kind of attempt to artificially inflate the price, but in fact, an attempt to keep prices low.

    The smoking gun here is aimed at the DoJ’s head and proves this is a politically motivated, corrupt, persecution of Apple.

    Too bad the government doesn’t have to obey the law (and since the government runs the courts you can’t get any justice when the government is the persecutor.)

    If Apple is punished with this, they really should consider moving their headquarters overseas.

    • mdelvecchio

      obama’s admin corrupt? please… thats just tinfoil hat nonsense. not like when Bush & Cheney made fortunes during the war thru their oil & military holdings.

  • Paul Koenig

    I thought the case was bizarre before today, but the opening comments have me more baffled. I wonder if Eddy Cue will pull out emails to the major record labels and studios to demonstrate that he’s really unoriginal in his bland introductory text and not colluding. Otherwise the DOJ may set the precedent that every form letter is an incitement to conspiracy.

    And the theory that the ebook market should work like the physical book market for consumer protection is extremely odd. The agency model for music and apps has seemed to benefit both consumers and content producers.

    My only question is what happens to the publisher settlements if Apple does prevail?

  • dr.no

    Jim must not been paying attention to the Judge’s earlier statement where she believes evidence already proves that Apple initiated the conspiracy. This has no Jury.

    Apple is simply fighting so that consumer class action lawsuit won’t be initiated if Apple wins. Monetary damage States and Fed get is peanuts.

    What is worse is that whole settlements that book publisher already entered basically is for couple of years and then they can go back to agency model.

    Whole this is so stupid.

  • lucascott

    Course it’s possible Apple could lose since its a judge not a jury.

    And appeal on the grounds that pre trial comments show the Judge had already decided the case against them before seeing any evidence

  • Lukas

    I’m pretty sure they already proven this. Apple’s own internal emails (and Jobs’ quotes from his own biography) show that they colluded with book publishers to control prices.

    • mdelvecchio

      not really, no. if you read the entire email thread then it comes off very differently.

      it’s comes off no different than how apple negotiated w/ the music labels.