You mean the book publishers in concert with Apple have already agreed to not compete on pricing and refuse to sell to any retailer who would sell at a lower price, therefor a level playing field for them?
Here's what is claimed to be wrong with Apple's plan:
"We told the publishers, 'We'll go to the 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,'" Mr. Jobs was quoted as saying by his biographer, Walter Isaacson.
The publishers were then able to impose the same model across the industry, Mr. Jobs told Mr. Isaacson. "They went to Amazon and said, 'You're going to sign an agency contract or we're not going to give you the books,' " Mr. Jobs said."
Unfortunate that the quotes were directly attributed to Mr. Jobs and frankly I'm darn surprised that he saw no issues with the plan. In hindsight, colluding with publishers to set prices and deny other seller's the right to market books at their own prices should be an obvious red flag to Apple. Perhaps not the best decision if they had it to do over IMHO
"The Justice Department believes that Apple and the publishers acted in concert to raise prices across the industry, and is prepared to sue them for violating federal antitrust laws, the people familiar with the matter said."
Why don't you look up the meaning of 'hearsay' evidence and it's value in a legal sense.
It's what makes most of your post meaningless drivel.