This is the entire case in a nutshell:
"Apple led the charge in convincing publishers to switch to a so-called "agency" pricing model. That prevented content owners from being able to sell the same titles at a lower price elsewhere, without offering the same price on Apple's iBooks platform.
In contrast, the e-book industry prior to the launch of the first iPad was under the "wholesale model" preferred by market leader Amazon. In that model, resellers such as Amazon had the power to set prices, selling titles at or below cost if they chose to do so."
For me, the question that matters here (and that was apparently overlooked by the court) is the one that comes from that last part regarding Amazon's 'powers': Did Apple's actions PREVENT Amazon from setting their own RETAIL prices at or below cost if they chose to do so? Apple didn't remove the "wholesale model" from Amazon, did they? They simply said to publishers, "if you sell to Amazon (or others) for a lower price, you have to give us that price too. And to the publishers they said, on OUR store YOU set the prices, not us.
Where is there "price fixing" or "conspiring" to raise prices? I just don't see it%u2026
That is NOT the entire case in a nut shell.
With the help of Apple, publishers collectively(conspired) forced Amazon to adopt the Agency model and simultaneously raising prices(price fixing) for consumers.
Antitrust laws were created to protect consumers, not businesses.