E-books trial judge vows light injunction against Apple, plans to require external monitor
The district court judge presiding over Apple's e-books antitrust case said on Tuesday that she plans to require the company take on an external antitrust monitor, but expects the final terms of the injunction to not restrict other facets of the iTunes business.
According to in-court reports from Reuters, U.S. District Court Judge Denise Cote said the final remedy in Apple's lost case will be narrower than a set of injunctions proposed by the Department of Justice.
"I want this injunction to rest as lightly as possible on how Apple runs its business," Judge Cote said at Tuesday's hearing.
While Judge Cote's final ruling will ensure Apple does not again collude with publishers to fix e-book prices, the jurist does not plan to restrict current arrangements with suppliers of other digital content like movies and music. The DOJ was seeking such remedies when it floated a list of potential penalties earlier in August.
In another blow to the Justice Department's sought remedies, Judge Cote found a provision that would allow apps to link out to their own digital bookstores without paying a sales commission to Apple "unnecessary." Apple argued that the DOJ request would unduly give other e-bookstores, specifically market leader Amazon, a competitive advantage over the iBookstore.
Apple will, however, most likely be required to bring in a monitor to oversee the company's antitrust compliance program. Judge Cote said the monitor is necessary due to the company's "blatant" antitrust violations. Apple previously argued against such action, citing undue cost and burden.
Both parties are compromising on the final terms, with Apple already agreeing to certain proposed remedies, such as a staggering of negotiations with e-book providers, while the DOJ adjusted a proposed ten year injunction to five years.
Judge Cote is expected to issue the injunction next week.
The ruling won't be the end of a bumpy e-books antitrust road for Apple, however, as the company still faces an associated damages trial that could see plaintiffs DOJ and 33 U.S. states and territories awarded hundreds of millions of dollars. Hearings for that trial are slated for May 2014.
According to in-court reports from Reuters, U.S. District Court Judge Denise Cote said the final remedy in Apple's lost case will be narrower than a set of injunctions proposed by the Department of Justice.
"I want this injunction to rest as lightly as possible on how Apple runs its business," Judge Cote said at Tuesday's hearing.
While Judge Cote's final ruling will ensure Apple does not again collude with publishers to fix e-book prices, the jurist does not plan to restrict current arrangements with suppliers of other digital content like movies and music. The DOJ was seeking such remedies when it floated a list of potential penalties earlier in August.
In another blow to the Justice Department's sought remedies, Judge Cote found a provision that would allow apps to link out to their own digital bookstores without paying a sales commission to Apple "unnecessary." Apple argued that the DOJ request would unduly give other e-bookstores, specifically market leader Amazon, a competitive advantage over the iBookstore.
Apple will, however, most likely be required to bring in a monitor to oversee the company's antitrust compliance program. Judge Cote said the monitor is necessary due to the company's "blatant" antitrust violations. Apple previously argued against such action, citing undue cost and burden.
Both parties are compromising on the final terms, with Apple already agreeing to certain proposed remedies, such as a staggering of negotiations with e-book providers, while the DOJ adjusted a proposed ten year injunction to five years.
Judge Cote is expected to issue the injunction next week.
The ruling won't be the end of a bumpy e-books antitrust road for Apple, however, as the company still faces an associated damages trial that could see plaintiffs DOJ and 33 U.S. states and territories awarded hundreds of millions of dollars. Hearings for that trial are slated for May 2014.
Comments
"How about we give you a brand new Retina Thunderbolt Display for free, judgey? There's your external monitor. Now shut up and get rid of this crap."
—Tim Cook
Just incredible statements coming out of this court. Unbelievable.
I'd shut down the iBookstore and simply point to individual publisher apps. Apple should wipe their hands of this shakedown.
Well, duh. There's no way in he77 she could restrict the iTunes business. That was not part of the trial and there is absolutely no evidence of wrongdoing.
In related news, my local judge sentenced a criminal to 3 years in jail but said that he had no plans to penalize the criminal's cousin who had absolutely nothing to do with the crime. :smokey:
Of course, it's all a non-issue. This judge is going to look really foolish when the Appeals court slams her into the ground.
They can't do that - nor should they. iBooks is one of the features that sets iOS apart from Android and throwing it away would be silly.
Unfortunately, it seems that Apple is going to have to start splashing the cash around Washington. This is a seemingly ignorant and prejudicial anti-trust judgement, and the remedies are particularly galling. Apple should fight this to the end.
this is what you call negotiation.. you ask for the moon and hope by the time things are brought back down the other side is happy to accept what you really wanted in the first place.
its like asking someone to serve 1000 years in jail and hope they only knock it back down to 60.
I still think that the whole 'five year' and the way they want to stagger things to be a bit much. And the monitor thing. But those are issues that could be dealt with by the appeal process. Apple wins a hearing on the appeal they could start with acting for a stay on those remedies so they can keep selling the titles (which they would have to stop if the whole thing goes through) and if they win on the whole 'no we didn't purposefully do jack' argument they could request those bits be tossed completely.
if the DOJ really wants to deal with this they need to come up with rules that go on everyone. Not just certain retailers, certain publishers. Give rules for how high pricing can go, how exclusive titles can be etc. Give allowances for limited advantages like being allowed to have an exclusive price cut for a brief time with the other boys not being allowed to match it (say one week). Require that MFNs only apply to the prices set by the publisher not sales (but if a retailer goes under that price the difference comes from their side of the profits). Allow publishers some pricing control under wholesale but limit how high or low they can go. so like if Amazon goes back to wholesale terms they can only go as low as the price they paid (again eating any difference between wholesale and publisher sale price) but publishers can't go higher than 20%. or something like publishers can't go higher than what they set for someone under agency and can't charge more than 70% of that as the wholesale. or whatever rules the DOJ feels fit to put on all parties.
and if they want to deal with the music and video issue, fine. Make rules for that as well. for all parties. not just Amazon or Apple or whomever and leave the rest to do as they please
Second, the judge announced her verdict BEFORE the trial started, which made the trial a waste of time and money since the public was informed of the outcome.
Third, the judge announces her penalty decision BEFORE the court date the decision is to be made.
Fourth, the only way Apple can win this farce of justice is to buy its way of it because Amazon has paid a Lou of money to guarantee a guilty verdict.
It is amazing to me that Amazon can get away with being the largest bookseller in the country that sells books at a loss, which prevent competitors from entering the market.
The company is destroying book publishers while promoting its own publishing division.
And, the US government has chosen to support these anti-trust activities because Apple is unwilling to payoff politicians.
For full disclosure, I have purchased paper books from Amazon. The last being a book about iOS programming only due to it not bring available in iBooks.
Since iBooks, the majority of my books have been from Apple.
Apple's only hope for justice is an appeal. If the US government continues to have its way, Apple is screwed since I do not agree that politicians should be paid off to do the right thing.
EDIT: After reading more articles about the recent penalty thinking, I learned I was wrong with item three. The judge announced her thinking while in the courtroom.
It has nothing to do with negotiation.
The DOJ's request might possible be described the way you have laid it out, but this article is about the Judge's plan for penalties. There's no negotiation of a judicial order.
Originally Posted by jragosta
They can't do that…
Of course they can.
iBooks is one of the features that sets iOS apart from Android…
But nigh meaninglessly.
If the government decides it wants to ignore its own laws and kick a company out, what can that company do?
The judge would never be heard of again
What I have a problem with is the 33+ additional state level trials. This is going to cost the tax payers tons, the only people getting any real money will be the lawyers, and we consumers will get a $5 iTunes gift card. Woo Hoo.
Sounds like a job to suit George Costanza, sit in an office and do nothing.
So how many iBooks did you "overspend" $2 on?
Why should you get more than a perceived difference?
Apple should shut down US based iBook sales and parallel import from a country with a fair trade agreement with the US, making whatever agreements they want outside the scope of these draconian laws.
F*ck 'em.
Originally Posted by hill60
Sounds like a job to suit George Costanza, sit in an office and do nothing.
"Yes… yes, a judge. I could do that, Jerry!"
"Really?"
"Why not?"
"Well, a judge generally has a degree in law…"
"Well… yeah…"
"Tends to view things impartially…"
"…Yeah…"
"And has to be pretty knowledgeable."
"… …"
"I hear the robe breathes pretty well, though; you might like that."
"ALL RIIIGHT! I won't be a judge…"
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Of course, it's all a non-issue. This judge is going to look really foolish when the Appeals court slams her into the ground.
The article states that Apple has 'already agreed to some of the proposed remedies'. That does not seem to make sense. Why would Apple 'agree' to anything since they are going to file at the Appeals court?
publishers & retailers of ebooks & physical books across America.
Until then Apple will not be forced to adopt such a measure until all parties agree too!
I meant $5 in iTunes gift cards total, not per book.
For the record, I have purchased (not including free books) about 30 books from the iBookstore. My perceived overpayment because I bought from Apple over Amazon? Exactly $0. I bought something for a price I deemed reasonable at the time. Prices change and go up and down. Guess what? I don't care. When I want something, I buy it if I think the price is reasonable and don't bitch if the price goes down later, or celebrate if it goes up. I don't have time to burn calories on such nonsense.
That isn't to say I have only bought from the iBookstore. I got all three hunger games books from Kobo for like $6 total. When the iBookstore was charging $9.99 each.
Might improve her hindsight too. :smokey: