Apple loses final e-books antitrust appeal, will pay $450M settlement [u]
The Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday confirmed a lower court's finding that Apple colluded with major publishers to raise the price of e-books following the launch of the iBookstore, putting the case to rest and clearing the way for distribution of a $450 million settlement.
Update: "While we want to put this behind us, the case is about principles and values," Apple told Reuters. "We know we did nothing wrong back in 2010 and are assessing next steps."
"We conclude that the district court correctly decided that Apple orchestrated a conspiracy among the publishers to raise ebook prices, that the conspiracy unreasonably restrained trade in violation of ?1 of the Sherman Act, and that the injunction is properly calibrated to protect the public from future anticompetitive harms," the court wrote. "Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed."
Judge Debra Ann Livingston delivered the opinion, with Judge Raymond J. Lohier concurring. Judge Dennis Jacobs, who has been critical of the case from the beginning, dissented.
Even as Apple has continued to fight the case, it reached terms with the government for a $450 million settlement late last year. If the appeals court had ruled that the case should be reconsidered, that amount would have dropped to just $70 million.
Following Tuesday's ruling, the company can begin disbursing settlement funds. Around $400 million will be refunded to consumers, while $50 million will go toward the case's legal fees.
Update: "While we want to put this behind us, the case is about principles and values," Apple told Reuters. "We know we did nothing wrong back in 2010 and are assessing next steps."
"We conclude that the district court correctly decided that Apple orchestrated a conspiracy among the publishers to raise ebook prices, that the conspiracy unreasonably restrained trade in violation of ?1 of the Sherman Act, and that the injunction is properly calibrated to protect the public from future anticompetitive harms," the court wrote. "Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed."
Judge Debra Ann Livingston delivered the opinion, with Judge Raymond J. Lohier concurring. Judge Dennis Jacobs, who has been critical of the case from the beginning, dissented.
Even as Apple has continued to fight the case, it reached terms with the government for a $450 million settlement late last year. If the appeals court had ruled that the case should be reconsidered, that amount would have dropped to just $70 million.
Following Tuesday's ruling, the company can begin disbursing settlement funds. Around $400 million will be refunded to consumers, while $50 million will go toward the case's legal fees.
Comments
Couldn't let the launch of Apple Music go without some negative news to offset it.
Apple needs to get their heads out of their ass. When someone comes at you gangster-style, you break their knees. You don't throw your preppy legal team at them.
That's not the "final" ruling unless they decline to appeal: that was a three judge panel, a subset of the full appellate court. They can appeal for a full court hearing.
Disgusting.
The KING of e-books.
That's not the "final" ruling unless they decline to appeal: that was a three judge panel, a subset of the full appellate court. They can appeal for a full court hearing.
Unless they start spreading some serious lobbying cash then I'm not sure there's much point.
Just wasting more tax payers money by keeping this in the courts. Just like Samsung, They need to accept the fact that they are guilty and face the penalty and move on.
Just wasting more tax payers money by keeping this in the courts. Just like Samsung, They need to accept the fact that they are guilty and face the penalty and move on.
Guilty of what? Bringing competition to the previously monopoly controlled ebook market and requiring the prices to be low?
Oh, what a crime that was!
Really, Apple was guilty of competing with a politically well connected company-- Amazon-- in an age where the rule of pull is what matters, not the rule of law.
I think it might take more than cash. Something to do with back doors appears in my crystal ball. And I can just make out a bald-headed man laughing strangely, like a horse whinnying.
2 of these 3 judges shopped mostly at Amazon with perks. The system is broken and I don't really fucking care. Apple just pay them already and move on. Fck the US court in general.
Just wasting more tax payers money by keeping this in the courts. Just like Samsung, They need to accept the fact that they are guilty and face the penalty and move on.
Guess you will follow your own advice and go to jail for 20 years for a crime you did not commit.
apple: "sure, we'll pay the fine. just after samsung pays theirs."
Here's the irony. It's true that Amazon, in a practical sense, has a monopoly. That's a bad thing, even if you like Amazon. As I do. It's also true that Apple did this to try to break that monopoly. A good thing. But, it's also true that the way they did it was patently illegal. You cannot read the emails admitted into evidence and not conclude that Apple and the publishers engaged in blatant, arrogant collusion. That's a bad thing, even if you like Apple. As I do.
I know what you're thinking, but it looks like the die was cast well before the current administration, and the balance of the Supreme Court is irrelevant. It's just common sense that Amazon's personal data is more interesting than . . . well, you can finish the thought. Lesser speculation is a waste of good paranoia.