AAPL Stock: 117.81 ( -0.22 )

Printed from

Apple formally files response to DOJ e-book lawsuit

updated 10:19 pm EDT, Wed May 23, 2012

Echoes PR that suit is 'fundamentally flawed'

Claiming that the Department of Justice is completely wrong in its approach and interpretation of the circumstances and public remarks of its entry into the e-book market, Apple has filed a formal response [PDF link] to the lawsuit that accuses it and major book publishers of conspiring to fix prices on e-books and undermine Amazon's ability to discount them. The response echoes Apple's few public statements on the matter, saying it fostered competition where Amazon would have destroyed it.

The suit, which originally named five publishers, accuses Apple and the remaining two publishers (MacMillan and Penguin Group) of colluding to require a switch to the "agency model," a traditional publishing-industry model that allows publishers to set wholesale prices. The suit also accuses the company of demanding a "most favored nation" type clause that required publishers not to sell books at lower prices on other outlets such as Amazon.

The DOJ (though few others) see the moves as a targeted conspiracy to weaken Amazon's policy, in which the online retailer could cut prices as much as it wanted and would pressure publishers to accept payment based on what the books actually sold for. Amazon remains in a position to sell e-books as a loss leader, which many in the industry feared would lead to the ruin of smaller publishers.

Apple and the two publishers' position is that no collusion occurred, no price-fixing occurred and that the moves helped protect all publishers -- even those not part of the agreement -- from the "predatory pricing" practices of Amazon. The company further says that quotes cited by the DOJ from former CEO and co-founder Steve Jobs were taken entirely out of context.

Jobs stated in both an e-mail to a reluctant publisher as well as on video that publisher would at some point be forced to withhold their books from Amazon in order to force the company to respect its own pricing of the e-books. Amazon itself had already become known for punishing publishers that resisted its cut-rate discounting strategy, which publishers feared would lead to permanent lowering of payments and royalties. The DOJ says the conspiracy worked to keep e-book prices "artificially high," costing consumers millions of extra dollars they would not have paid if Amazon or others had been able to sell them at a loss.

Apple has said that Amazon had a near-monopoly on e-book sales before Apple introduced the iBookstore, garnering some 90 percent of e-book sales and pressuring publishers to lower prices. While seen by some consumer groups as a pro-consumer position, price-dumping is also illegal when it can be shown to be employed in order to squeeze out competitors that can't afford to lose money.

In today's brief, the company called the DOJ suit "fundamentally flawed" and argued that if successful, the practical effect would be to harm consumers, discourage competition and award Amazon a practical monopoly. It said its own entry into the market was "classically pro-competitive" and fueled demand for e-books by forcing Amazon and others to compete more aggressively, including introducing upgraded e-reader technology. The company has previously pointed out that since its entry into the e-book market, Amazon has had to give up predatory pricing and now has 60 percent of the market, meaning it must compete more fairly against Barnes and Noble and other e-book markets.

"For Apple to be subject to hindsight legal attack for a business strategy well-recognized as perfectly proper sends the wrong message to the market," it added. "The government's complaint against Apple is fundamentally flawed as a matter of fact and law." Three of the other publishers originally named in the suit have already settled with the DOJ and agreed to abandon the "agency model." The Author's Guild and its leader, novelist Scott Turow, have already come out in favor of Apple in the DOJ complaint.

by MacNN Staff



  1. Bobfozz

    Joined: Dec 1969


    The Head Jerk at DOJ is...

    just trying to look like he is aggressive and doing his job. With the fiasco in Mexico with arms smuggling, Holder has really managed to muck it up. He should resign. neither Obammy nor Holder have any clue what consumers want. Our government allowed in cheap Chinese goods to help destroy jobs, now this nitwit want Amazon to become the Wal-mart of everything else. If he is ever looking for his head, he should research his posterior. DOJ will LOSE this one. But then, what's new?

  1. facebook_Craig

    Via Facebook

    Joined: May 2012



    The US government is fundamentally misunderstanding the shift in the book publishing market that Apple and Amazon has allowed. Any tom d*** or harry can write a book based on their knowledge and publish it to the masses now. So if the large legacy publishers raise their prices too much eventually competitors will enter the market and compete (at a much lower cost than a large publisher has).

Login Here

Not a member of the MacNN forums? Register now for free.


Network Headlines

Follow us on Facebook


Most Popular


Recent Reviews

Ultimate Ears Megaboom Bluetooth Speaker

Ultimate Ears (now owned by Logitech) has found great success in the marketplace with its "Boom" series of Bluetooth speakers, a mod ...

Kinivo URBN Premium Bluetooth Headphones

We love music, and we're willing to bet that you do, too. If you're like us, you probably spend a good portion of your time wearing ...

Jamstik+ MIDI Controller

For a long time the MIDI world has been dominated by keyboard-inspired controllers. Times are changing however, and we are slowly star ...


Most Commented