AAPL Stock: 118.03 ( -0.85 )

Printed from

Judge: Apple probably guilty of e-book price fixing

updated 09:00 am EDT, Fri May 24, 2013

Unusual admission of prejudice ahead of DOJ trial

In an unusual pre-trial "tentative view," the judge in charge of the Apple versus the Department of Justice trial over alleged e-book price-fixing said that the DOJ would likely be able to prove that Apple colluded with publishers to raise e-book prices, despite not having seen all available evidence. This is not the first time Judge Denise Cote has ruled against Apple ahead of a full examination of the facts.

By her own admission, Cote's opinion is drawn mostly from a set of correspondence between former Apple CEO Steve Jobs and News Corporation CEO James Murdoch (on behalf of HarperCollins, which NewsCorp owns) between December 2009 and January 2010. In the emails that have been made public, there is no evidence of any such collusion: the negotiation process between Murdoch and Jobs shows the former starting off with a completely different view on pricing and models that does not agree with Apple's proposal. Over the course of a few emails, however, Murdoch is persuaded by Jobs' scenarios of how the emerging e-book market is likely to play out under Amazon's "wholesale" model versus Apple's "agency" model.

The "agency" model, which has been a staple of the publishing industry for decades, lets publishers set prices for goods; Apple takes its normal 30 percent distribution cut, and for that provides a complete eco-system experience from storefront to billing and legal. Amazon's "wholesale" model allowed Amazon to set the price of the e-book, giving it the freedom to sell the e-books at a loss in order to engage in predatory pricing that would drive out competitors and gain a monopoly in the e-book market.

Bizarrely, the DOJ has thus far turned a blind eye to this aspect of the case (despite Apple's pointing out that before it entered the e-book market, Amazon had greater than 90 percent of e-book sales) and instead focused on Jobs' suggestion in various emails that publishers preferred a price point of around $13 for a typical new release e-book, about $3 higher than the "loss leader" pricing Amazon sold for. Apple never required publishers to adhere to a particular price, but suggested the range as the must sustainable option.

Although not all the emails between the two men have been released, reading the publicly-available ones makes it obvious that publishers were persuaded to go with Apple's "agency model" not because of the promise of a higher price as much as the promise of a stronger business model. Apple's contract included an also-contentious "most favored nation" clause that said that publishers could not sell a book for less than the price they set for Apple's iBookstore.

The clause, once agreed to by all five major publishers, essentially broke Amazon's ability to continue to engage in the predatory pricing scheme, since it and any other future competitors would have to sell at the same price as what publishers set as the price for the iBookstore. In short order, Amazon's monopoly fell and it settled into a marketshare of under 70 percent -- allowing both Apple and later players (including Sony and Barnes & Noble) to enter the market without incurring large losses to try and compete with Amazon. This move not only protected publishers from possible Amazon abuse of its monopoly, but also secured a diversity of publishers and thus e-book options for consumers -- longer-range benefits the DOJ has ignored in favor of misguidedly fighting for the lowest possible price.

The publishing houses, after some initial resistance, have entered into settlements with the DOJ and other authorities agreeing to nullify the "agency" contracts with Apple and resume the "wholesale" model for a period of time. The DOJ has pointed out that under the "wholesale" model, consumers paid less for e-books -- ignoring the realities of that model's sustainability for publishers, who complained at the time that Amazon's discounting was hurting the overall value of e-books. Apple has since adapted to the lack of the agency model and begun discounting e-books itself, forcing Amazon to take steepening losses.

This is not the first time Judge Cote has sided with Amazon against both the publishers and Apple. In May of 2012, she allowed a class-action civil lawsuit "on behalf of consumers" suing over the alleged price-fixing to go forward ahead of the DOJ trial -- issuing a strongly-worded opinion dismissing Apple's defence that the agency model was better for consumers in the long haul because it preserved both publisher control of pricing and the viable diversity of smaller publishers.

In her opinion, Judge Cote accused Apple of helping facilitate a collusion between publishers that conspired to keep e-book prices slightly higher than Amazon's discounting. It would seem unusual that a second admission of bias by a judge in the case ahead of an actual trial would not be used to have the lawsuit's venue changed, but Apple will likely use the judge's pre-disposition against it as grounds for appeal following any (apparently pre-determined) loss in its initial DOJ trial.

In issuing her latest finding, Judge Cote went so far as to admit that she was already drafting the written decision that would be issued at the end of the proceedings, indicating that she has already made up her mind on the points of law based on evidence previously seen and selected by the DOJ. Preliminary findings such as this one were likely a factor in Penguin's recent settlement in the class-action lawsuits filed by the attorneys general in more than 17 states. It agreed to pay $73 million in various disbursements to settle the suits.

Ironically, the settlements agreed to by the DOJ only prohibit publishers from using the "agency model" for a period of two years, after which they can revert to it if they can get sellers like Amazon to agree. A similar European investigation yielded a nearly-identical settlement, though in that case Apple also agreed to the terms along with the publishers.

by MacNN Staff



  1. prl99

    Mac Enthusiast

    Joined: 03-24-09

    How can a judge make a statement like this? She's already decided the outcome for the jury. Apple has every right to challenge this judge, who should be barred from the bench.

  1. thinkman

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: 01-04-05

    And the law allow this? Another corrupt judge! She should not be allowed under any circumstances to adjudicate this case. Pre announcing guilt - WTF! Our system is SO broken.

  1. Inkling

    Senior User

    Joined: 07-25-06

    Like I said in a posting yesterday, I've got a bad feeling about this judge. Her mind, it appears, is already made up even before the evidence and arguments have been heard. And that's likely to mean that yet more time and money get burned up in an appeal. The only winners in this dispute are likely to be the lawyers.

    I might add that, as a writer and small publisher, I like agency pricing. It gives me precisely what Apple's software developers have, the ability to set the price of what I create. I'm disgusted that DOJ lawyers want to take that right away from me, and all the more disgusted given all the evidence that's coming out about corruption in the DOJ and IRS.

  1. Makosuke

    Forum Regular

    Joined: 08-06-01

    That sounds really, really sketchy--like the exact opposite of how the judicial system is supposed to work. Isn't that supposed to be, you know, near-automatic grounds for change of venue or dismissal of the verdict?

    This entire DOJ case baffles me, and I'm coming at it from the perspective of someone who absolutely despised the major publishing houses and their greedy, monopolistic collusion to start with. Even WITH that bias, I can see that this wasn't price collusion. It *allowed* for price collusion between them, but in and of itself all it did was prevent Amazon from becoming an openly predatory monopoly.

    Really, if Apple had started selling iTunes tracks for a loss in order to drive every other music seller out of business, do you think that there wouldn't have been complaints about it? Why wasn't the DOJ going after Amazon, who *already* had near-monopoly levels of market share, and was just trying to firmly entrench themselves there and make absolutely sure nobody else could get a foot in.

  1. The Vicar

    Junior Member

    Joined: 07-01-09

    You know, this is EXACTLY the kind of behavior which got the antitrust ruling against Microsoft dismissed. Of course, this verdict won't be, since Apple currently spends much less on government lobbying than Microsoft or Google, but if the USDOJ made any pretense of actually applying laws evenly any more, this would automatically cause a guilty verdict to be dismissed permanently, the way it was for Microsoft.

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