Got a tip for us? Share it...

New in OS X: Get MacRumors Push Notifications on your Mac

Resubscribe Now Close

Apple Rebuts Antitrust Charges Over E-Book Pricing

An Apple spokeswoman has officially responded to the lawsuit filed yesterday by the U.S. Department of Justice over the Apple-backed agency model of e-book pricing.

In a statement to All Things D, Apple spokesman Tom Neumayr:
The DOJ’s accusation of collusion against Apple is simply not true. The launch of the iBookstore in 2010 fostered innovation and competition, breaking Amazon’s monopolistic grip on the publishing industry. Since then customers have benefited from eBooks that are more interactive and engaging. Just as we’ve allowed developers to set prices on the App Store, publishers set prices on the iBookstore.
Legal experts commenting on the case said the Justice Department has a steep hill to climb to catch Apple on antitrust charges. Some experts suggest that even amid claims that the publishers met to discuss a shift to an agency model being championed by Apple, the publishers may not be found guilty of antitrust violations.

Top Rated Comments

(View all)

30 months ago
Of course they won't be found guilty.

I've seen this time and again.

The Judge has an iPad or Macbook, thinks he's all cool for owning it, has a big ol' boner for Steve Jobs because it's "The cool thing"

Dismisses the case, never even hears the argument and Apple goes scot free
Rating: 43 Votes
30 months ago
Publishers also determined their own revenue per book prior to the agency model. The difference now, is that the customer pays more and Apple (or Amazon) gets a larger percentage of the overall price.

If Amazon wants to forgo their profits and pass the savings along to the customer (while still allowing the publisher to determine their own profit per book), they should have that option (and as customers, so should we).

The fact that paperbacks on Amazon are now cheaper than ebooks just highlights how ridiculous the agency model is. If a publisher wants to make $7.99 per book, they should sell the book to Amazon for $7.99 and allow Amazon to determine their own revenue by choosing the final price payed by the customer (as per the wholesale model). Apple had no right to require publishers to change their relationship with Amazon, just so Apple (not the publisher) could increase their own profits.
Rating: 18 Votes
30 months ago
Clearly, the DOJ never heard the phrase "you can't litigate your way to profitability." Apple is on top of the capitalistic heap now without any help from the government. The administration doesn't give a crap about e-books. They want a fine or financial settlement.
Rating: 14 Votes
30 months ago
I think it is pretty obvious Apple presented a way for Publishers to set ebook prices and benefit Apple at the same time.

Who was the loser when this "agency model" was introduced -purchasers of ebooks!
Rating: 14 Votes
30 months ago
Apple can make doing wrong, sound right.
Rating: 13 Votes
30 months ago
I have to agree with Apple on this. I never understood the hoopla behind this case.

Amazon is usually cheaper anyway.
Rating: 10 Votes
30 months ago

Of course they won't be found guilty.

I've seen this time and again...


Sound like my grandpa who says he's seen it all, over and over. Of course, if one were to actually study the law and the charges, it might not be so easy to write it off as 'good ole boy deal' but it just might reveal facts that preclude such a snap judgement. If someone has more facts than the DOJ charge so far has released, share, please.
Rating: 9 Votes
30 months ago
Popcorn at the ready, this is gonna be fun. I don't see the DOJ getting up that hill!
Rating: 9 Votes
30 months ago
Apple had no right to require publishers to change their relationship with Amazon, just so Apple (not the publisher) could increase their own profits.


Of course they had every right. Its called negotiation. That's like saying that since AT&T has your companies business, Verizon can't say I'll offer you better terms if you come to us, but only if you switch these services too. The key is these companies deserve to make business decisions that increase their bottom line just like Amazon does. They are actually making less on each e-book but selling many more because Amazon is not the only player any more. The market is thriving now
Rating: 7 Votes
30 months ago

Publishers also determined their own revenue per book prior to the agency model. The difference now, is that the customer pays more and Apple (or Amazon) gets a larger percentage of the overall price.

If Amazon wants to forgo their profits and pass the savings along to the customer (while still allowing the publisher to determine their own profit per book), they should have that option (and as customers, so should we).

The fact that paperbacks on Amazon are now cheaper than ebooks just highlights how ridiculous the agency model is. If a publisher wants to make $7.99 per book, they should sell the book to Amazon for $7.99 and allow Amazon to determine their own revenue by choosing the final price payed by the customer (as per the wholesale model). Apple had no right to require publishers to change their relationship with Amazon, just so Apple (not the publisher) could increase their own profits.



Why then does the government stop the Chinese from dumping their steel in the USA. By your logic, if the chinese wish to subsidize the American consumer with lower priced steel at the expense of our industry, so be it.

Amazon is out to destroy everybody. The management of amazon does not even care about amazon. They are just doing it to maximize their stock options with help from the shysters of WS. Under the guise of pre planned sales of their stock options, they are benefitting in ways that in the end will screw the long term investor, while destroying companies and countless number of jobs.
Rating: 7 Votes

[ Read All Comments ]