/article-new/2013/07/iBooks.png?lossy)
Apple today responded (via GigaOM) to the Department of Justice's revised proposal accusing Apple of implementing in-app purchase rules to spite Amazon, stating that the DOJ is simply "seeking a remedy that would give Amazon a significant competitive advantage over Apple."
Plantiffs are seeking a remedy that would give Amazon a significant competitive advantage over Apple – an advantage it is neither entitled to nor deserves. This is plainly improper and highly counterproductive.
Now–after the trial is over and this court has ruled–is not the time to adjudicate a whole new array of legal and factual issues based on evidence that is outside the record and which largely post-dates the events at issue.
First filed last Friday, the DOJ's revised punishment for Apple's guilty collusion verdict suggested Apple had initiated its in-app purchasing rules in order to "retaliate against Amazon for competitive conduct that Apple disapproved of" and to "make it more difficult for consumers using Apple devices to compare ebook prices among different retailers."
In the proposal, the DOJ aimed to provide support for its argument that Apple should be forced to allow e-book retailers like Amazon and Barnes & Noble to place links to their respective bookstores within their App Store apps. Apple is opposed to the idea, as it would give Amazon a way to sell books within its App Store apps while avoiding paying Apple a 30% cut of the proceeds.
The DOJ also argued that Apple should be subjected to third party monitoring to prevent future collusion and should have staggered renegotiations with book publishers. Apple conceded to this last point, but continues to fight both the monitor and the suggestion that Amazon and other e-book retailers should be allowed links in their App Store apps.
Apple and the DOJ will meet with Judge Cote to further discuss the proposal on Tuesday. In addition to the DOJ's proposed punishment, Apple could also be forced to pay up to $500 million in damages.
Top Rated Comments
(View all)the anti-apple campaign began last september and continues on to this day. his anti-business message is old. just like him.
Are you all kidding me? Apple is so wrong on this one. Even the biggest Apple fan boy should be able to see this!
*buys cat food on Amazon with free two-day shipping*
Considering Apple has more money in the bank than the US does at certain times, jut buy a state a leave the union.
The US Govt spends Apples net worth in a month. They could probably buy some dirt poor state in the south though, just about everything else is for sale down there.
Seriously though, why is anyone surprised that businesses are suffering under the heal of the government.
Yeah, poor businesses, only seeing record profits double and quadruple year after year, it's like someone is strangling them to death and they can't stand their ground, poor souls. If we could only give them billions in tax breaks and write offs so they could get a gasp of air.
It's amazing how many of these types of stories devolve into political debate. I sometimes cringe while clicking on the comments link.
What's even worse is how many people don't know what they're talking about, yet still get all righteous and shrill about it nonetheless.
Forcing Apple to allow Amazon to link directly to their own store is like forcing Walmart to tell people how to buy directly from the manufactures of their products.
Umm.... Wal Mart sells iPads, but I don't have to buy my apps from Wal Mart. So, Wal Mart does sell a product that links to a store outside of Wal Mart.
I can buy a magazine at Wal Mart that comes with a subscription card that goes direct to the publisher, Wal Mart doesn't get a dime.
I can buy an XBox and then buy XBox games online, Wal Mart doesn't make any money there.
These examples are more accurate for allowing Amazon to link directly to its own store.