/article-new/2013/11/Ember-Status-Item.png?lossy)
Apple filed a formal appeal on Tuesday asking the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn the ruling of its e-books antitrust case or to be awarded a new trial on the matter, reports the Associated Press.
In its filing, Apple stated that U.S. District Judge Denise Cote's original decision to find the company guilty of conspiring to fix e-book prices was a "radical departure" compared to modern antitrust law, adding that the decision would harm consumers and negate competition if not overturned.
Apple's papers filed Tuesday refuted the antitrust finding, and said its entrance into the e-book market "kick-started competition in a highly concentrated market, delivering higher output, lower price levels, and accelerated innovation."
Apple also requested that the appeals court suspend the work of external antitrust compliance monitor Michael Bromwich until it makes a decision as to whether he was correctly appointed. Apple filed a formal complaint against Bromwich in November claiming that the monitor was overcharging them for his services, and requested that he be removed from his position in January.
While Apple managed to win a brief emergency reprieve from monitoring, the Appeals court ruled earlier this month that Bromwich could continue his work with new boundaries, as he is no longer able to demand access to any document or interview Apple executives with respect to any subject.
Top Rated Comments
(View all)The more times I hear about Apple moaning about this monitor the more I think Apple is trying to hide something.
Of course they are - all of their upcoming products, services, deals and negotiations.
What would you do as a company concerning a court-ruling which hurts your public image and may hurt future revenues? Sit down and take it, or fight it? Their recent actions really have less to do with moral standing than logical business practice.
I find the whole thing a bit strange. As I followed this in the news, my impression was that Apple would win this case. My take was that they had a different model than Amazon; essentially using the same model they used for music. A proven practice that made sense. I was surprised when the court ruled against them. I was even more surprised by the whole auditor issue. I agree that it makes a lot of sense for Apple to continue fighting this. If they lose, what model will Apple have to resort to? Back to Amazon price setting model? I really hope not.
The more times I hear about Apple moaning about this monitor the more I think Apple is trying to hide something.
Most likely they are. That does NOT mean they are doing anything unlawful though. There are many perfectly legal things Apple could be doing that they don't want anyone outside the company having access to. This "monitor" has already overstepped bounds. I can understand Apple is not going to trust him.
The more times I hear about Apple moaning about this monitor the more I think Apple is trying to hide something.
What would you do as a company concerning a court-ruling which hurts your public image and may hurt future revenues? Sit down and take it, or fight it? Their recent actions really have less to do with moral standing than logical business practice.