Last year, Apple lost a monumental e-book antitrust case that alleged the company had colluded with publishers to raise the price of e-books. As a result, Apple was forced to submit to a cumbersome external antitrust monitor and the company agreed to pay out $450 million as part of a settlement with several class action lawyers and state district attorneys.
Throughout the lawsuit, Apple maintained its innocence, and in February, the company formally filed for an appeal, asking the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn the original ruling. In the appeal filing, Apple called the judge's decision a "radical departure" from modern antitrust law.
As of this week, Apple's case is being heard in appeals court, and it appears that things are going in the company's favor thus far. According to a report from Reuters, some of the judges "appeared sympathetic" to Apple's argument that its agreements with e-book publishers were "pro-competitive."
One of Apple's main arguments during the e-book antitrust case focused on Judge Cote's treatment of the company. Apple believes it was treated unfairly because Cote opted to ignore the positive impact that Apple had on introducing competition into the e-book market at a time when Amazon had a 90 percent market share.
Rather than being treated as a new entrant into the e-book market, which would have demanded a "rule of reason" analysis that judged Apple's impact on improving competition in a way that was good for consumers, Apple's role was viewed as "per se illegal" and automatically labeled anticompetitive despite Amazon's large command of the e-book market.
Circuit Judge Dennis Jacobs asked a Department of Justice lawyer why it was wrong for the publishers to get together to defeat a "monopolist" that was using "predatory pricing."Circuit Judge Debra Livingston also said it was "troubling" that Apple's normally "perfectly legal" contracts were labeled as a scheme. A lawyer for Apple told the judges "We think the conduct here was innovative and pro-competitive." Should Apple win its appeal, it may not have to pay the $450 million settlement it reached in July. If the case is overturned, Apple will pay no fines, and if it's sent back to Judge Cote for a retrial, Apple will pay just $50 million to consumers and $20 million in attorney fees.
"It's like the mice getting together to put a bell on the cat," Jacobs said.
80 comments
Apple today shared a new trailer for its upcoming "Snoopy in Space" show that's coming to Apple TV+ this fall. As Deadline points out, the release of new trailer has been timed to...
Apple this morning released the fourth beta of iOS 13 for developers, introducing bug fixes and adding and refining iOS 13 features.
Now that we're into the fourth beta, changes and updates...
A security vulnerability in the Bluetooth communication protocol has the potential to allow malicious actors to track and identify devices from Apple and Microsoft, according to new research from...
Apple is renewing its "Carpool Karaoke: The Series" show for a third season, Apple announced on YouTube today via James Corden's YouTube channel. The new season is already in production...
Apple today seeded the fourth betas of iOS 13 and iPadOS to developers for testing purposes, two weeks after releasing the third betas and more than a month after unveiling the new operating system...
The Information's Wayne Ma has published an interesting story about the measures Apple takes to prevent leaks of unreleased products like iPhones from emerging out of factories within its Asian...
Today is World Emoji Day, and in celebration of emojis, Adobe released its 2019 Emoji Trend Report, giving us some insight into the most popular emoji characters that people are using. For its...
Apple has asked one of its manufacturing partners to ready components for use in rear Time-of-Flight (ToF) camera lenses said to be coming to next year's iPhone lineup, according to DigiTimes.
...
