/article-new/2014/06/ibooks-icon.png?lossy){kind=icon}
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York today rejected Apple's bid to disqualify antitrust compliance monitor Michael Bromwich, who was appointed to watch the company since it was found liable of conspiring with publishers to fix e-book prices a few years ago, reports Reuters.
"The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York said a lower court judge did not abuse her discretion in rejecting Apple's bid to disqualify Michael Bromwich as monitor, even though some of the company's allegations against him 'give pause.'"
In July 2013, Apple lost a significant e-book antitrust case that found the company to have colluded with publishers to raise the price of e-books. As a result, Apple was forced to submit to an external antitrust compliance monitor and $450 million fine as part of a settlement with several class action lawyers and state district attorneys. Last December, the lawsuit entered appeals court as Apple's attempt to overturn the ruling.
Top Rated Comments
(View all)What Amazon did was akin to dumping.
That is per se illegal in this country.
Rocketman
What I always end up wondering with judgements involving hefty fines....in this case just under half a billion....is just where the hell does that money go???
Does it go to benefit anyone, a process, or just does it end up in some government slush fund?
it depends who wins the case. If Apple wins the case they quickly transfer it to off shore account in Ireland to avoid taxes:p
That "gives pause"? But isn't illegal? Their response feels a bit like, "well, look, he's a good boy, and at least he hasn't killed anyone." And yet it's Apple that has done wrong (by trying to help the publishers break Amazon's monopolistic stranglehold on the industry), and not the prejudging judge and her "expert" friend.
smh.
... then picking your unqualified friend as overseer, and allowing him to charge outrageous rates for himself, plus a subordinate he hired who has at least some grasp of the subject matter (that your "expert" friend needs explained to him), and letting them demand meetings with various high-up company employees who had no connection whatsoever to the matter at hand
This is the most important part for me. It just screams 'conflict of interest'.
As a result, ebook price is going up. US government is protecting amazon, not consumers.
This is pretty uninformed. E-Book pricing has increased because Amazon recently re-signed contracts with the major publishers. Those contracts allow the publishers to set the price; not Amazon. Amazon's preferred e-book pricing is still $9.99. Amazon has even provided incentives to the publishers for keeping the prices lower.
The page now reads: This price was set by the publisher.
http://www.amazon.com/Wright-Brothers-David-McCullough-ebook/dp/B00LD1RWP6/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&sr=1-1&qid=1432830787
This is what we wanted right? We were clamoring to pay the $13 for e-books from the iBooks store. Now we can pay $13 everywhere. That's what I call a win-win.:rolleyes: