Apple appeals in antitrust case

Apple appeals last year's anti-trust verdict, arguing that the company “had no knowledge" of a conspiracy to fix prices.

Eric Risberg/AP
Earlier this week, Apple filed an appeal of a judge's ruling that it violated antitrust laws.

In a significant shift in the Apple e-books antitrust case, Apple Tuesday filed an appeal of a judge’s ruling that it violated US antitrust laws by conspiring with publishers to fix e-book prices.

Apple said the judge’s ruling “is a radical departure” from modern antitrust law that will “chill competition and harm consumers” if allowed to stand.

Apple asked the Second US Court of Appeals to overturn the judgment in Apple’s favor, or grant a new trial with a different judge. It also said its court-appointed monitor was “unprecedented and unconstitutional” and asked that the monitor’s work be suspended until an appeals court decides if it was correctly appointed.

Apple had indicated it would seek an appeal if the judgment was not in its favor.

In April 2012, the Department of Justice sued Apple and five of the six major US publishers for conspiring to set e-book prices in order to break Amazon’s dominance of the market. The publishers all eventually settled, leaving Apple to resolve the matter in court.

Last July US District Judge Denise Cote ruled that Apple had colluded with major book publishers to raise the price of e-books in a price-fixing conspiracy. The company was given a court-appointed monitor and could pay up to $840 million in antitrust claims.

But in papers filed Tuesday, Apple refuted the ruling, saying it “had no knowledge that the publishers were engaged in a conspiracy at the time.” Apple also argued that by entering the e-book market, it “kick-started competition in a highly concentrated market, delivering higher output, lower price levels, and accelerated innovation.”

The appeal extends a high-profile, high-stakes case that will shape the future of the e-books industry. We’re expecting more legal battles to come.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to