Apple threatens ‘chilling effect’ on the industry if found guilty at ebook trial
Antitrust trial ended Thursday, but verdict not expected for two months
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.The federal anti-trust trial between Apple and the US Department of Justice over alleged ebook price fixing came to a close yesterday.
In his final statement, Apple attorney Orin Snyder said that if the tech giant was found guilty, it would “send shudders through the business community.”
The case began when the DoJ accused five major publishers of conspiring with Apple of “consciously [committing] to a scheme to raise e-book prices throughout the industry.”
In 2010 Amazon set its default ebook price at just $9.99 and so Apple – alongside publishers Simon & Schuster, HarperCollins, Hachette, Penguin and Macmillan – sought to raise this figure, to $12.99 and $14.99 (figures that publishers pushed upwards to $16.99 and $19.99).
The five publishing houses involved have already bowed out of the case, settling for a combined $164 million.
In defending Apple’s actions, Snyder maintained that they have acted as any business would act when trying to enter a competitive market: negotiating with content owners for the best possible price.
Snyder also sought to rebuff the claims that Apple’s negotiations with publishers constituted a conspiracy by pointing out disagreements between the various parties; noting that “turmoil” in the ebook market demanded extensive talks; and accusing the DoJ of making “overreaching” readings of evidence.
The DoJ responsded that the evidence was clear cut, with government lawyer Mark Ryan pointing to examples such as Apple insertion ‘most favoured nation’ clause (MFN) into the contract. This meant that publishers had to offer their books to Apple at 70% of the lowest price anywhere on the market, meaning that Apple could match prices elsewhere whilst retaining their traditional 30% cut of profits.
Ryan also calculated that after the contracts took effect in April 2010 (only the largest publishing company, Random House, abstained from signing Apple’s deal), the prices of Amazon’s ebooks increased by almost 20%. "Apple was simply indifferent to customers paying higher prices," said Ryan.
A judgement is not expected on the trial for another two months, but if Apple are found guilty then it would set an important precedent in how the US deals with internet firms attempting to control markets.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments