Supreme Court rules against Apple in App Store price fixing case

The Supreme Court has ruled against Apple in a long-standing case over price fixing in the App Store, in a decision that allows iPhone owners to proceed with a lawsuit against the company. The court heard arguments in the case in November, and the de...

Supreme Court will hear Apple’s bid to stop price fixing suit

Apple will have one more shot at avoiding a proposed class-action lawsuit accusing it of price fixing with the App Store. The US Supreme Court has agreed to hear Apple's appeal of a ruling that would resurrect the antitrust case, which asserted that...

Russia finds Apple guilty of fixing iPhone prices

Google isn't the only American company facing regulatory trouble in Russia. The country's antitrust body has ruled that Apple is guilty of fixing prices for iPhone 5 and 6 variants at 16 local retailers. Reportedly, the company tracked prices at thes...

ASUS is being investigated for price manipulation in Europe

In one of several antitrust investigations launched today, the European Commission has begun probing tech brands ASUS, Denon & Marantz, Philips and Pioneer for suspected price manipulation. As the press release explains, the Commission believes t...

Apple e-book price fixing case won’t reach the Supreme Court

Apple's last shot at avoiding a $450 million e-book price fixing settlement just went out the window. The US Supreme Court has declined to hear Apple's challenge of an appeals court decision that left the company on the hook for allegedly conspiring...

Judge orders Apple to stop making special pacts with e-book publishers

Judge orders Apple to stop making special pacts with ebook publishers

After plenty of tussling over the DoJ's proposed injunction against Apple, preventing it from striking untoward pricing deals with e-book publishers, a judge at the Southern District Court of New York has today laid down the law. The final injunction prevents Apple from setting prices with any of its partners for terms of between two and four years, with the exact term depending on which publisher it's working with and how long they originally took to settle with the DoJ -- which means Apple's relationship with Macmillan faces the harshest restriction.

Crucially, Apple also won't be able to make "most favored nation" pacts, in which e-book prices and discounts are set across a range of publishers or retailers. This particular bit of the injunction will last for five years -- a lengthy period of time in this industry, and one that can be extended by the court if it sees fit, but hardly the ten-year term that Apple's lawyers initially feared. Finally, another key clause prevents Apple from doing business with publishers behind closed doors. For the next two years, Cupertino will have to bring in an independent third party to serve as an "Antitrust compliance officer" in all deals. Sounds humiliating, perhaps, but again, given the relatively short duration, it could have been a lot worse.

Filed under:

Comments

Source: NYSD Court

DOJ offers to cut injunction time in Apple e-book case, stays firm on key points

The US Justice Department was insistent that its proposed injunction against Apple for alleged e-book price fixing was the proper remedy earlier this month, but it's now willing to budge on that somewhat. As Reuters reports, the DOJ has offered to cut the length of the injunction from ten to five years, and ease the restrictions on Apple striking new deals with book publishers -- it now suggests Apple hold staggered negotiations with publishers starting in two years. The DOJ continues to insist on the need for an external monitor to keep an eye on the company, however, which remains a non-starter for Apple.

The company also drew some particularly harsh criticism from the DOJ, which stated in a filing that "Apple wants to continue business as usual, regardless of the antitrust laws," and that "this court should have no confidence that Apple on its own effectively can ensure that its illegal conduct will not be repeated." For its part, Apple isn't commenting on the DOJ's latest proposal.

Filed under:

Comments

Source: Reuters

Judge denies Apple’s request to suspend e-book antitrust ruling

Judge denies Apple's request to suspend e-book antitrust ruling

Apple, in its ongoing battle over an e-book price fixing scandal, has been dealt yet another setback. Last month, Judge Denise Cote ruled that Apple had violated antitrust laws in conspiring with publishers to raise e-book prices. Cupertino asked for a temporary suspension of her ruling while it sought to appeal the penalties leveled against it, but today Judge Cote refused that request. The company maintains its innocence, and its co-defendants have jumped to its defense in the wake of a strong restrictions handed down by the Justice Department. But, increasingly, it appears that Apple is fighting a losing battle. We're sure that there are still tricks in its legal arsenal, but there is little indication that Cupertino will be able to avoid terminating its existing agreements with publishers and will be barred from engaging in agency pricing before the end of the DoJ's five-year ban.

Filed under:

Comments

Source: Associated Press

DOJ defends Apple e-book price fixing injunction, says publishers had it easy

E-book on an iPad

The US Department of Justice isn't buying publishers' arguments that proposed injunctions against Apple for alleged e-book price fixing are excessive and contradictory. DOJ attorney Lawrence Buterman claims in a response letter that the penalties against Apple are necessarily harsher, since it didn't settle the accusations like its reported co-conspirators. The group objection even justifies Apple's punishment, Buterman claims; it suggests that publishers are just waiting until the end of a two-year ban on agency pricing to raise prices once again. The five-year restriction imposed on Apple could keep prices down for longer, the lawyer says.

Apple, meanwhile, isn't done with its objections. In addition to an earlier request for a stay on proceedings pending an appeal, it now contends that the court excluded or ignored testimony while giving Amazon and Google witnesses too much credibility. The company will present more of its opinion at a conference today with both the DOJ and the presiding judge, but we're not expecting a quick resolution -- neither side is budging at this stage.

Filed under: , ,

Comments

Via: CNET, GigaOM

Source: Letters to the court (1), (2), (3), (4)