Apple seeks court to overturn e-book ruling

Content Management

by CBR Staff Writer| 27 February 2014

The iPhone maker says it was not aware that publishers were engaged in a conspiracy in December 2009.

Apple has asked the US Court of Appeals in New York to overturn its ruling that it breached antitrust policies

The iPhone maker said it had no knowledge that five major US publishers were engaged in a conspiracy to escalate e-book prices.

According to Apple lawyer, the ruling in July by US District Judge Denise Cote is a 'radical departure from modern antitrust law and policy'.

In a filing, Apple said that it was not aware that publishers were engaged in a conspiracy in December 2009 or at any other point.

"It was not unlawful for Apple to take advantage of retail market discord by using lawful agency agreements to enter the market and compete with Amazon," the iPhone maker added.

"The district court's decision is based on a fundamentally incorrect theory of antitrust liability.

"The court, despite recognising the lawfulness of Apple's agency agreements and negotiating tactics, found that Apple, by doing nothing more than hearing out the publishers' complaints and conveying its openness to pricing above $9.99, joined an ongoing conspiracy in its first exploratory meetings in mid-December 2009."

In February, Apple was also hit with $840m in state and consumer antitrust claims over e-book pricing 'conspiracy' with publishing firms.

Comments
Post a comment

Comments may be moderated for spam, obscenities or defamation.

Join our network

713 people like this.
1518 people follow this.

Content Management Intelligence

Suppliers Directory

Privcy Policy

We have updated our privacy policy. In the latest update it explains what cookies are and how we use them on our site. To learn more about cookies and their benefits, please view our privacy policy. Please be aware that parts of this site will not function correctly if you disable cookies. By continuing to use this site, you consent to our use of cookies in accordance with our privacy policy unless you have disabled them.