back to article 'This ruling does nothing to change the facts' thunders Apple in latest price-fix appeal blow

Apple has lost its appeal of a federal court decision that found it broke antitrust law by colluding with publishers to fix the prices of ebooks. The US Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a 2013 ruling by the US District Court of the Southern District of New York that found Apple had sought to artificially inflate ebook …

  1. Vector

    "Apple told The Reg in an emailed statement..."

    Who are you people!? This can't be El Reg!

    1. This post has been deleted by its author

    2. Captain DaFt

      Re: "Apple told The Reg in an emailed statement..."

      That was a surprise.

      Rather gives the image of Apple red-handedly clutching at every passerby and pleading, "Honest, I didn't do it, ya gotta believe me!"

      1. cs94njw

        Re: "Apple told The Reg in an emailed statement..."

        Duplo image, or it didn't happen.

  2. wsm

    One fix deserves another...

    Looks like the price of MabBooks just went up another $10.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Mushroom

    The rules of the game are:

    1. Apple is a wonderful, magical company which never does anything wrong.

    2. When Apple does something wrong, see Rule #1.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: The rules of the game are:

      1. Apple is a wonderful, magical company which never does anything wrong.

      2. When Apple does something wrong, see Taylor Swift.

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Correct

    in one sense they are absolutely correct; it does nothing to change the fact they were guilty of taking part in an unlawful price fixing scheme

    1. asdf

      Re: Correct

      Yep. They may have to end up giving away all the profits they made oh today.

    2. This post has been deleted by its author

  5. Eric Olson

    You didn't publish the best part of the decision...

    The dissent.

    The dissenting judge's reasoning was that Apple shouldn't be held liable for price fixing and collusion with publishers because it had the intent of breaking into a market that was controlled by a single player.

    From the Associated Press article:

    Judge Dennis Jacobs defended as 'eminently reasonable' the actions Apple took as it fought to raise the price of e-books when Seattle-based Amazon controlled 90 percent of the market while selling the most popular books online for $9.99. Afterward, its share of the market dropped to about 60 percent.

    [...]

    'Apple took steps to compete with a monopolist and open the market to more entrants, generating only minor competitive restraints in the process,' Jacobs wrote.

    In short, two wrongs, or at least one monopoly followed by illegal business tactics to horn in on said monopolist's territory, make a right. Astounding. Colorfully, the majority opinion does address this peculiar line of reasoning:

    In the majority opinion, though, [Judge Debra Ann] Livingston said it was 'startling' that Jacobs would agree Apple intentionally organized a conspiracy among publishers to raise e-book prices and then say the company was entitled to do so because the conspiracy helped it become an e-book retailer

    Joining the majority, Judge Raymond J. Lohier Jr. agreed with much of what Livingston wrote, though he noted that the publishers may be more culpable than Apple after using the company as 'powerful leverage against Amazon and to keep each other in collusive check.'

    [...]

    'But more corporate bullying is not an appropriate antidote to corporate bullying,' he wrote.

    I feel like Judge Jacobs would be better served working as a politician, where the ends do justify the means.

  6. Mitoo Bobsworth
    Stop

    Apple can remain as defiant as it likes...

    however, it could do them a better turn just to 'fess up - throwing a hissy fit over succeeding judicial rulings just seems a bit bratty to me. Guys, you were found to have your 'hand in the till' as it were - take the smack, say you're sorry like you mean it & don't do it again!

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    > "Apple did not conspire to fix ebook pricing and this ruling does nothing to change the facts,"

    Ah, that explains Apple's confusion:

    Apple: rulings are not supposed to change the facts; they are supposed to rule on whether or not you broke the law.

  8. Your alien overlord - fear me

    Refund in the way of time limited ebook tokens. Don't use them within the minute of them appearing in your inbox - tough luck, they've expired.

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "Apple did not conspire to fix ebook pricing and this ruling does nothing to change the facts,"

    Two courts say otherwise.

  10. Gene Cash Silver badge
    WTF?

    Alice in Wonderland - the Millennium Fulcrum edition?

    Is that the one that did the tassel run in 9 leap-years?

  11. Eddy Ito
    Meh

    $450 million

    So that's what, a long weekend?

  12. This post has been deleted by its author

  13. thomas k

    ... ruling doesn't change the fact

    So, the reality distortion field is still going full tilt then.

  14. This post has been deleted by its author

    1. Swarthy
      Thumb Down

      Re: You didn't publish the best part of the decision...

      I Upvoted this the first time, because it is an interesting bit, and you presented it well. I ignored the second posting because, well, I've done that (usually back-to-back, though). I had to downvote (and comment) on the third one, because it seems like intentional repetition. It seems like intentional repetition. It seems like intentional repetition.

      And that is really annoying.

      1. Spasticus Autisticus

        Re: You didn't publish the best part of the decision...

        I'm not sure. I went to edit one of my posts and ended up with a duplicate. I then deleted the 'new' post and had the 'post deleted by author' under my original post. Possibly a bug when using a particular OS/browser combo? May be user error? I'll edit this post to see what happens.

        Added this line, clicked Submit (8 mins)

        2nd edit. Oh well, I'm talking BS as usual.... or the machines are out to make me make a fool of myself

      2. Eric Olson

        Re: You didn't publish the best part of the decision...

        Nope, it wasn't intentional. When I published the first time, a weird error on my side happened. I waited a few minutes, didn't see anything posted, so I went into a different browser and reposted. When another 5 or so minutes passed and nothing appeared even in the My Posts section, I shut down both browsers and re-logged in, tried one more time in the first browser, then I saw something in My Posts... which was the first attempt.

        I monitored things for another 10 minutes to see if there would be duplicates in My Posts so I could delete them... but nothing showed up so I figured it was just a very weird situation and I went to bed. Guess I should have waited a bit longer. Sorry about all that.

        1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

          Re: You didn't publish the best part of the decision...

          "I waited a few minutes, didn't see anything posted,"

          I noticed similar problems last night. Posts were appearing in "My Posts" but not in the comments section of the story. I usually like to proof-read (again) after I posted but last night none of the posts were appearing on the comments page before the 10 minutes were up.

          1. Eric Olson

            Re: You didn't publish the best part of the decision...

            Must have been El Reg's own Leap Secondocalypse.

      3. Eric Olson

        Re: You didn't publish the best part of the decision...

        Oh, and have an upvote from me, because I probably would have done to same thing if I ran across it.

  15. Graham Lockley

    "Apple did not conspire to fix ebook pricing and this ruling does nothing to change the facts,"

    We were found guilty twice but didn't do anything wrong.

    Distortion field's a little strong today.

    1. John Stirling

      That's not distortion, it's sophistry.

      Apple did nothing to conspire - they joined in an existing conspiracy.

      A ruling cannot change facts, it rules on what they were, and how they interact with the law, but clearly doesn't change them.

      Good lawyers those Apple folk

      1. Missing Semicolon Silver badge

        Wilful?

        When a defendant still does not admit guilt in the light of being found guilty, doesn't the wilfulness of the offence lead to higher fines?

  16. This post has been deleted by its author

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like