Apple Inc. (AAPL) Fights Back On Appeal In E-book Price Fixing Case

Updated on

Apple Inc. (NASDAQ:AAPL) was found guilty of conspiracy to fix the prices of e-books when it entered the market, but the company is appealing that decision. Joan E. Solsman of CNET reports that a notice of appeal was filed by Apple’s attorneys on Thursday. The company is trying to overturn the decision made earlier this year. It was accused of trying to artificially raise the prices of e-books by conspiring with five major publishers in 2012 to take business away from Amazon.

Apple Inc. (AAPL) Fights Back On Appeal In E-book Price Fixing Case

Apple has said it would appeal

When the verdict against Apple Inc. (NASDAQ:AAPL) was announced a few months ago, the company did indicate that it would be filing appeal. A letter sent to the judge in the case said that the court had chosen to exclude testimony focusing on how the pricing model the company was using was good for competition. In that model, the publishers rather than the retailers set the prices for the books.

The court also excluded testimony about reasons why Apple and the publishers it was convicted of conspiring with decided to set their agreements the way they did. Apple also said that the court disregarded concerns about the credibility of the witnesses in the case, which included representatives from Google Inc (NASDAQ:GOOG) and Amazon.com, Inc. (NASDAQ:AMZN).

Apple names points it will make on appeal

Apple Inc. (NASDAQ:AAPL) has listed some of the issues it could raise at the appeal. It said it could talk about which legal standards should apply in the case, including how the authority of the Supreme Court would factor into the case. Another issue would be whether Apple could win the case based on a doctrine which enables the court to take into consideration the competitive environment.

At this point the court has not said how much damages would be. A hearing on that subject isn’t until May 2014, giving Apple plenty of time to work the appeals process.  U.S. officials have suggested a five-year injunction against the company.

Leave a Comment