ARTICLE
13 August 2013

Judge Refuses To Suspend Previous Apple, Inc. Ruling; Considers Limiting E-Book Negotiations

MW
McDermott Will & Emery

Contributor

McDermott Will & Emery partners with leaders around the world to fuel missions, knock down barriers and shape markets. With more than 1,100 lawyers across several office locations worldwide, our team works seamlessly across practices, industries and geographies to deliver highly effective solutions that propel success.
On Friday, August 9, 2013, Judge Denise Cote of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denied Apple’s request to suspend pending appeal a previous ruling that it had violated antitrust laws by conspiring with publishers to raise the price of e-books.
United States Antitrust/Competition Law

On Friday, August 9, 2013, Judge Denise Cote of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denied Apple's request to suspend pending appeal a previous ruling that it had violated antitrust laws by conspiring with publishers to raise the price of e-books. 

Judge Cote also proposed a remedy which includes a two year prohibition on any contracts which would restrict Apple's ability to discount e-books.  Apple would then be required to negotiate with publishers on a staggered timeline.  Judge Cote also stated that she would prefer Apple to instate a "vigorous" in-house antitrust compliance program, rather than follow the Justice Department's proposal to hire a full-time internal compliance officer alongside court monitoring for 10 years.  "I don't want to do more than is necessary here," said Judge Cote, recognizing the risk of disrupting innovation. 

Judge Cote remained concerned about the "continuing danger of collusion," especially given publishers' recent protests of the Justice Department's proposed remedies.  Publishers claimed a proposed ban on Apple's agency agreements would also punish them, even though they had already settled with the U.S. government on the condition that they could continue to use the agency model.

The case continues to move forward to a trial for damages while Apple intends to appeal the July ruling on liability.  

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More