Get the reply here: <a href="http://ia701206.us.archive.org/6/items/gov.uscourts.nysd.394628/gov.uscourts.nysd.394628.54.0.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://ia701206.us.archive.org/6/items/gov.uscourts.nysd.394...</a><p>The reply is persuasive in sections as to present Apple fostering competition in the eBooks market. (Lots of comparisons to Amazon's dominant position, indeed it does appear that the iBookStore is aimed at disrupting Amazon's stranglehold.) Which is not unusual, since competition would lead to Apple's gain.<p>However what is clear is that Apple do have something to answer for, albeit a far less serious offence rather than Anti-trust/collusion.<p>I suspect this came about so quickly as a result of Amazon lobbyists, rather than a legitimate concern of the government against Apple and the eBook market for the benefit of consumers. I'm of this thinking because the government is typically slow to act and rarely do so preemptive as they have done here. (That and Amazon owning nearly the entire eBook market, stands the most to lose.)<p>Note, lobbying does not imply that Amazon forced the government, rather they could have simply alerted them to the situation.<p>As for throwing publishers under the bus, that's a claim that lacks understanding of what a reply should entail. (I.E. you answer the case as it applies to you.)
Apple and a number of publishers have already settled with the EU Commission [1], which began an investigation before even the DOJ. From a legal standpoint this is not an admission of guilt. Apple believed that either a) the legal costs of mounting a defense were about the same as the potential damages, b) they could not win in the European Courts (this could be because of the interpretation of their anti-trust laws), or c) the PR debacle would harm their brand and reputation too much. I would pick a combination of B and C in this case, though mostly B.<p>As far as the DOJ anti-trust division is concerned, their job is to investigate and prosecute companies that allegedly partake in anti-competitive behavior that adversely affect consumer prices. They saw a rise in prices as competition increased, which is contrary to how price dynamics are supposed to work in an increasingly competitive market. Given that the source of this rise in prices was due to simultaneous pressure from publishers on Amazon to switch to an agency pricing model from a wholesale pricing model, it makes sense that the DOJ would investigate. This suit will likely take a few years to come to a conclusion.<p>[1] <a href="http://www.macworld.co.uk/ipad-iphone/news/?newsid=3353332&olo=rss" rel="nofollow">http://www.macworld.co.uk/ipad-iphone/news/?newsid=3353332&#...</a>
It looks to me like whoever wrote this article has never seen an initial legal statement like this before. It's very common for lawyers to make these sorts of claims early on in an investigation or case.<p>For example in a drunk driving suit, a good lawyer would immediately claim his clients rights were violated and this or that procedure wasn't followed properly. It usually gets you nowhere and is just legal posturing.<p>Can any lawyers here give a more technical explanation of this happening?
"[AAPL] cuts the government's case to shreds"<p>Wow, is CNN a news organization or a press release promotion mill?<p>CNN's one-sidedness made me uneasy enough to research the contrarian opinion, this is the best summary I found:<p><a href="http://paidcontent.org/2012/05/14/e-book-class-action-new-details/" rel="nofollow">http://paidcontent.org/2012/05/14/e-book-class-action-new-de...</a><p>Effectively the evidence in the govt's case shows that:<p>a) AAPL recognized that they required the collusion of the top 5 publishers to set market pricing, and actively solicited them.<p>b) AAPL suggested pricing to the top 5 publishers.<p>I believe in due process, just pointing out that there is clearly more here than CNN's summary allows.