Apple shareholders are suing Tim Cook for “ensnaring Apple in a multi-year anticompetitive scheme” related to e-books.
You’re most probably familiar with the expression “out of the frying pan into the fire.”
Having seemingly settled its e-book price-fixing lawsuit by agreeing to pay $450 million, Tim Cook and other top Apple execs are now being sued by Apple shareholders, claiming that the incident has damaged the company.
As per a complaint filed at the end of last week, Cook and other Apple executives were told that they should accept “responsibility for ensnaring Apple in a multi-year anticompetitive scheme.”
While Amazon’s locked in an ongoing dispute with publishing house Hachette — which has resulted in the publisher’s books being pulled from Amazon’s shelves — Apple’s more than happy to take advantage of the situation.
Apple’s iTunes store is currently promoting a sale on digital versions of popular Hachette titles, which includes upcoming books from the likes of James Patterson and J.K. Rowling.
Print media is slowly dying out while digital is taking over by the day. This is exactly why we’ love ’re bringing you 1stFlip Flipbook Creator in our latest Cult of Mac Deals offer.
1stFlip Flipbook Creator allows you to convert PDFs into interactive pieces of content for your website. It gives you the ability to place your product in front of millions of viewers without needing to print and distribute anything. You can send readers your direct link or share your flipbook to your social networks, websites or blogs with one click. And Cult of Mac Deals has 1stFlip Flipbook Creator for only $35!
Apple has filed an appeal related to last year’s verdict stating that the company violated U.S. antitrust laws by conspiring with publishers to fix e-book prices.
The appeal — which was filed Tuesday with the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York — calls U.S. District Court Judge Denise Cote’s ruling “a radical departure from modern antitrust law and policy,” and argues that it will “stifle innovation, chill competition, and harm consumers” if it is followed.
When your working relationship begins with the company you’re working with making an official complaint about your “unprecedented” bill, you know things are off to a rocky start.
Cult of Mac reported back in late November about Apple’s dealings with court-appointed monitor Michael Bromwich: the former U.S. attorney and Justice Department inspector general given the job of ensuring Apple’s antitrust compliance regarding e-book price fixing.
The e-book price-fixing saga between the U.S. government and Apple has finally come to an end. After a long and messy trial, presiding judge Denise Cote has given the final ruling against Apple. The injunction isn’t as punitive as expected, but there are still several stipulations that will change the way Apple does business regarding the iBookstore.
Not only does the DoJ want Apple to stop selling e-books through the iBookstore entirely, but allow rivals like Amazon and Barnes & Noble to sell e-books in their iOS apps. In a scathing response to the DoJ’s proposal, Apple has called the proposed remedies “draconian” and “punitive.”
iBooks has been a big successful venture for Apple — despite the ongoing price fixing case from the Department of Justice — but it’s a service that may never have been if Eddy Cue hadn’t convinced Steve Jobs it would be awesome on the iPad.
Before Apple was gearing up to launch its popular tablet in late 2009, Steve Jobs wasn’t interested in the iBooks idea, and he felt e-books had no place on desktops and small smartphone displays.
Today, the fourth day of the Apple e-book anti-trust trial taking place in New York, Google’s director of strategic partnerships testified as a government witness. Thomas Turvey, under cross examination from Apple lawyer Orin Snyder, told the court that while the publishers named in the original suit had told him that they had moved to an agency model due to deals with Apple, he also acknowledged that his lawyer had helped him draft his own statement for the court, and that he was unsure of the details within the statement.
In other words, the exact opposite of what a credible witness says.