(NOTE: I hope that I'm posting this in the right sub-forum. There are so many to choose from ...)
I don't doubt that Apple did in fact conspire with the big publishing houses to inflate e-book prices as a means of combating Amazon's typical $9.99 price point for new releases. What I'm wondering is if this was actually a bad thing. Amazon has such a stranglehold on the market, and this ruling is going to make it harder for Apple to compete. Yes, Apple probably shouldn't be "cheating" to compete, but it's also not in most anyone's best interest for on company (in this case, Amazon) to have a near-monopoly on the e-book business. Here's what the dissenting judge had to say:Reuters said:By a 2-1 vote, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed that the conspiracy violated federal antitrust law, and that the judge acted properly two years ago in imposing an injunction to prevent a recurrence.
The ruling would force Apple to pay consumers $450 million under a 2014 settlement of a class action with 33 state attorneys general and lawyers, unless it files another appeal and wins. The settlement was contingent on Apple's civil liability being upheld. ...
Writing for the majority, Circuit Judge Debra Ann Livingston said Apple's actions "unreasonably restrained trade," rejecting arguments that the company acted independently with its own business interests in mind.
"The district court did not err in concluding that Apple was more than an innocent bystander," Livingston wrote.
"Minor competitive restraints" is a debatable distinction (inflating prices from $9.99 to $14.99 might not be considered "minor" by everyone). Yet there's some truth to the notion that Apple was simply searching for a way to level the playing field with a vastly more powerful player, and that this ruling might make competition with Amazon more difficult in the future - not just for Apple but for all the players in the e-publishing business.U.S. Circuit Judge Dennis Jacobs said:"Apple took steps to compete with a monopolist and open the market to more entrants, generating only minor competitive restraints in the process."