Court rejects Apple appeal over e-books

Apple logo. (Mark Lennihan, AP)
Apple logo. (Mark Lennihan, AP)

Washington — The US Supreme Court rejected an appeal from Apple Monday and left in place a ruling that the company conspired with publishers to raise electronic book prices when it sought to challenge Amazon.com's dominance of the market.

The justices' order on Monday lets stand an appeals court ruling that found Cupertino, California-based Apple violated antitrust laws in 2010.

Apple wanted to raise prices to wrest some book sales away from Amazon, which controlled 90% of the market and sold most popular books online for $9.99. Amazon's share of the market dropped to 60%.

The 2-1 ruling by the New York-based appeals court sustained a trial judge's finding that Apple orchestrated an illegal conspiracy to raise prices. A dissenting judge called Apple's actions legal, "gloves-off competition."

The Justice Department and 33 states and territories originally sued Apple and five publishers. The publishers all settled and signed consent decrees prohibiting them from restricting e-book retailers' ability to set prices.

In settlements of lawsuits brought by individual states, Apple has agreed to pay $400m to be distributed to consumers and $50m for attorney fees and payments to states.

ZAR/USD
17.42
(+0.10)
ZAR/GBP
22.77
(+0.02)
ZAR/EUR
20.59
(-0.00)
ZAR/AUD
12.46
(+0.38)
ZAR/JPY
0.16
(+0.28)
Gold
1952.30
(+1.67)
Silver
27.44
(+7.13)
Platinum
960.00
(+3.27)
Brent Crude
45.32
(+2.09)
Palladium
2175.50
(+1.97)
All Share
57419.46
(+0.00)
Top 40
53082.08
(-0.08)
Financial 15
10227.06
(+0.86)
Industrial 25
75743.15
(-0.61)
Resource 10
59161.88
(+0.29)
All JSE data delayed by at least 15 minutes morningstar logo
Company Snapshot
Voting Booth
Do you think it was a good idea for the government to approach the IMF for a $4.3 billion loan to fight Covid-19?
Please select an option Oops! Something went wrong, please try again later.
Results
Yes. We need the money.
11% - 989 votes
It depends on how the funds are used.
74% - 6590 votes
No. We should have gotten the loan elsewhere.
15% - 1382 votes
Vote