Get the latest on iPhone/iPad innovation: Ipads Advisor
Apple and publisher Simon & Schuster are appealing the decisions in a case that discovered Apple guilty of conspiring with S&S and various other publishers to raise the rate of ebooks.
As part of the verdict, the Department of Justice recommended numerous measures to prevent Apple from fixing prices in the future, including various policies for ebook apps on iOS, constraints on what publishers Apple can become part of contracts with and a 3rd party monitor – paid for by Apple – to make sure Apple follows the guidelines.
When the DOJ came forward with that plan, Apple called it ‘a draconian and punitive intrusion into Apple’s company, hugely out of proportion to any adjudicated wrongdoing or potential harm.’
But even prior to that, Apple announced it would appeal the ruling implicating Amazon of being the genuine bad guy.
Apple followed with on Thursday by submitting a notification of the appeal with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
The business reportedly has through early 2014 to file its official arguments, though.
In a previous letter to the judge that oversaw the case, though, Apple already set out exactly what some of those arguments could be.
In that letter Apple questioned the reliability of specific witnesses for Google and Amazon and bemoaned the reality that specific ‘internal company deliberations’ within Amazon were neglected throughout the trial.
Let us talk about this
Oddly Simon & Schuster will also appeal.
Like the most publishers called in the case, it settled up with the DOJ fairly early.
But S&S is only appealing a Sept. 6 injunction that extended the amount of time that it and four other publishers will be required to enable Apple to discount their ebooks.
That exact same injunction also avoids Simon & Schuster from negotiating brand-new contracts with Apple for 3 years.
The publisher formerly made comparable arguments to Apple’s, basically saying that the severe punishments do not match the criminal activity.
Meanwhile, the Division of Justice in August expressed something that looks like dissatisfaction over Apple’s rejection to accept the repercussions of its regarded actions.