The Department of Justice has come up with a proposal which, when approved by the court, will summon Apple to put an end to its existing business partnerships or should we say ‘conspiracy’ with five major publishers.
The publishers inolved Simon & Schuster Inc., Penguin Group (USA) Inc., Holtzbrinck Publishers LLC, HarperCollins Publishers L.L.C., and Hachette Book Group (USA). Moreover, the proposal also requires Apple to avoid entering new deals on e-book distribution for a period of five years restraining the iPhone maker to be competitive in its pricing scheme.
Under the remedy, Apple will not be allowed to act as a conduit of information for the sake of the conspiring publishers nor will they be allowed to retaliate against publishers should they refuse to sell e-books based on the terms set by the agency.
Apple is also prohibited to enter any agreements with retailers of contents such as TV shows, movies, music, and e-books which may cause the company’s rival retailers to increase their prices.
In order for Apple to reset the competition back into the conditions that had appeared before the identified conspiracy, the company must allow, for at least two years, other e-book resellers such as Barnes & Noble and Amazon to provide links that are generated by their e-book apps to appear in the e-bookstore. Doing so will allow consumers who would normally purchase and browse the e-books on their iPhone and iPad devices to easily compare the prices of Apple with its competitors.
Apple has reacted by describing the decision as a punitive and draconian intrusion into their business. The plaintiff’s proposal is seen as a way to promote Government empowering wherein it can easily regulate Apple’s various businesses, eventually causing a rift in their business relationships in such a vast market. Seeing the intrusion as something that could last for ten years, Apple has concluded that it will definitely injure competition and the consumers. At the same time, it will also violate the principle behind due process and fairness of the law.
