Tag Archives: HarperCollins

Steve Jobs Biographer Walter Isaacson Dropped From eBook Price Fixing Case

Leave a reply

WalterIsaacsonCREDITPatriceGilbert-Primary

Walter Isaacson, the author of the best-selling biography about Apple co-founder and former CEO Steve Jobs, will not have to share his notes or testify in an ongoing lawsuit over alleged eBook price fixing between Apple and book publishers.

Lawyers wanted to see Isaacson’s notes from interviews with Jobs in an effort to establish Apple’s agreements with publishers, but Isaacson refused to hand them over, citing a New York law that allows journalists to shield their sources.

The lawyers want Apple to pay for its alleged part in a price fixing scheme related to eBooks sold in its iBookstore.

Last August, the U.S. Department of Justice filed an antitrust lawsuit against Apple, Hachette, HarperCollins, Macmillan and Penguin for attempting to overthrow Amazon’s hegemony on eBooks by collaborating to standardize how much is charged for digital titles.

They also subpoenaed Isaacson and wanted to see the notes he made from interviews with Jobs, arguing that the reporters’ shield did not apply in this case. But paidContent has obtained new court documents that show the parties have agreed to drop Isaacson from the case.

Apple and Steve Jobs, on the other hand, are still very much at the heart of the complaint. All five publishers have agreed to settle with the DoJ since the lawsuit was filed, but Apple won’t back down, and the Cupertino company is rejecting the accusations that it formed a conspiracy to raise book prices and lure publishers away from Amazon’s Kindle.

One of the court documents is an email exchange between Jobs and James Murdoch, a senior executive at News Corp’s HarperCollins, which discusses eBook pricing. You can read it below.

Steve Jobs Emails by

Source: paidContent

Related Stories




Report: EU authorities ready to accept Apple, publishers settlement in ebook price fixing investigation

Leave a reply

According to a new report from Reuters, EU authorities are about to accept a deal with Apple and four book publishers in order to end an antitrust investigation into whether Apple conspired with publishers to prevent Amazon from undercutting Apple’s ebook pricing. The companies originally proposed the settlement in late August, and it would see Amazon go back to its original ebook pricing for two years. By making the deal, Apple and the publishers will be able to put an end to the antirust investigation and avoid related fines:

Apple, Simon & Schuster, News Corp unit HarperCollins, Lagardere SCA’s Hachette Livre, and Verlagsgruppe Georg von Holtzbrinck, the owner of German company Macmillan, made the proposal to the European Commission in September…Pearson Plc’s Penguin group, which is also under investigation, did not take part in the offer.


In the U.S., the U.S. Department of Justice has come to similar agreements with at least three publishers. Apple unsuccessfully attempted to delay the settlements until the case goes to trial in June 2013. According to Reuters, EU regulators could accept the settlement as early as next month:

“The Commission is likely to accept the offer and announce its decision next month,” the person said.




Apple is already fighting Amazon in the ebook price wars

Leave a reply

Apple would prefer agency pricing on ebooks — that, we know. In fact, Apple is likely to appeal the DOJ’s ebook pricing settlement with HarperCollins, Hachette and Simon & Schuster, which was approved last week. Turns out, though, that doesn’t mean Apple won’t play the price-drop game on their ebooks in the meantime.

We saw yesterday that HarperCollins has already entered into new contracts with ebook retailers like Amazon, Barnes & Noble and Google. Now Apple has a new deal with HarperCollins too. This morning I compared the prices of 12 HarperCollins titles across ebook retailers. Like Amazon, Apple is selling new bestselling ebooks for $9.99. (I’ve asked Apple for a comment on its pricing strategy for ebooks and will update this post if I hear back.)

Amazon is already dropping its ebook prices to match Apple’s, in the cases where Apple had priced a book lower than Amazon did. For instance, James Rollin’s Bloodlines and J.A. Jance’s Judgment Call were each $10.94 in the Kindle Store this morning and $9.99 in iTunes. Just a few hours later, both books are down to $9.99 at Amazon as well.

Sure, we can’t draw major conclusions about Apple’s new ebook pricing strategy based on what it’s done with one publisher’s books. But in the case of HarperCollins, we’re already seeing that even if Apple would prefer agency pricing, price bands and MFNs for books, it’s willing to compete on price in the absence of those things. And it has a lot more money to do so than other ebook retailers like Barnes & Noble and Kobo.

Under agency pricing, Apple’s ebook market share hovered around 10 percent. But if customers are drawn to Apple’s new low prices on ebooks, it’s actually possible to envision a world in which Apple’s ebook market share rises — under the terms it didn’t want.


As verdict on ebook pricing settlement nears, Apple gets 5 pages to respond to DOJ

Leave a reply

With U.S. District Court Judge Denise Cote expected to rule on a proposed ebook pricing settlement between the U.S. Department of Justice and three publishers by the end of August, Judge Cote confirmed that Apple may provide a further five-page objection by August 15.

Hachette, HarperCollins and Simon & Schuster have agreed to settle in response to the DOJ’s allegations that they colluded with Apple to fix ebook prices. (Apple, Macmillan and Penguin are fighting the case in court, but the trial will not begin until June 2013.) The proposed final settlement would require the settling publishers to terminate existing agreements with Apple and would end agency pricing for those publishers for two years.

The Department of Justice received 868 public comments about the settlement, nearly all of them opposing it, but refused to modify the settlement. On August 3, the DOJ filed a memo to the court requesting that Judge Cote approve the settlement without delay and without a hearing.

Apple has already filed a nine-page public comment objecting to the substance of the settlement. Cote’s new ruling confirms that Apple can file another five pages (not ten as Apple had requested) about the government’s handling of the process. She added that she is still considering Apple’s request to hold further hearings on the settlements. If Cote approves the settlements, the three settling publishers will be released from the ongoing antitrust case but will have to conform to the requirements mentioned above.

Separately, last week Barnes & Noble and the American Booksellers Association requested permission to file an amici curiae, or “friend of the court,” brief in the case, saying that “if the Court were not to permit ABA and Barnes & Noble to serve as amici in this matter, it is likely that DOJ’s numerous arguments in that filing that are specifically directed against Barnes & Noble and ABA, complete with their factual inaccuracies, would go unrebutted by any party currently before the Court.”

Judge Cote ruled this week (PDF) that the brief they already submitted — which “contains five pages of substantive arguments that do not address the question of whether leave to file amici curiae responses is appropriate, but rather oppose approval of the proposed Final Judgment” — will suffice as B&N and the ABA’s only comment on the matter, and “no additional filings from the ABA and Barnes & Noble shall be permitted.”


WSJ: Sen. Schumer presses DOJ to drop Apple eBook suit

Leave a reply

Sen. Charles Schumer pleaded with the U.S. Justice Department in the Wall Street Journal yesterday to drop its antitrust lawsuit against Apple and publishers by suggesting it will only lay the foundation for Amazon to reclaim control over the eBook industry.

According to the New York senator’s Op-Ed piece:

Recently the Department of Justice filed suit against Apple and major publishers, alleging that they colluded to raise prices in the digital books market. While the claim sounds plausible on its face, the suit could wipe out the publishing industry as we know it, making it much harder for young authors to get published.

The suit will restore Amazon to the dominant position atop the e-books market it occupied for years before competition arrived in the form of Apple. If that happens, consumers will be forced to accept whatever prices Amazon sets.

The Justice Department filed suit last spring against Apple, Macmillan, and Penguin Group for allegedly fixing eBook prices, while Hachette, HarperCollins, and Simon & Schuster settled to dodge the legal dispute.

Amazon set its eBook prices at $9.99, but, according to the government (via The Hill), Apple and the publishers supposedly colluded to build a new business model that drove the standard price of eBooks up and placed pricing in the hands of publishers instead of retailers.

Schumer claimed the business model would effectively relinquish the eBook market from Amazon’s dominion. He also mentioned Amazon’s share dropped to 60 percent after the publishers launched the new pricing matrix, while older eBook prices also lowered.

The Justice Department has ignored this overall trend and instead focused on the fact that the prices for some new releases have gone up. This misses the forest for the trees. While consumers may have a short-term interest in today’s new release e-book prices, they have a more pressing long-term interest in the survival of the publishing industry.

Like Apple contended in its legal response, Schumer is concerned the Justice Department’s lawsuit allows “monopolists and hurt innovators,” while having a “deterrent effect not only on publishers but on other industries that are coming up with creative ways to grow and adapt to the Internet.”

He further beseeched the Justice Department to “reassess its prosecution priorities” and assemble inclusive guidelines before filing antitrust suits in the future.

Check out the full memo at The Wall Street Journal. 

Related articles




Apple eBook price-fixing lawsuits hit Canada following DOJ suit

Leave a reply

Following an investigation into alleged eBook price-fixing, the U.S. Department of Justice filed an antitrust lawsuit against Apple and publishers Macmillan and Penguin earlier this month, who refused to settle. Other publishers, including Hachette, HarperCollins, and Simon & Schuster, settled and reached an agreement to return Amazon to its previous wholesale model and dismantle Apple’s agency model. The settlement also included agreements with select states that would see $51 million in restitution paid to those who purchased eBooks through Apple’s platform. Now, several Canadian publications are reporting class-action lawsuits were filed against Apple and the five publishers throughout Canada.

Lawyer Normand Painchaud spoke with The Montreal Gazette about his class-action suit filed in Quebec Superior Court and talked about two others filed in Ontario and British Columbia:

Reached Friday morning, Painchaud said his is one of three lawsuits in Canada, with other requests for class actions being launched in British Columbia and Ontario… If successful, any Canadians who bought ebooks since April 1, 2010 would be eligible for damages. And since prices went from less than $10 to $12, $14, or even more for an ebook, these could be significant sums.

Canadian newspaper The Globe and Mail reported yesterday that a similar class-action suit filed in B.C. Supreme Court, as mentioned by Painchaud. Lawyer Reidar Mogerman, who filed the case last week, spoke with the publication:

“The U.S. case isn’t going to cover Canadian consumers. So it’s the same underlying facts, it’s the same consumer protection agenda, but it is for different consumers in a different country.”

Apple and the publishers have not responded to the cases, and —as of this week— statements of defense were not filed in Canadian courts. The allegations named in the Canadian cases mirror those in the Department of Justice’s investigation and antitrust suit.

Related articles



After two days, Apple responds to DOJ: We didn’t collude

Leave a reply

Nearly two days after the DOJ filed suit against Apple and publishers for allegedly colluding to fix e-book prices, Apple has released a short statement denying the accusations and criticizing Amazon’s “monopolistic grip.”

In a statement released last night, Apple says:

The DOJ’s accusation of collusion against Apple is simply not true. The launch of the iBookstore in 2010 fostered innovation and competition, breaking Amazon’s monopolistic grip on the publishing industry. Since then customers have benefited from eBooks that are more interactive and engaging. Just as we’ve allowed developers to set prices on the App Store, publishers set prices on the iBookstore.

You can infer from the statement that Apple will fight the DOJ in court, though the company has not said so explicitly. Two of the other publishers named in the DOJ suit, Macmillan and Penguin, refused to settle and are also headed to court. HarperCollins, Simon & Schuster and Hachette are settling; HarperCollins and Hachette admitted no wrongdoing, and S&S has not released a statement.

For more on the DOJ lawsuit, see: “Everything you need to know about the e-book lawsuit in one post“

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.


Apple finally comments on DOJ antitrust charges: ‘We’re breaking monopolies not starting them’

Leave a reply


Apple finally commented late this evening on the U.S. Department of Justice’s antitrust suit against the company. What did Apple think up with those extra 48 hours? Peter Kafka got the scoop from Apple’s Tom Neumayr:

The DOJ’s accusation of collusion against Apple is simply not true. The launch of the iBookstore in 2010 fostered innovation and competition, breaking Amazon’s monopolistic grip on the publishing industry. Since then customers have benefited from eBooks that are more interactive and engaging. Just as we’ve allowed developers to set prices on the App Store, publishers set prices on the iBookstore.

The civil antitrust suit alleged that Apple’s move to let publishers set their own prices—and it is a requirement that publishers do not sell their digital books for cheaper elsewhere—forced consumers to pay millions more for books than they should have.

Related articles


States pile on, claim Apple e-book conspiracy cost consumers $100 million

Leave a reply

Apple and book publishers already have their hands full after the Justice Department sued them in New York today for allegedly fixing the price of e-books.

Now, state governments are seeking their own pound of flesh. Connecticut Attorney General George Jepsen has just announced that his state and 15 others have filed an antitrust lawsuit against Apple and five publishers in Texas.

Jepsen says that two of the publishers — Hachette and Harper Collins — have already capitulated and agreed to pay $52 million in “consumer restitution.”

The case turns on the publishers’ decision in 2010 to switch to “agency pricing” in which they set the prices and give retailers like Apple and Amazon a commission. The states allege that agency pricing cost e-book buyers $100 million overall.

Unlike the states’ lawsuit, the federal complaint doesn’t seek money but instead asks the court to order the publishers’ and Apple to abandon their current pricing model. HarperCollins, Hachette and Simon & Schuster have settled with the Justice Department. Macmillan and — presumably — Penguin will fight the suit in court.

The publishers and Apple are also facing a massive class action brought by lawyers who seek refunds for customers who allegedly overpaid for e-books.

The other states joining the lawsuit are: Texas, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont and West Virginia and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

The Connecticut Attorney General release can be found here.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.


DOJ explains settlement with three publishers, Macmillan CEO explains why they won’t settle

Leave a reply


The U.S. Department of Justice and Attorney Gen. Eric Holder just announced (via CNN) a settlement with three publishers—Hachette, HarperCollins, and Simon & Schuster— following this morning’s report that it would launch an antitrust suit against Apple, Macmillan, and Penguin, which refused to settle. The settlement is said to give publishers the “freedom to reduce the prices of their e-book titles,” allowing Amazon to return to its previous wholesale model.

The states are seeking $51 million in restitution that will be provided through a credit towards a future book purchase or a check, although the Department of Justice’s charges remain civil. The exact details of the settlements with the three publishers were not discussed, but Apple, Penguin, and Macmillan will continue to fight charges in the lawsuit filed earlier today in New York.

As for exactly why Apple and the two other publishers have decided to take the case to court, at least one publisher is speaking. Macmillan’s Chief Executive Officer John Sargent published an open letter today explaining the company’s stance (via PaidContent). In the letter, Sargent claimed the Department of Justice’s settlement demands “could have allowed Amazon to recover the monopoly position it had built before our switch to the agency model.” He also said it is “hard to settle a lawsuit when you know you have done no wrong” and called the agency model the future of an “open and competitive market.”

Interestingly, AllThingsD pointed us to a line from the Department of Justice’s official complaint that indicates Apple proposed teaming up with Amazon at one point:

In addition to considering competitive entry at that time, though, Apple also contemplated illegally dividing the digital content world with Amazon, allowing each to “own the category” of its choice—audio/video to Apple and e-books to Amazon.

Go past the break for Sargent’s full letter, which is a great rundown of the case from the perspective of the publishers that have decided not to settle:

A Message from John Sargent

Dear authors, illustrators and agents:

Today the Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against Macmillan’s US trade publishing operation, charging us with collusion in the implementation of the agency model for e-book pricing. The charge is civil, not criminal. Let me start by saying that Macmillan did not act illegally. Macmillan did not collude.

We have been in discussions with the Department of Justice for months. It is always better if possible to settle these matters before a case is brought. The costs of continuing—in time, distraction, and expense— are truly daunting.

But the terms the DOJ demanded were too onerous. After careful consideration, we came to the conclusion that the terms could have allowed Amazon to recover the monopoly position it had been building before our switch to the agency model. We also felt the settlement the DOJ wanted to impose would have a very negative and long term impact on those who sell books for a living, from the largest chain stores to the smallest independents.

When Macmillan changed to the agency model we did so knowing we would make less money on our e book business. We made the change to support an open and competitive market for the future, and it worked. We still believe in that future and we still believe the agency model is the only way to get there.

It is also hard to settle a lawsuit when you know you have done no wrong. The government’s charge is that Macmillan’s CEO colluded with other CEO’s in changing to the agency model. I am Macmillan’s CEO and I made the decision to move Macmillan to the agency model. After days of thought and worry, I made the decision on January 22nd, 2010 a little after 4:00 AM, on an exercise bike in my basement. It remains the loneliest decision I have ever made, and I see no reason to go back on it now.

Other publishers have chosen to settle. That is their decision to make. We have decided to fight this in court. Because others have settled, there may well be a preponderance of references to Macmillan, and to me personally, in the Justice Department’s papers – often without regard to context. So be it.

I hope you will agree with our stance, and with Scott Turow, the president of the Author’s Guild, who stated, “The irony of this bites hard: our government may be on the verge of killing real competition in order to save the appearance of competition. This would be tragic for all of us who value books and the culture they support”.

Since we are now in litigation, I may not be able to comment much going forward. We remain dedicated to finding the best long term outcome for the book business, for Macmillan and for the work you have entrusted to our care.

Thanks.

John