Originally Posted by HarryT
Given that it would almost certainly be cheaper for them to pay the fine, as the publishers involved in the case have done, it would seem reasonable to think that they believe that they have a good chance of being found innocent.
Actually, their problem is they're afraid accepting DOJ supervision over ebooks will spread to their *other* content operations. (They used appstore access to force Random House to join the conspiracy.)
They are hoping that the judge won't require the same kind of broad oversight. Or maybe they hope they can delay iimplementation of the penalties. Or, they just might be deluded enough to think the evidence can be spun to mean something other than what it means.
Here, you decide:
From the legal standpoint the case is simple: executives from 6 publishers held discussion with Apple that resulted in an agreement for 5 of them to raise ebook prices to the exact same level at the exact same time. Coordination through Apple is documented. Price increase as a result of the coordinated action documented. That equals price fixing under American law.
There is documented evidence that Penguin, for one, said it would not join unless there were three or more others and there is documented evidence that Apple reassured them that everybody else was on board. (Except Random House, on advise of counsel apparently, bowed out the day before the launch.) Afterwards, Penguin asked B&N to put pressure on RH to join the conspiracy (which they willingly did) and Apple refused to accepta Randome House iPad app until RH signed up for iBooks.
Apple's entire response has been to cover their ears and chant: "Amazon is evil. Amazon is evil. Amazon is evil."
But since Amazon was not a party to the conspiracy, whether they are evil or not is irrelevant. That mudslinging part of the trial shouldn't last long. After that, there may be a lot of executives pleading the Fifth on grounds of self-incrimination.