It's not that we're surprised after hearing of the DOJ's
proposed order to prevent Apple from entering new e-book distribution contracts for five years, that publishers are anything but unhappy about the plans. In a
court filing (provided by Cnet) yesterday afternoon, HarperCollins, Hachette, Simon & Schuster, Holtzbrinck, and Penguin Random House argue that the proposal would effectively eliminate the use of the "agency model" for distributing and selling e-books.
Quote:
|
[T]he provisions do not impose any limitation on Apple's pricing behavior at all; rather, under the guise of punishing Apple, they effectively punish the settling defendants by prohibiting agreements with Apple using an agency model.
|
This would, according to the publishers, go directly against what has been agreed on before in separate settlements with the U.S. ahead of the trial.
Quote:
|
[T]he Proposed Order directly conflicts with the consent decrees that the Settling Defendants negotiated with Plaintiffs and that were entered as Final Judgments by this Court, which specifically provide that "a Settling Defendant may enter into Agency Agreements with E-book Retailers" with certain enumerated limitations. As a result, the relief sought by Plaintiffs effectively modifies the Settling Defendant's existing Final Judgments and unreasonably and unnecessarily restrains the Settling Defendants' independent business decisions beyond the scope and time provided for their respective consent decrees.
|
On the other hand, while it's true that the proposed order would restrict publishers from entering into agency agreements with Apple, it would not prevent them from entering into agreements with any other party, as agreed on in the previous settlements.
[via
Digital Reader]