Feeds

The hammer falls: Feds propose drastic controls on Apple's iTunes Store

Not just ebooks, but also 'music, movies, television shows or other content'

The essential guide to IT transformation

Updated The US Department of Justice, fresh from its ebook price-fixing victory over Apple, has proposed a sweeping array of restrictions on Cupertino's content-peddling iTunes Store, along with the appointment of a watchdog to keep an eye on Apple's compliance.

"Under the department's proposed order, Apple's illegal conduct will cease and Apple and its senior executives will be prevented from conspiring to thwart competition in the future," Bill Baer of the DoJ's Antitrust Division said in a statement announcing the proposed remedy on Friday.

The proposal, which must first be approved by the court (a hearing is scheduled for August 9), would require that Apple end its agreements with Hachette, HarperCollins, Holtzbrinck/Macmillan, Penguin, and Simon & Schuster, and "refrain for five years from entering new e-book distribution contracts which would restrain Apple from competing on price."

But the proposed remedy doesn't stop there. Apple would be prevented from entering into any new agreements not only with ebook publishers, but also with "suppliers of e-books, music, movies, television shows or other content that are likely to increase the prices at which Apple's competitor retailers may sell that content."

What's more, Apple would be required for two years to allow ebook providers such as Amazon and Barnes & Noble – but not limited to those two – to sell their wares through links to their stores in their iOS apps. Apple currently prevents that practice, although such links can be found, for example, in Amazon's Kindle app for OS X. Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and others can now sell content on iDevices, but only through those devices' browsers.

Finally, the DoJ proposes assigning an "external monitor" – whose salary would be paid by Apple – to keep an eye on Cupertino "to ensure that Apple's internal antitrust compliance policies are sufficient to catch anticompetitive activities before they result in harm to consumers."

Friday's action stems from deals Apple entered into with Hachette, HarperCollins, Holtzbrinck/Macmillan, Penguin, and Simon & Schuster that required those five publishers to match the prices of their ebooks on Amazon and other competitors, should those prices be lower. Apple also took a 30 per cent cut of each sale.

This didn't sit well with the DoJ's antitrust division, which launched an ebook price-fixing case against Apple and the five publishers. Those publishers settled with the DoJ, but Apple denied the charges and risked a trial, asserting rather bluntly that "Apple did not conspire to fix e-book prices." The Cupertinian lawyer handling the case, Orin Snyder, argued that a ruling against Apple would "send shudders through the business community."

Didn't work. The trial began in June, and on July 10 US District Judge Denise Cote ruled against Apple – no great surprise, considering that at a pretrial hearing she had said, "I believe that the government will be able to show at trial direct evidence that Apple knowingly participated in and facilitated a conspiracy to raise prices of ebooks."

Apple has said that they plan to appeal the price-fixing ruling, but even if they win that appeal, they're not out of the woods. The company also faces a separate trial in a lawsuit filed by 33 state attorneys general that petitions for damages to be paid to consumers who were harmed by Apple's price fixing. There's also a class-action suit in the pipeline that alleges price-fixing, filed by iTunes Store consumers.

In July of 2011, Apple forced Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and others to remove links to their online stores from their iOS apps. Should the court approve the DoJ's proposed remedy, those links can be reinstated – at least for two years.

And the DoJ will be watching – on Apple's dime – to make sure Cook & Co. pull no funny stuff. ®

Update

Surprising no one, Apple has reacted strongly to the DoJ's proposed remedy. In a Friday court filing, the Los Angeles Times reports, Apple's lawyers called the DoJ's remedy an "absurdly broad proposal" that "contains broad, invasive, and vague provisions" and is "a draconian and punitive intrusion into Apple's business, wildly out of proportion to any adjudicated wrongdoing or potential harm."

Secure remote control for conventional and virtual desktops

More from The Register

next story
'Stop dissing Google or quit': OK, I quit, says Code Club co-founder
And now a message from our sponsors: 'STFU or else'
Ex US cybersecurity czar guilty in child sex abuse website case
Health and Human Services IT security chief headed online to share vile images
Don't even THINK about copyright violation, says Indian state
Pre-emptive arrest for pirates in Karnataka
The police are WRONG: Watching YouTube videos is NOT illegal
And our man Corfield is pretty bloody cross about it
Felony charges? Harsh! Alleged Anon hackers plead guilty to misdemeanours
US judge questions harsh sentence sought by prosecutors
Oz biz regulator discovers shared servers in EPIC FACEPALM
'Not aware' that one IP can hold more than one Website
Apple tried to get a ban on Galaxy, judge said: NO, NO, NO
Judge Koh refuses Samsung ban for the third time
prev story

Whitepapers

Top 10 endpoint backup mistakes
Avoid the ten endpoint backup mistakes to ensure that your critical corporate data is protected and end user productivity is improved.
Implementing global e-invoicing with guaranteed legal certainty
Explaining the role local tax compliance plays in successful supply chain management and e-business and how leading global brands are addressing this.
Backing up distributed data
Eliminating the redundant use of bandwidth and storage capacity and application consolidation in the modern data center.
The essential guide to IT transformation
ServiceNow discusses three IT transformations that can help CIOs automate IT services to transform IT and the enterprise
Next gen security for virtualised datacentres
Legacy security solutions are inefficient due to the architectural differences between physical and virtual environments.