DOJ compares Apple and publishers to oil cartels; now sit back and wait for the verdict

The three-week U.S. vs. Apple trial, in which the government accused Apple of conspiring with book publishers to fix e-book prices, is over — and now time to wait for Judge Denise Cote’s verdict.

Following Apple attorney Orin Snyder’s summation, Department of Justice attorney Mark Ryan argued that the case was a simple antitrust suit — Apple’s conduct was “a per se violation of the Sherman Act,” an “old-fashioned, straightforward price-fixing agreement” that caused e-book prices to go up. Ryan argued that by setting price bands for e-books in the iBookstore, Apple intended to raise e-book prices: “Ceilings became floors” because publishers priced at the top limits of the caps. Ryan also said Apple’s argument that its negotiations with publishers were hard-fought didn’t matter — “[Why is it] that difficult negotiations cannot surround a conspiracy?…You can pick up a paper and see Venezuela and Saudi Arabia” arguing over what oil prices should be, but it “doesn’t mean they aren’t members of a cartel.” Ryan said, “I’d like to have a brief discussion about credibility,” then introduced a series of slides headed “Credibility” where the government sought to show that Apple’s witnesses were not reliable. Throughout the case, he said, the witnesses were “reaching for answers” and there was “constant retraction of testimony.” (In particular, he said, Simon & Schuster CEO Carolyn Reidy repeatedly changed her answers to a question after being shown her deposition.) “The court is well within its rights to credit none of a witness’s testimony” if some of that testimony is faulty, Ryan said; the court should not “hunt and peck” through testimony to pull out the true parts.