Last updated on Feb 17, 2016
The Apple E-Books Antitrust Case: Implications for Antitrust Law and for the Economy | February 15 & 16, 2016
The appellate court’s 2015 decision affirming the district court’s finding of per se liability in United States v. Apple provoked controversy over the legal and economic merits of the case, its significance for antitrust jurisprudence, and its implications for entrepreneurs, startups, and other economic actors throughout the economy. Apple has filed a cert petition with the Supreme Court, which will decide on February 19th whether to hear the case.
On Feb. 15-16, 201, Truth on the Market and the International Center for Law and Economics presented a blog symposium discussing the case and its implications.
In my view, the Second Circuit’s decision in Apple e-Books, if not reversed by the Supreme Court, threatens to undo a half century of progress in reforming antitrust doctrine. In decision after decision, from White Motors through Leegin and Actavis, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held—in cases involving both horizontal and vertical restraints—that the only ... Kolasky on the Apple e-books case: Another reminder that “easy labels do not always supply ready answers”
On balance the Second Circuit was right to apply the antitrust laws to Apple. Right now the Supreme Court has before it a petition for Certiorari, brought by Apple, Inc., which asks the Court to reverse the decision of the Second Circuit. That decision found per se illegality under the Sherman Act, for Apple’s efforts ... Epstein on the Apple e-books case: The hidden traps in the Apple ebook case
As Judge (and Professor) Frank Easterbrook famously explained over three decades ago (in his seminal article The Limits of Antitrust), antitrust is an inherently limited body of law. In crafting and enforcing liability rules to combat market power and encourage competition, courts and regulators may err in two directions: they may wrongly forbid output-enhancing behavior ... Abbott on the Apple e-books case: Apple v. United States and antitrust error cost analysis
Try as one may, it is hard to find an easier antitrust case than United States v. Apple. Consider: The six leading publishers all wanted to prevent Amazon and others from offering best seller e-books at $9.99 (or other similar low prices). The problem, however, was that they had no mechanism for accomplishing that result. Then ... Jacobson on the Apple ebooks case: It is hard to find an easier antitrust case than United States v. Apple
As ICLE argued in its amicus brief, the Second Circuit’s ruling in United States v. Apple Inc. is in direct conflict with the Supreme Court’s 2007 Leegin decision, and creates a circuit split with the Third Circuit based on that court’s Toledo Mack ruling. Moreover, the negative consequences of the court’s ruling will be particularly acute ... Manne on the Apple e-books case: The Second Circuit’s decision has no support in the law and/or economics
In October of last year, I had the chance to interview Hachette CEO Arnaud Nourry from the stage at the Frankfurt Book Fair, and I asked him whether his 2009 concerns that low e-book prices would devalue the book—the driving factor behind the alleged e-book price-fixing conspiracy—were in the the past. After all, much has changed ... Albanese on the Apple e-books case: Apple’s Anticlimactic Appeal
For a few months I have thought that the Apple eBooks case would find an easy fit within the Supreme Court’s antitrust decisions. The case that seems closest to me is Business Electronics v. Sharp Electronics, an unfortunately under-appreciated piece of antitrust precedent. One sign of its under-appreciation is its absence in some recent editions ... Hylton on the Apple e-books case: The central importance of the Court’s under-appreciated Business Electronics case
The “magic” of Washington can only go so far. Whether it is political consultants trying to create controversy where there is basic consensus, such as in parts of the political campaign, or the earnest effort to create a controversy over the Apple decision, there may be lots of words exchanged and animated discussion by political ... Balto on the Apple e-books case: Skip the (Apple) appetizer and get to the (McWane) main course
United States v. Apple has fascinated me continually ever since the instantly-sensational complaint was made public, more than three years ago. Just one small, recent manifestation of the larger theme that makes it so interesting is the improbable range of folks who apparently consider certiorari rather likely—not least some commenters here, and even SCOTUSblog, which ... Sagers on the Apple e-books case: Why does everybody hate competition so much?
The Apple e-books case is throwback to Dr. Miles, the 1911 Supreme Court decision that managed to misinterpret the economics of competition and so thwart productive activity for over a century. The active debate here at TOTM reveals why. The District Court and Second Circuit have employed a per se rule to find that the ... Hazlett on the Apple e-books case: The Apple case is a throwback to Dr. Miles, and that’s not a good thing
In Philip K. Dick’s famous short story that inspired the Total Recall movies, a company called REKAL could implant “extra-factual memories” into the minds of anyone. That technology may be fictional, but the Apple eBooks case suggests that the ability to insert extra-factual memories into the courts already exists. The Department of Justice, the Second ... Reed on the Apple e-books case: “We can remember it for you wholesale” – why the model matters in Apple e-books
Jon Jacobson in his initial posting claims that it would be “hard to find an easier case” than Apple e-Books, and David Balto and Chris Sagers seem to agree. I suppose that would be true if, as Richard Epstein claims, “the general view is that horizontal arrangements are per se unlawful.” That, however, is not ... Kolasky (2) on the Apple e-books case: Coordination, even horizontal coordination, isn’t per se illegal
