ebook
Latest
Today is a big day of legal wrangling for Apple
The LA Times has a good breakdown of what's happening today. Today, Apple has three coincidental rulings set to happen. The first is with the ITC, the same group who handed Apple a loss to Samsung, which was then vetoed by the president (something that hasn't happened in decades). In this case, the ITC will be ruling on four more patents which Apple claims Samsung violated. The Korean government said it will also be watching -- for favoritism. Then there's a hearing related to the US$1 billion judgment against Samsung for infringement. That settlement amount was later reduced to $450 million, but today, a Washington, D.C. court is considering a request by Apple to ban some of the older Samsung devices said to be in violation. So, in addition to punitive fees, Apple wants to ban these devices from being sold here. Sound familiar? It was denied before, so this is an appeal. Finally there's the nasty e-book pricing situation. This unfortunate case led to a defeat for Apple in court. Today's New York hearing is to determine "remedies" for the price-fixing scheme. Thus far, the courts (in particular, Judge Denise Cote) have been pretty brutal to Apple, seemingly on a vendetta to put Apple in its place. We'll be watching intently to see how deep a hole the government wishes to dig for Apple in this situation. These three cases, individually might not be a big deal. All of them together could bolster -- or weaken -- Apple's legal bravado.
Book publishers also not happy with DOJ's proposal for Apple in e-book price fixing case
Following US District Judge Denise Cote's decision that Apple conspired with book publishers to raise the price of e-books, the DOJ last week announced a sweeping proposal aimed at remedying the fallout from Apple's allegedly "illegal" activities. The proposal, which you can read about here, is extremely broad and curiously heavy-handed. The proposal reads in part: The department's proposal, if approved by the court, will require Apple to terminate its existing agreements with the five major publishers with which it conspired – Hachette Book Group (USA), HarperCollins Publishers L.L.C., Holtzbrinck Publishers LLC, which does business as Macmillan, Penguin Group (USA) Inc. and Simon & Schuster Inc. – and to refrain for five years from entering new e-book distribution contracts which would restrain Apple from competing on price. Under the department's proposed remedy, Apple will be prohibited from again serving as a conduit of information among the conspiring publishers or from retaliating against publishers for refusing to sell e-books on agency terms. Apple will also be prohibited from entering into agreements 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. To reset competition to the conditions that existed before the conspiracy, Apple must also for two years allow other e-book retailers like Amazon and Barnes & Noble to provide links from their e-book apps to their e-bookstores, allowing consumers who purchase and read e-books on their iPads and iPhones easily to compare Apple's prices with those of its competitors. Apple was quick to file a brief in opposition to the proposal, characterizing the DOJ's proposal as "punitive" and "draconian." Also not happy with the DOJ's far-reaching proposal are the book publishers themselves. The Wall Street Journal reports that the aforementioned publishers aren't too keen on the DOJ's proposal to the extent that it adversely affects them as well. In a motion filed on Wednesday, the book publishers argue: The 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. It really seems like the only winner in all of this is Amazon.
Apple calls DOJ proposal "draconian", "punitive", and "wildly out of proportion"
In the wake of US District Judge Denise Cote's ruling that Apple colluded with book publishers to raise the price of e-books, the DOJ yesterday issued a proposal aimed at remedying the alleged damage caused by Apple. To say that the DOJ proposal is harsh and curiously overbroad would be an understatement. The proposal calls for Apple to put an immediate end to its existing agency-model contracts with book publishers. It also would preclude Apple from "entering into agreements 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, the proposal calls for Apple to allow e-book retailers like Amazon and Barnes & Noble to provide links to purchase e-books from within their own e-book apps. And as if that weren't enough, the proposal also lays out that Apple should be appointed an external monitor by the court who will oversee Apple's activities going forward and ensure that Apple doesn't violate any antitrust laws. On top of that, the DOJ also wants Apple to hire an internal antitrust compliance officer to train and educate Apple executives and employees about the finer points of antitrust law. Apple has since filed a brief in opposition to the DOJ's proposed remedy where it naturally objects to nearly all aspects of the proposal. The brief, first spotted by The Next Web, states in part: Plaintiffs' proposed injunction is a draconian and punitive intrusion into Apple's business, wildly out of proportion to any adjudicated wrongdoing or potential harm. Plaintiffs propose a sweeping and unprecedented injunction as a tool to empower the Government to regulate Apple's businesses and potentially affect Apple's business relationships with thousands of partners across several markets. Plaintiffs' overreaching proposal would establish a vague new compliance regime-applicable only to Apple-with intrusive oversight lasting for ten years, going far beyond the legal issues in this case, injuring competition and consumers, and violating basic principles of fairness and due process. The resulting cost of this relief-not only in dollars but also lost opportunities for American businesses and consumers-would be vast. Apple also articulates that the DOJ proposal as it pertains to retailers like Amazon being able to include links to e-books from within iOS apps is far beyond the scope of the issues in the case. Apple is under no duty to allow other retailers to offer apps on the iPad in the first place, much less on terms that subsidize their operations," the argument says. "Nevertheless, Apple allows all e-book retailer apps that are compliant with its policies-including those offered by Amazon, Barnes & Noble and other competing e-book retailers-to be offered in its App Store. It also permits consumers to download e-books purchased through another e-book retailer's website or bookstore onto its e-reader devices without charge. Apple concludes by stating that it does not believe it has run afoul of antitrust law, and that the conduct the court found objectionable has since ended and will not happen again. Consequently, Apple writes that no further injunction is necessary, and that should one be issued, it should be "narrowly tailored to redress the specific conduct this Court found anticompetitive." Say what you will about Apple's actions leading up to the case, but it's hard to read the DOJ's proposal as anything other than absurdly far reaching. The full ruling can be read below. 8.2.13 Apple's Brief Opposing Injunctive Relief
The Daily Roundup for 08.02.2013
You might say the day is never really done in consumer technology news. Your workday, however, hopefully draws to a close at some point. This is the Daily Roundup on Engadget, a quick peek back at the top headlines for the past 24 hours -- all handpicked by the editors here at the site. Click on through the break, and enjoy.
US proposes resolution to Apple e-book price fixing
Just a few weeks ago, Apple found itself on the wrong side of a decision when US District Judge Denise Cote ruled that Apple had, in fact, conspired with book publishers to raise the price of e-books across the industry. Today, the DOJ announced a proposed remedy for Apple's alleged wrongdoing. The remedy aims to stop Apple's "illegal activities" and restore competition to the e-book marketplace. As laid out by the DOJ, the proposed remedy not only requires Apple to put an end to its existing agency-model contracts with book publishers, but also precludes Apple from entering into "new e-book distribution contracts which would restrain Apple from competing on price." The DOJ writes: Under the department's proposed remedy, Apple will be prohibited from again serving as a conduit of information among the conspiring publishers or from retaliating against publishers for refusing to sell e-books on agency terms. Apple will also be prohibited from entering into agreements 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. To reset competition to the conditions that existed before the conspiracy, Apple must also for two years allow other e-book retailers like Amazon and Barnes & Noble to provide links from their e-book apps to their e-bookstores, allowing consumers who purchase and read e-books on their iPads and iPhones easily to compare Apple's prices with those of its competitors. That certainly seems heavy handed. The DOJ also recommends that Apple be appointed an external monitor by the court who will ensure that the company doesn't run afoul of any antitrust laws going forward. And as if that weren't enough, the monitor's salary and expenses will, according to the proposal, be paid for by Apple. Think the DOJ is done? Not quite. The DOJ also recommends that Apple hire an internal antitrust compliance officer who will not only ensure that Apple complies with court imposed remedies, but will also be tasked with training and educating Apple's senior executives and employees about pertinent antitrust laws.
DOJ demands Apple terminate publisher deals and rival e-bookstore restrictions (updated)
In a decisive move in the legal battle surrounding Apple's fishy e-book pricing practices, the US Department of Justice has issued a proposed remedy aimed at leveling the playing field. The terms of the proposal, which requires approval by the court, call for an end to Apple's deals with major publishing houses, as well as allowing rival e-book apps, like Amazon's, to link to their own online bookstores. The announcement is hardly surprising, considering that it comes just a few weeks after US District Judge Denise Cote ruled that Apple had conspired to bump up the retail prices of e-books. In the official brief, Assistant Attorney General Bill Baer said, "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." You can read the release in full after the break. Update: Apple has formally responded to the Department of Justice's proposal and predictably, the company isn't happy. In a filing with the United States District Court, Apple said, "Plaintiffs' proposed injunction is a draconian and punitive intrusion into Apple's business, wildly out of proportion to any adjudicated wrongdoing or potential harm." Apple also disputed the DOJ's assertion that its plan is intended to foster healthy competition, arguing that the "overreaching proposal would establish a vague new compliance regime -- applicable only to Apple -- with intrusive oversight lasting for ten years, going far beyond the legal issues in this case, injuring competition and consumers, and violating basic principles of fairness and due process." While the tides seem to be turning against Apple as the case moves forward, Cupertino is evidently not going down without a fight.
Apple could pay dearly in ebook case
About two weeks ago, U.S. District Judge Denise Cote ruled that Apple conspired with book publishers to raise the price of e-books across the industry. If you recall, five publishing companies -- Penguin, Random House, HarperCollins, Simon & Schuster and Hachette -- were also targeted by the DOJ but all decided to settle instead of trying their luck in court. Apple, however, took a principled stance, asserting that it wasn't going to admit to something it didn't do. In doing so, and subsequently coming out on the wrong end of Cote's decision, Apple may wind up having to fork over a lot of cash. Gigaom, citing a recently publicized court document, writes that Apple may end up paying close to $500 million in damages when all is said and done. The chart above shows that publishers thus far have already paid out approximately $166 million in damages for their role in the "conspiracy." Meanwhile, the total amount of damages Apple may be on the hook for is $218.8 million. The rub, however, is that Apple may be on the hook for triple damages. That results in a damages amount of $656.6 million. Less the damages already paid out by publishers leaves us with a final tally of approximately $490 million. As for why Apple may end up paying triple damages, Jeff Roberts wrote the following back in early July: Apple is in a different position. It vehemently denies wrongdoing and has fought the price-fixing accusations at all turns, in court and in the press. Now, if a verdict is entered after the damages phase of the trial, Apple is on the hook to pay special damages under a section of the Clayton Act that automatically triples antitrust awards. Apple's liability, according to lawyer Jeff Friedman, will be determined by this formula: harm to consumers x 3, minus the $166 million paid by the publishers. It's worth noting that Friedman is a partner with the law firm leading the class action charge in this particular case. Apple, of course, has every intention of appealing the decision, but legal scholars contacted by AllThingsD in the wake of the verdict were pessimistic about Apple's chances to prevail on appeal. UC Berkeley Law Professor Pam Samuelson explained: Apple may have a tough time getting this ruling reversed because the judge made findings of fact about the antitrust violation that appellate courts typically defer to. Most reversals happen as to interpretations of the law. Not a good situation for Apple, but it may be some time before the case concludes and Apple has to pay up.
Penguin offers to end ebook deals with Apple
Apple's ebook price-fixing cases are now in the settlement stage in the US and Europe, and the latest word from the EU is that Penguin has become the last publisher to offer to end ebook pricing restriction deals with Apple. In December of 2012, Apple and the other four publishers named in the European Commission price fixing case agreed to settle by allowing retailers to set their own prices or discounts for the next two years and drop the "most-favored nation" contracts for five years. With this latest move by Penguin, all of the parties involved have now settled the concerns of the European Commission and this chapter of Apple history comes to a close. The damages to be levied against Apple in the US Department of Justice price-fixing case settlement have yet to be decided.
A look at the "flawed" antitrust decision against Apple
US District Judge Denise Cote last week ruled that Apple colluded with book publishers to artificially raise the price of e-books across the industry. In the wake of that decision, the Macs Future website took a thorough look at Cote's ruling and points out a number of reasons why the reasoning upon which the decision lies is flawed. If you recall, the case is rooted in Apple striking deals with a number of publishing companies and convincing them to agree to the agency model of publishing wherein the publishers themselves set the price for e-books. In the court's decision, Cote notes that Apple could have chosen to follow Amazon's lead and go the wholesale route whereby the retailer sets the price of e-books. But Apple, Cote writes, did not want to compete with Amazon on price. To that end, Macs Future astutely points out why competing with Amazon on price wasn't something one could reasonably have expected Apple to do. But the record is clear that one of the reasons that Apple didn't want to enter the ebook market using the wholesale model because the biggest player in the ebook market, Amazon with 90% market share, was pricing books at a loss or break even. The Court refused to consider how ridiculous and anticompetitive it would have been for Apple to engage Amazon in the competition of "who can price ebooks further below the wholesale price". It's worth mentioning that Amazon, with a lion's share of the e-book market, can afford to sell books at little to no profit since it can make up for it with sheer sales volume. Apple, entering the e-book market for the very first time, could not realistically compete with Amazon on price and hope to make much of a profit. Indeed, Eddy Cue, during his testimony, drove home the point that Apple was less concerned with what Amazon was doing and was more focused on securing deals capable of ensuring that Apple's iBookstore would be a profitable venture. Macs Future adds: If Apple engaged Amazon in an ebook price war, Apple could have violated the antitrust laws by engaging in predatory pricing as its prices would have been below wholesale prices. Moreover, Apple could have been accused of using its dominant market share in the smartphone market and the new tablet market, to drive ebook competition out of the market. Could you imaging the internal dilemma Apple's executives would have faced if they considered selling ebooks at a loss through their iOS ecosystem? What if they had destroyed Amazon's ebook market share by selling ebooks at a bigger loss than Amazon could have afforded? Wouldn't Amazon have complained to the Department of Justice that Apple was engaging in predatory pricing? In many respects, it seems that Apple was stuck in a classic "damned if you do, damned if you don't" type of situation. Another point lost on Cote is that the agency model of publishing can actually operate to further competition in the marketplace. Before Apple entered the market, Amazon, with its 90+% share of the e-book market, was effectively calling all of the shots. The agency model, however, returned a lot of that e-book control to publishers. Instead of Amazon setting the price of e-books as low as possible in an effort to attract new customers and keep old ones, the agency model gave publishers the opportunity to try their hand at the tried and true game of supply and demand. If publishers set the price of an e-book too high and subsequently noticed a drop off in sales, it stands to reason that they would simply lower the price. Further, with Amazon not setting any of the prices, publishers would be competing against one another on price. But the Court ignores that instead of having one company, Amazon, setting the retail price of ebooks, the agency model provided the six largest publishers and countless other publishers to set the the price of their own ebooks. That creates massive retail price competition. One publisher can't greatly raise the price of a notable book because another publisher (or author) with a book of the same quality and in the same topic can undercut that price and sell more books. When Amazon sets the price of 90% of the ebooks the consumer is set with no recourse but to rely on Amazon's goodwill on the retail price. The agency model allows many players to set the retail price. Thus in the long run, such competition is likely to result in the lowering of price. All solid points. The entire post over at Macs Future is well worth a read if you want a different take on Apple's legal battle with the DOJ. Meanwhile, Adam Engst over at TidBITS also has a comprehensive look at Judge Cote's decision that's worth poring over.
The Steve Jobs video that sealed Apple's fate in the DOJ case
Apple yesterday came up on the losing end of a decision from US District Judge Denise Cote who ruled that Apple did, in fact, collude to artificially raise the price of e-books. In looking over the decision, I found it interesting that statements made by Steve Jobs were construed as compelling evidence in the eyes of Cote. Compelling evidence of Apple's participation in the conspiracy came from the words uttered by Steve Jobs, Apple's founder, CEO, and visionary. Apple has struggled mightily to reinterpret Jobs's statements in a way that will eliminate their bite. Its efforts have proven fruitless. Jobs's statements to James Murdoch that he understood the Publishers' concerns that "Amazon's $9.99 price for new releases is eroding the value perception of their products . . . and they do not want this practice to continue," and that Apple was thus "willing to try at the [$12.99 and $14.99] prices we've proposed," underscored Apple's commitment to a scheme with the Publisher Defendants to raise e-book prices. Jobs's purchase of an e-book for $14.99 at the Launch, and his explanation to a reporter that day that Amazon's $9.99 price for the same book would be irrelevant because soon all prices will "be the same" is further evidence that Apple understood and intended that Amazon's ability to set retail prices would soon be eliminated. When Jobs told his biographer the next day that, in light of the MFN, the Publisher Defendants "went to Amazon and said, 'You're going to sign an agency contract or we're not going to give you the books,'" Jobs was referring to the fact that Sargent was in Seattle that very day to deliver Macmillan's ultimatum to Amazon. Cote again stresses that Apple was unable to persuasively explain away Jobs' comments as being benign. In reaching the conclusion that Jobs was aggressively trying to get publishers to raise the price of e-books across the board, Cote not only relied on emails from Jobs, but also the aforementioned video where Jobs smugly told Walt Mossberg that the price of e-books on Amazon will be the same as the price of e-books on Apple's iBookstore. The damning video, which was shot by Kara Swisher on her Flipcam, is below. The pertinent part of the video begins at 1:54 when Mossberg curiously asks Jobs why someone would buy an e-book for $14.99 from Apple when they can get it for $9.99 from Amazon. "The prices will be the same," Jobs explained, before adding that "publishers are actually withholding" books from Amazon because they aren't happy with the terms of their contract. So just how damning was this video? Well, Cote cited it as "compelling evidence" in her decision, and we should also point out that Simone & Schuster executives, upon being made aware of the video, were none too pleased with Jobs' remarks, going so far as to label them "incredibly stupid." The following is a slide from the DOJ's initial presentation during the trial.
Judge finds Apple guilty of fixing e-book prices (Updated)
According to Reuters, US District Judge Denise Cote has ruled against Apple in its big e-book price-fixing trial. The judge found that Apple conspired to raise the retail price of e-books and will now face a trial to determine damages. Update: Both Apple and the Department of Justice have released statements about this decision, according to AllThingsD. Not surprisingly, Apple is disappointed with the ruling and will appeal, while the DOJ is pleased. Apple spokesman Tom Neumayr confirmed the company will appeal and says, "Apple did not conspire to fix e-book pricing and we will continue to fight against these false accusations. When we introduced the iBookstore in 2010, we gave customers more choice, injecting much-needed innovation and competition into the market, breaking Amazon's monopolistic grip on the publishing industry. We've done nothing wrong and we will appeal the judge's decision." Assistant Attorney General Bill Baer writes, "This result is a victory for millions of consumers who choose to read books electronically ... Companies cannot ignore the antitrust laws when they believe it is in their economic self-interest to do so. This decision by the court is a critical step in undoing the harm caused by Apple's illegal actions."
US federal judge rules Apple conspired to raise e-book prices
Following a non-jury trial that ended on June 20th, US District Judge Denise Cote has ruled that Apple conspired to raise the retail prices of e-books, according to a Reuters report published this morning. Apple has been at the focus of the Manhattan-based antitrust trial, which began last month, with publishers Macmillan and Penguin Group named as co-defendants. The violation here centered on Apple's agency pricing model, in which publishers set the price of each book and give sellers a 30 percent cut, rather than a traditional wholesale model in which retailers set the pricing at their own stores. Eddy Cue, Apple's SVP of Internet Software and Services, who was tagged as the "chief ringleader of the conspiracy" by the DOJ, went on the record earlier this year to say that some prices were inflated since the launch of the iBookstore in April of 2010 -- a statement which likely didn't help Cupertino's case. A trial for damages will reportedly follow soon. Update: TechCrunch has received the below statement from an Apple spokesperson. Apple did not conspire to fix ebook pricing and we will continue to fight against these false accusations. When we introduced the iBookstore in 2010, we gave customers more choice, injecting much needed innovation and competition into the market, breaking Amazon's monopolistic grip on the publishing industry. We've done nothing wrong and we will appeal the judge's decision.
Apple issues 136-slide presentation as part of its closing arguments in e-book case
Apple's role in the Department of Justice cause regarding e-book pricing has come to a close, capped with a 136-slide presentation that All Things D has made available. The final slides were displayed in iBooks on an iPad in the presentation, saying that it was "time to close the book on this case." The government's summation was nearly as long, clocking in at 119 pages. Its presentation ends with urging that agency pricing be prohibited for two years and Apple barred from any further antitrust law violations, retaliation or discrimination. It also urged that Apple allow third-party booksellers to reinstate links to their stores. This comes on the heels of Barnes & Noble revealing in its testimony that the company was negotiating agency pricing long before Apple reached out to publishers. A decision is expected within the next few weeks.
Barnes & Noble VP delivers a bruising blow to DOJ case against Apple
Apple received a boost in its defense against the Department of Justice allegations about e-book price-fixing yesterday from a company that had already settled in the case: Barnes & Noble. The bookseller's Vice President of Digital Content, Theresa Horner, told the court that her company was in the process of negotiating agency pricing deals with publishers well before Apple came into the e-book market. The DOJ has repeatedly attempted to paint Apple as the nefarious ringleader conspiring with book publishers to raise prices on e-books. During her court appearance, Horner essentially shut down that argument by noting that Apple had nothing to do with Barnes & Noble talking with book publishers about agency pricing, which means that publishers set book prices rather than resellers. Barnes & Noble CEO William Lynch apparently proposed the idea to publishing companies in late 2009, before Apple even started negotiations with the same companies. Lynch felt that agency pricing was a must if his company was to compete and make money against Amazon's Kindle bookstore. The DOJ's case against Apple has received other blows. Penguin CEO David Shanks told the court that Apple seemed indifferent to the e-book market and was going to walk away from the market if it couldn't ink deals with publishers. Other evidence shows that even Amazon was working on the same agency pricing deals with publishers, with identical price-matching terms (i.e., other retailers couldn't sell e-books at lower prices) to what Apple and Barnes & Noble eventually achieved with their deals. Judge Denise Cote heard the case and felt before the trial that the DOJ had a strong case against Apple. Yesterday, at a point when Apple was going to demonstrate the "page curl" feature devised by Steve Jobs, Cote interrupted by saying "I have an iPad. I love my iPad. I have seen this feature." In contrast to her start-of-trial comments, Cote noted yesterday, "It seems to me the issues have somewhat shifted during the course of the trial. Things change. People have to stay nimble. I'm looking forward to understanding where we are now." The parties in the case deliver their summations today, and a ruling from the bench will be forthcoming in the future -- possibly as long as two months from now.
Daily Update for June 13, 2013
It's the TUAW Daily Update, your source for Apple news in a convenient audio format. You'll get all the top Apple stories of the day in three to five minutes for a quick review of what's happening in the Apple world. You can listen to today's Apple stories by clicking the inline player (requires Flash) or the non-Flash link below. To subscribe to the podcast for daily listening through iTunes, click here. No Flash? Click here to listen. Subscribe via RSS
Apple's Eddy Cue acknowledges e-book price increases at antitrust trial, reveals talk of Amazon deal that would split books/music control
The issue of e-book prices, and alleged price fixing, has come up again and again in recent years, with the focus most recently shifting to a Manhattan courtroom where Apple is at the center of an antitrust trial. After revealing new details of the company's market share yesterday, Apple's Eddy Cue has today offered another piece of surprising news: that he and Steve Jobs once discussed a potential deal that would see Apple stay out of the ebook market if Amazon agreed stayed out of music. There's no indication that went beyond the early discussion phase, or actually involved any discussions with Amazon, but it would obviously raise considerable antitrust questions had it gone any further. As CNET and The Verge report, the DOJ is hoping that revelation will bolster its case that Apple engaged in antitrust practices to inflate ebook prices across the market. On that front, Cue, who the DOJ describes as the "chief ringleader of the conspiracy," reportedly acknowledged that the prices of some ebooks did go up from April of 2010 (when it opened its iBookstore) through to 2012, but he attributed that to publishers unhappy with Amazon's $9.99 pricing. Cue's facing further questioning from Apple's attorneys this afternoon, with the trial expected to wrap up by the end of next week. Update: AllThingsD has further testimony from Mr. Cue indicating that Steve Jobs didn't even want to build iBooks -- at least, not until he got his hands on the first iPad.
Philip Pullman argues that authors are being shortchanged on e-book loans
Few people understand the magic of libraries better than Philip Pullman, author of His Dark Materials, but all is not well when it comes to digital lending. As the soon-to-be president of the Society of Authors, Pullman is leading the charge against publishing houses that may be shortchanging writers on e-book loans. In a letter to major publishers like Random House and Bloomsbury, Pullman argues that selling e-books to libraries as single sales rather than licenses costs authors up to two-thirds the income they receive from print loans. The Society's brief calls for the industry to reconsider existing models for compensation so that writers can continue producing books with which to line library shelves. After all, without authors, there would be no books, and as Pullman himself wrote, "Without stories, we wouldn't be human beings at all."
Apple/DOJ e-book price-fixing trial begins today
The Apple e-book price-fixing trial is set to begin today in New York, according to Reuters. The trial begins 14 months after the US Department of Justice accused Apple and five other book publishers of fixing the cost of e-books. In April 2012 the DOJ accused Apple, Penguin, HarperCollins, Simon & Schuster, the Hachette Book Group and MacMillan of conspiring to fix the prices of e-books in order to break the stranglehold Amazon had on the market. Though the five book publishers decided to settle out of court, Apple has refused to do so. When asked about a settlement, CEO Tim Cook has said Apple was "...not going to sign something that says we did something we didn't do." The Department of Justice is not seeking financial damages from Apple if the government wins the case. Instead they are looking for a legal ruling that will block Apple from making similar arrangements with third-party companies in the future.
Daily iPhone App: Steve Jackson's Sorcery is interactive e-book bliss
I have to say -- the iPad is a terrific platform for interactive e-books, but so far, I haven't been very impressed by the options out there. I do use my iPad for reading a lot, but the vast majority of my reading is done in either iBooks or a comic book reader. It's very rare that I will pick up an app that's designed to work as just one single book, no matter how many extras or interactive features are included. However, I'm happy to say that Steve Jackson's Sorcery! is a clear exception to the general rule. It's excellent, and mostly because the book it is based on (actually a "gamebook" released back in the '80s) was already interactive to begin with. Add in iOS interactive touchscreen, some excellent graphical flairs and a whole lot of polish, and what you end up with is something very akin to playing a Dungeons and Dragons game, where the few game elements present are really just intended to ignite your imagination, and get you role-playing in the game's world. Sorcery's story is pretty basic: You're a hero who sets out into a dangerous world, hoping to either save or conquer it. And the combat gameplay is extremely simple as well -- you essentially guess whether your opponent is attacking or defending, trying to mirror their actions to do damage as you can. But the real meat of Sorcery! is in the inbetween. You travel from town to town, talking to various NPCs and even solving a few puzzles, all while exploring this world through the game's scrolling text. I really have no problems at all with this app -- I was fascinated by the story's well-written text, and while the gameplay isn't extremely innovative, it's paced well enough to keep the action rolling. The one hitch might be that you need to use your imagination on this one, so if you're expecting a game like Skyrim, that will draw out the world for you, you might find this a bit boring. But as a die-hard pen-and-paper RPG player and a fan of Steve Jackson's work, I think this is an excellent adaptation that's well worth a purchase. You can pick it up from the App Store for US$4.99 right now.
Slickdeals' best in tech for May 8th: Samsung NX1000 mirrorless camera and Amazon Kindle Fire
Looking to save some coin on your tech purchases? Of course you are! In this roundup, we'll run down a list of the freshest frugal buys, hand-picked with the help of the folks at Slickdeals. You'll want to act fast, though, as many of these offerings won't stick around long. Sure, tablets and cameras discounted on the regular in our twice weekly roundup, but today an A/V system sees the big price drop. A Denon AVR-1613 receiver and Harmon Kardon HKTS 16 speaker bundle is reduced by over 50% with the aid of a simple discount code. All of the particulars, and the rest of the list, await on the other side of the break.
