Mikey Campbell
The U.S. Department of Justice decided last week that it would not incorporate notes taken by Apple cofounder Steve Jobs' biographer into its antitrust case, which is targeting the Cupertino company over alleged e-book price fixing.
According to court documents uncovered by PaidContent on Tuesday, notes written by "Steve Jobs" author Walter Isaacson during his time with the tech guru have been dropped from the case, meaning that the biographer will also not have to provide verbal testimony.
Previously, class action lawyers participating in the lawsuit called on Isaacson to testify and provide written notes from his numerous interviews with Jobs, but the author declined, citing a New York shield law protecting journalists from revealing their sources. While the lawyers argued that the shield did not apply to the biographer, they ultimately stopped pursuing the subpoena last week.
Apple is now the lone holdout in the DoJ e-book case after Macmillan opted to settle out of court in February, joining publishing houses Penguin, Hachette, HarperCollins, and Simon & Schuster.
The Justice Department is accusing Apple of colluding with the five publishers to falsely inflate e-book prices by using the so-called "agency model." Under that strategy, the publishing houses were allowed to set their own prices on most-favored-nations terms, meaning they could not offer the same products at lower prices through other retailers.
Apple's agency model was counter to Amazon's wholesale model, which puts pricing power in the hands of resellers by allowing them to sell e-books at or below cost.
Because end user costs were higher with the agency model, the DoJ launched an investigation into whether Apple and its publishing partners were "conspiring to raise e-book prices to consumers."
An amended complaint filed in January of 2012 included the first mention of Jobs' quotes as it related to the iBookstore's pricing model.
Andrew Orr
Sponsored Content
Wesley Hilliard
Malcolm Owen
Christine McKee
William Gallagher
25 Comments
No kidding. Steve isn't around to defend himself or what he meant by comments so how could they even THINK about using his comments in court?
No kidding. Steve isn't around to defend himself or what he meant by comments so how could they even THINK about using his comments in court?
Well, Jefferson et. al. aren't around anymore and yet we use their words in courtrooms.
BOOM, political bombshell.
But no, I certainly agree with you.
The DoJ under EricHolder is, overall, such a waste of time on antitrust issues. I wish Obama would find someone better.
(And, before someone makes it political, please know that I don't mean stuff like the 'fast and furious' conspiracy from the nutty wing of the right).
[quote name="Tallest Skil" url="/t/156322/notes-from-steve-jobs-biographer-will-not-be-used-in-doj-e-book-case-against-apple#post_2288575"] Well, Jefferson et. al. aren't around anymore and yet we use their words in courtrooms. BOOM, political bombshell. :lol: But no, I certainly agree with you. [/quote] Hmmm, mod starting politics..... I'll bite - "It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world." --Thomas Jefferson Hella-tough to interpret in our time, right? There is decades of reading Mr. J provided.
[quote name="EricTheHalfBee" url="/t/156322/notes-from-steve-jobs-biographer-will-not-be-used-in-doj-e-book-case-against-apple#post_2288572"]No kidding. Steve isn't around to defend himself or what he meant by comments so how could they even THINK about using his comments in court?[/quote] It's not that simple. Presumably, these are being excluded under the hearsay rule. Under that rule, people can generally not testify as to what someone else said. There are, however, a number of exceptions to that rule. One of the exceptions is deathbed confessions. If Jobs had written those words himself, they would probably have been admissible. But since someone else wrote them, they're not. It's going to be pretty hard for the DOJ to make a case without those statements.