Apple, as expected, came out swinging against the Justice Department in the first week of its e-book price-fixing trial — and may have even scored some points with the judge.
Accused of conspiring with five large publishers in 2010 to set the price of e-books, Apple tried to show Judge Denise Cote that publishers switched to its agency model because it made good sense — not because of any secret pact.
On Thursday, the Cupertino, Calif., company seemed to be getting its point across.
Judge Cote, who is presiding over the trial without a jury, asked Amazon Kindle executive Laura Porco, who was on the stand, if the publishers moved away from Amazon’s wholesale model not because Apple told them to — but because it was just good business.
“Sure,” Porco answered. “It was a negotiation; so I don’t — it could have been — it could have been said very emphatically, when in fact, maybe it wasn’t — yes, it could be read either way, I’m sure.”
Before the trial started, Cote said in open court that it was likely that Justice would prove its case.
At the time of the alleged conspiracy, Amazon, which controlled 90 percent of the e-book market, would buy books from publishers and then set its own retail price — usually at around $9.99.
Apple opened its iBookstore by allowing publishers to set the prices — at $12.99 to $14.99 — and took a 30 percent commission.
The Justice Department claims the agreement was in fact a conspiracy to raise e-book prices. The publishers have each settled the case against them.
The trial resumes Monday.