Apple disputes this in a second filing, also made on April 26 and released on Tuesday. It says that e-book demand “exploded” with Apple’s iPad launch, and the average retail price of an e-book dropped to $7.34 from $7.97.
In a filing released on Tuesday, the Justice Department said that Steve Jobs, Apple’s CEO at the time, “conceded the price-fixing conspiracy” when he told his biographer that Apple had “told the publishers, ‘We’ll go to the agency model, where you set the price, and we get our 30 percent, and yes, the customer pays a little more, but that’s what you want anyway.’”
Steve Jobs E-Book Email to James Murdoch | AllThingsD
“Throw in with Apple and see if we can all make a go of this to create a real mainstream e-books market at $12.99 and $14.99.”
The DOJ and Steve Jobs’ email | The Loop
Parents frustrated that their kids racked up iTunes bills without their permission may be in luck — Apple is offering to pay up to many of those affected. A settlement offers a $5 iTunes credit or cash if the amount was more than $30.
Samsung fails to block iPhone, iPad in Japan | The Loop
A judge handed outspoken hedge fund manager David Einhorn a victory in his court battle with Apple Inc on Friday, blocking the iPhone maker from moving forward with a shareholder vote on a controversial proposal to limit the company’s ability to issue preferred stock.
It’s going to be an interesting shareholder meeting.
Yes, this move by Samsung against Apple was a tactical one in a nasty battle in which billions of dollars are at stake. Yes, it’s just business. But it’s ill-conceived. Even leaving aside the ethics of asserting a patent against a feature designed to help the blind, this is unwise. It’s the PR equivalent of punching yourself in the face. Samsung has now identified itself as a company willing to accept the loss of accessibility for the vision-impaired as collateral damage in its battle with Apple. It has made a big public move to make it more difficult for the blind to use computers.
I still believe it’s the wrong thing to assert an accessibility-related patent in a dispute like this one. Samsung didn’t assert this German patent in an effort to protect its investment in accessibility. It elected to use an accessibility-related patent as a tactical weapon. Patent protection and enforcement can be justified in certain scenarios. For example, if there are two companies competing in the market for hearing aids, it’s generally legitimate for them to assert accessibility-related patents against each other. I would also support the idea of accessibility patent enforcement in cases of willful infringement, and if Samsung had only requested monetary compensation in this action, it would have made a much better choice than by trying to achieve, through the pursuit of an injunction, the deactivation or (more realistically) degradation of the voiceover functionality Apple provides to its German customers.
Asshole Samsung | The Loop
Maybe Samsung can find features that help people with other disabilities to attack next.
‘No iPhone without Samsung patents‘ | The Korea Times
The chief executive of Samsung Electronics has expressed confidence about the ongoing patent battle with Apple, saying that no smartpohone can exist without patents from Korea’s technology giants.
“The truth never lies. Without Samsung-owned wireless patents, it’s impossible for the Cupertino-based Apple to produce its handsets,” said Samsung’s mobile chief Shin Jong-kyun.
No iPhone without Samsung’s wireless patents | The Loop
This is going to be a long battle.
Apple and Samsung are the only two companies making serious profits in mobile, and mobile is the future of all personal computing. The stakes simply could not be higher — of course they’re going to sue the shit out of each other.
HTC and Apple Settle Patent Dispute | Apple [Press Info]
HTC and Apple Settle Patent Dispute | parislemon
Also not explicitly stated in the release, but clear: HTC is paying Apple as a part of this agreement. It may not have an “adverse material impact” on their financials, but maybe that’s only because they’re simply not selling very many Android devices…