Search apple

Less than a month ago, Judge Cote found Apple liable for knowingly participating in an illegal price-fixing conspiracy with five book publishers to raise e-book prices and eliminate price competition in violation of the antitrust laws.  This morning, the Department of Justice, joined by thirty-three state attorneys general, filed a brief in support of their proposed remedial injunction which would require Apple “to take proactive steps to ameliorate the harm its conspiracy caused to competition and consumers” including by permitting any e-book retailer offering e-books through Apple’s App Store “include in its e-book app a hyperlink to its own e-bookstore, without paying any fee or commission to Apple.”  A hearing on remedies is set for August 9.

Continue Reading DOJ and State AGs Propose a Remedy in Apple E-Books Price-Fixing Case

Today, Judge Sullivan granted Greenlight’s motion to preliminarily enjoin the Apple shareholder vote on “Proposal Number No. 2.”  That proposal sought to amend Apple’s Articles of Incorporation to make four changes, including to eliminate Apple’s “blank check” authority to issue preferred stock.  Prior posts on the cases are here.

Continue Reading Judge Sullivan Grants Einhorn’s PI, Blocking Apple Shareholder Vote

Today, Apple responded to Greenlight Capital’s motion for preliminary injunction blocking a shareholder vote on a plan which Greenlight claimed would eliminate Apple’s ability to issue preferred stock.   Greenlight had argued that the plan was “bundled” with other proposed amendments to Apple’s articles of incorporation (as “Proposal No. 2”)  for a single up or down vote, and that “bundling” violates SEC “unbundling” rules. (For the details of Greenlight’s motion, see our previous post.)

Continue Reading UPDATE: Apple Opposes Greenlight PI Motion

In a decision Monday, Judge McMahon granted summary judgment in favor of the author of the Crave series of “romantasy” fiction in a suit accusing the author of allegedly lifting major aspects of the books from the plaintiff, an unpublished author who shared the same agent (see our prior coverage here).

Judge McMachon noted that, between the Crave series and in the plaintiff’s unpublished manuscripts (titled “Blue Moon Rising” and “Masqued” and referred to in the opinion as “BMR/Masqued”), she had read over 6,000 pages of “romantasy” fiction in an eight week period. The resulting opinion—157 pages—explains that the two series of novels are not “substantially similar” within the meaning of copyright law. Copyright “protection extends only to a work’s particular expression of ideas, not to the ideas themselves,” which is why, Judge McMahon explained, the “common trope of ‘boy meets girl from opposing factions/boy and girl fall in love/boy and girl end up dead’” is not protected, but specific expressions of that trope (Romeo and Juliet and West Side Story) are protected.

For the case at hand, Judge McMahon explained that many of the overlapping plot elements were nothing more than staples of “romantasy” genre, including ones common to the “granddaddy” of the genre, the Twilight series:

Continue Reading After Reading 6,000 Pages of “Romantasy” Fiction, Judge McMahon Dismisses Suit Over Allegedly Copycat Book Series