The reply is persuasive in sections as to present Apple fostering competition in the eBooks market. (Lots of comparisons to Amazon's dominant position, indeed it does appear that the iBookStore is aimed at disrupting Amazon's stranglehold.) Which is not unusual, since competition would lead to Apple's gain.
However what is clear is that Apple do have something to answer for, albeit a far less serious offence rather than Anti-trust/collusion.
I suspect this came about so quickly as a result of Amazon lobbyists, rather than a legitimate concern of the government against Apple and the eBook market for the benefit of consumers. I'm of this thinking because the government is typically slow to act and rarely do so preemptive as they have done here. (That and Amazon owning nearly the entire eBook market, stands the most to lose.)
Note, lobbying does not imply that Amazon forced the government, rather they could have simply alerted them to the situation.
As for throwing publishers under the bus, that's a claim that lacks understanding of what a reply should entail. (I.E. you answer the case as it applies to you.)
The DOJ antitrust dept has been so emasculated from doing it's actual job that just about the only thing it acts on are open and shut cases with hard evidence like the price fixing here. So some careerist at DoJ had a chance to buff his resume up with a high profile case, got some open and shut evidence and boom here we are. Apple may or may not have been party to this but no one cares and this will die a quiet death later on.
The reply is persuasive in sections as to present Apple fostering competition in the eBooks market. (Lots of comparisons to Amazon's dominant position, indeed it does appear that the iBookStore is aimed at disrupting Amazon's stranglehold.) Which is not unusual, since competition would lead to Apple's gain.
However what is clear is that Apple do have something to answer for, albeit a far less serious offence rather than Anti-trust/collusion.
I suspect this came about so quickly as a result of Amazon lobbyists, rather than a legitimate concern of the government against Apple and the eBook market for the benefit of consumers. I'm of this thinking because the government is typically slow to act and rarely do so preemptive as they have done here. (That and Amazon owning nearly the entire eBook market, stands the most to lose.)
Note, lobbying does not imply that Amazon forced the government, rather they could have simply alerted them to the situation.
As for throwing publishers under the bus, that's a claim that lacks understanding of what a reply should entail. (I.E. you answer the case as it applies to you.)