Apple’s litigation laundry is being aired this week. In addition to the earlier report regarding Samsung’s attempt to throw out the bounce-back patent in the damages case with the iPad maker, today, the Department of Justice (DoJ) is accusing Apple of changing their policy on in-app purchases in retaliation against Amazon on 2011.
According to a report coming from Gigaom, the DoJ filed a revised proposed remedy for the issue involving Apple’s violation of antitrust law. At the beginning of August, the DoJ submitted a proposal that included forcing apple to terminate existing agreements with major publishers, prohibited them from entering agreements with certain media suppliers, and would make it possible for other book publishers like Amazon and Barnes & Noble to provide links directly to their websites in order to compare prices.
That last punishment refers more directly to Apple’s in-app purchase policy change. According to the new proposal, the DoJ is claiming that, based on an email sent by former CEO Steve Jobs, Apple changed its policies in 2011 “to retaliate against Amazon for competitive conduct that Apple would disapprove of.”
Apple’s policy change involves requiring content sold through apps to also be sold through the iTunes Store. It also forbids publishers and retailers from sending users to websites outside their apps to make purchases. For example, Amazon could not include a link to its digital bookstore so that consumers could compare prices.
The DoJ is basically arguing in their new proposal that their original proposal should stand. Aside from being willing to drop the length of the injunction from 10 years to five, but maintains that it wants to be able to extend the injunction on a year-to-year basis if needed because, “five years might not be enough time to restore competition to the e-books market.”
Additionally, the DoJ still wants Apple to receive outside monitoring. According to the proposal, “Apple’s in-house enforcement program will be insufficient to change the corporate culture, and the company cannot be left to solely police itself.
You can read the entire revised proposed injunction at Gigaom’s website.