Der gläserne Leser - Wie Tracking-Dienste Leser von E-Books analysieren
E-Books Empower Lawyers to Publish on Specialized Subjects They Couldn’t Previously
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals delivered a resounding victory to the publishing industry on Wednesday, September 4, 2024, in Hachette Books v. Internet Archive, holding that the Internet Archive's "controlled digital...more
When one thinks of technological advances that have forced antitrust lawyers to think about market definition differently, Amazon’s rise to power is perhaps the most obvious example. For years, the behemoth company and its...more
White & Case Technology Newsflash - In a constantly growing number of sectors, the acquisition process is shifting more and more towards digital. This also applies to the book market. Whereas in the past, mainly physical...more
Ever since the European Court of Justice (CJEU) in its highly regarded UsedSoft ruling declared the resale of “used” software admissible (dated 3 July 2012, C-128/11)...more
In a brief, unpublished opinion, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of right of publicity and privacy claims against a host of self-publishing platforms and service providers for distributing an erotic (and purported...more
We live in a world that has rapidly redefined and blurred the roles of the “creator” of content, as compared to the roles of the “publisher” and “distributor” of such content. A recent case touches on some of the important...more
We will soon know whether the Supreme Court will grant Apple’s cert petition asking the Court to review and reverse its antitrust violation for conspiring with publishers to fix the prices of e-books. The Court will consider...more
Earlier this month, Apple signaled its intention to petition for writ of certiorari after the Second Circuit upheld Judge Cote’s decision to apply per se liability in analyzing the firm’s conduct with respect to e-books in...more
The Second Circuit affirmed the district court and held, 2 to 1, that defendant Apple Inc. had violated Section 1 by masterminding the creation, organization and implementation of a conspiracy by five publishers of ebooks...more
We recently wrote about the Second Circuit’s June 30, 2015 decision affirming Judge Denise Cote’s decision that Apple conspired with five publishing companies to raise the price of e-books....more
We have previously posted about United States v. Apple, Inc., a blockbuster trial that ended with Judge Denise Cote of the Southern District of New York concluding that Apple had conspired with five publishing companies to...more
On Thursday, the European Commissioner for Competition announced a formal investigation into whether Amazon, the largest distributor of e-books in Europe, has abused its dominance in the market for e-books. The investigation...more
On Monday, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit heard oral argument in Apple’s appeal in the e-book price-fixing lawsuit brought by the Department of Justice. This appeal follows an adverse decision from...more
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued a long-awaited decision in the Georgia State e-reserves copyright case on October 17, 2014. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded to the District Court...more
After a three-week bench trial, the court has ruled that Apple violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act....more
On July 10, 2013, Judge Denise Cote of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that Apple Inc. committed a per se illegal violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act when it instigated and...more
On July 10, 2013, 15 months after the Department of Justice (DOJ) filed its suit against Apple Inc. (Apple) and five major publishers for allegedly conspiring to raise e-book prices and end e-book retailers’ freedom to...more
On July 10, 2013, Judge Denise Cote in the Southern District of New York handed down an opinion and order finding that Apple had violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by persuading five leading publishers jointly to abandon...more
In a recently released Chief Counsel Advice, the IRS National Office concluded that a publisher’s activities in producing an “electronic” version of books that were “printed” by a third party did not constitute qualifying...more