由于美国司法部警告称，未来可能会因涉嫌操纵电子书价格而提起诉讼，上周另一份法庭文件让人们深入了解苹果可能如何为自己辩护。在要求撤销集体诉讼的过程中，苹果声称它已经成为阴谋论和过度分析其公开声明的受害者。尤其值得一提的是，外界对史蒂夫•乔布斯（Steve Jobs）在iPad上市前对沃尔特•莫斯伯格（Walt Mos**erg）所作评论的性质的猜测愈演愈烈，他在评论中先见之明地指出，相对于亚马逊的Kindle商店，“价格将是一样的”——有人认为，随后电子书的涨价表明苹果和出版商勾结提高价格价格全面上涨。

另一方面，苹果表示，由于出版商只能自己定价，规定iBookstore中的图书必须与其他地方的数字版本相匹配，因此不能对任何价格上涨负责。简言之，苹果认为亚马逊的价格是人为压低的，使用代理模式可以让出版商恢复正常。

"Guilt by association" and sinister interpretati*** of Apple's public statements do not make up for basic deficiencies in Plaintiffs' c***piracy theory. The facts depict unilateral - not c***piratorial - action by Apple. Before Apple entered the eBook market, one compe*****, Amazon, the nation's largest bookseller, had taken 90% of the market by pricing key eBooks below their wholesale cost. Having no desire to incur the losses that would flow from retailing in such an environment, Apple individually negotiated separate vertical agreements with each of the Publishers to serve as a distribution agent in exchange for a 30% commission on eBook sales. Each Publisher set its own prices - and Apple "exercise[d] no discretion" over prices but to ensure that Apple's iBookstore would not be undercut by other sellers and that these offerings would be attractive to c***umers, Apple negotiated general limits to the prices set by the Publishers, requiring that the Publishers match lower prices on key titles offered elsewhere. These were competitive, not c***piratorial, acti***.

诉讼中的另一个论点是，苹果进入市场的初衷是为了阻止亚马逊进入移动领域。苹果的立场是，它本着竞争的精神，决定进入一个亚马逊占有90%以上份额的市场，而iPad作为多功能设备的定位并不能证明这些说法。该公司还指出，用于iPad的Kindle应用程序只能推动Kindle图书的销售，他们被指控的操纵价格阴谋最终将为亚马逊赚更多的钱。

...if Amazon was a "threat" that needed to be squelched by means of an illegal c***piracy, why would Apple offer Amazon's Kindle app on the iPad? Why would Apple conclude that c***piring to force Amazon to no longer lose money on eBooks would cripple Amazon's competitive fortunes? And why would Apple perceive the need for an illegal solution to the "Kindle threat" when it had an obvious and lawful one which it implemented - namely, introducing a multipurpose device [the iPad] whose marketing and sales success was not centered on eBook sales?

美国司法部如何看待这些说法还有待观察，但看起来苹果肯定不会对这些指控置之不理。