今天上午，美国司法部电子书反垄断诉讼的消息传出后，三家图书出版商迅速达成和解。剩下的出版商之一麦克米伦（Macmillan）否认有任何不当行为，公司首席执行官萨金特（johnsargent）今天发表了一封***，解释了公司的立场。萨金特明确指出麦克米伦没有串通或从事非法行为，他将公司推进代理模式的决定描述为他自己的决定：

The government's charge is that Macmillan's CEO colluded with other CEO's in changing to the agency model. I am Macmillan's CEO and I made the decision to move Macmillan to the agency model. After days of thought and worry, I made the decision on January 22nd, 2010 a little after 4:00 AM, on an exercise bike in my basement. It remains the loneliest decision I have ever made, and I see no reason to go back on it now.

萨金特接着说，尽管亚马逊已经与美国司法部进行了谈判，但它选择不和解，因为条款过于极端，而且“本可以让亚马逊恢复在我们转向代理模式之前建立的垄断地位。”亚马逊在电子书领域的主导地位，由于亏损导致9.99美元的定价，被认为是出版商和苹果之间涉嫌串通的一个驱动因素。萨金特还引用作家协会主席斯科特·图罗的话，他上个月表示，担心亚马逊在电子书市场的主导地位禁止竞争，对消费者和出版商都不利。

就亚马逊而言，在上午的事态发展之后，它不失时机地表明了自己的意图。在一份对CNET的声明中，一位公司发言人称和解协议是“Kindle用户的一大胜利”，并表示“我们期待着更多Kindle图书的降价。”

最新消息：企鹅集团董事长约翰·马金森（John Makinson）也发表了类似声明，并表示美国司法部的申诉“包含一些重大错误陈述和遗漏，我们期待有机会在法庭上予以纠正。”

A resp***ible company does not choose a path of litigation with US Government agencies without carefully weighing the implicati*** of that course of action. Nonetheless, countless hours discussing this issue with colleagues here at Penguin, as well as with our parent company, Pearson plc, have not led any of us to the view that we should settle this matter. Indeed, alone among the publishers party to the investigati*** that resulted in today’s announcements, we have held no settlement discussi*** with the DOJ or the states.

We have held strongly to this view for two, and only two, reas***. The first is that we have done nothing wrong. The decisi*** that we took, many them of them costly and difficult, were taken by Penguin alone.

We have had the opportunity to study the complaint released by the DOJ today and nothing in this lengthy document causes us to veer from that position. The document contains a number of material misstatements and omissi***, which we look forward to having the opportunity to correct in court.

The second, and equally powerful, reason for our decision to place this matter in the hands of a court is that we believed then, as we do now, that the agency model is the one that offers c***umers the prospect of an open and competitive market for e-books. We understood that the shift to agency would be very costly to Penguin and its shareholders in the short-term, but we reasoned that the prevention of a monopoly in the supply of e-books had to be in the best interests, not just of Penguin, but of c***umers, authors and booksellers as well.

We are of course in the business of making money for our shareholders, but our purpose as a company is to make entertaining and intelligent books for readers of all ages and tastes. We shall not achieve either of those objectives in the absence of competition or choice. The decision we took in January 2010 to move Penguin’s e-book business to agency pricing has been vindicated by the very rapid subsequent growth in the volume of e-books sold by agency publishers, and by the benefit to c***umers of the steep decline in the price of e-book readers that that has resulted from this open competition.

Any other decision would have been a disservice in the long term to our staff and our shareholders, but also to the writers, booklovers, retailers and agents whom we serve.