经过三个星期的法官审理后，美国联邦地方法院法官丹尼斯•科特在长达160页的裁决书中写道，苹果（Apple）确实违反了谢尔曼反托拉斯法，与五家出版商合谋提高电子书的价格。

    裁决书中的关键段落如下：

    “原告方显示，被告方数家出版商串通一气，消除零售价格竞争，以提高电子书价格，而苹果公司则在促进和执行共谋中扮演了关键角色。假如没有苹果的组织，这个阴谋就不会在2010年春季获得成功。”

    尽管法官在宣判前就已宣布，她相信美国司法部（the Department of Justice）将证明其控诉，但她的裁决还是令听了苹果公司辩护的观察人士吃惊不小。

    存在争议的主要不是相关事实，而是用于约束苹果公司这样的分销商所采用的规则。对于分销商或是竞争对手（譬如图书出版商）间达成横向协议以操纵价格，近来的反垄断判例法通常会区别对待。

    虽然法院将另外安排一场单独的审判，以确定赔偿额，但此案似乎将必然被上诉，或许官司会一直打到美国最高法院。

    最新消息：美国司法部和苹果公司两方都对此发表了声明。

    美国司法部：“企业不能为了自身经济利益而忽视反垄断法。地方法院的此次判决是弥补苹果公司违法行为所造成损害的关键一步。”

    苹果公司的声明：“苹果并未与出版商合谋操纵电子书定价，我们将继续与这些虚假指控作斗争。我们于2010年推出iBookstore是给了客户更多的选择，给市场带来了它非常需要的创新和竞争，打破了亚马逊（Amazon）对出版业的垄断。我们不存在任何过错，我们将对法官的裁决提起上诉。”(财富中文网)

    译者：项航

    In a 160-page ruling following a three-week bench trial, U.S. District Judge Denise Cote has found that Apple (AAPL) did indeed violate the Sherman antitrust act by conspiring with five publishers to raise the price of e-books.

    The key paragraph:

    "The Plaintiffs have shown that the Publisher Defendants conspired with each other to eliminate retail price competition in order to raise e-book prices, and that Apple played a central role in facilitating and executing that conspiracy. Without Apple's orchestration of this conspiracy, it would not have succeeded as it did in the Spring of 2010."

    Although the judge had announced before the trial began that she believed the Department of Justice would prove its case, the ruling comes as a surprise to observers who heard Apple's defense.

    The facts were less in dispute than the rules governing a distributor like Apple, which recent antitrust case law treats differently than competitors -- such as book publishers -- forming a horizontal agreement to fix prices.

    Although the judge is going to schedule a separate trial to determine damages, the case seems destined to be appealed, perhaps all the way to the Supreme Court.

    UPDATE: We have statements from both sides.

    The DOJ: "Companies cannot ignore the antitrust laws when they believe it is in their economic self-interest to do so. This decision by the court is a critical step in undoing the harm caused by Apple's illegal actions."

    Apple: "Apple did not conspire to fix ebook pricing and we will continue to fight against these false accusations. When we introduced the iBookstore in 2010, we gave customers more choice, injecting much needed innovation and competition into the market, breaking Amazon's monopolistic grip on the publishing industry. We've done nothing wrong and we will appeal the judge's decision."