• by Wendy Davis , Staff Writer @wendyndavis, August 2, 2013

Now that a federal judge has ruled that Apple “changed the face of the e-book industry” by conspiring with publishers to raise the price of ebooks, the big question is what sanctions the company will face.

The federal and state authorities argue for a host of orders against Apple, including one that would require the company to allow Amazon and Barnes & Noble to sell books through apps for iPhones and iPads -- without also paying a commission to Apple. The government wants that condition in effect for at least two years. (The Kindle and Nook apps for Apple devices currently allow people to read books on iPhones and iPads, but not make in-app purchases from Amazon or Barnes & Noble.)

But Apple says that such an order would be “simply outrageous,” given that the antitrust findings against the company didn't stem from any app store policies. Instead, the findings centered on Apple's agreements with publishers to sell books on an agency model -- which involves publishers setting a price and then paying a commission to retailers. Before Apple entered the ebook market, publishers sold books at wholesale to Amazon and other retailers, who were free to decide what to charge consumers. When the industry shifted to the agency model, Amazon was forced to abandon its $9.99 pricing, and instead charge $12.99-$14.99 for bestsellers.

“The proposed injunction contains broad, invasive, and vague provisions that are untethered to the actual findings of antitrust liability in this case,” Apple argues in papers filed today with U.S. District Court Judge Denise Cote in New York. “Plaintiffs’ proposal would dictate terms for e-book retailer apps available through the App Store and regulate Apple’s dealings with app providers, as well as in several other content markets. But there is no justification for this invasion into any of Apple’s businesses that were not directly at issue in this lawsuit.”

The company adds that it has “no duty to allow other retailers to offer apps on the iPad in the first place, much less on terms that subsidize their operations.”

Another order sought by the government would prohibit Apple from engaging in conduct that could fix prices for content other than books -- including music, movies, TV shows or apps.

Apple argues that such an “absurdly broad proposal” has no relation to Cote's antitrust findings. “Plaintiffs seek to regulate every one of Apple’s content offerings, even though there is no connection whatsoever between those businesses and the court’s findings in this case,” Apple argues.

What's more, the company says, that type of order would expose Apple to liability “in virtually every content market for the actions of content producers, over which it has no control.”