According to a court filing released on Tuesday, CEOs of the same publishing houses that once rejected the price-fixing theory will now offer evidence to suggest they colluded with Apple in order to increase ebook prices. The case involves allegations that Apple and its late CEO Steve Jobs organized a conspiracy with the Big Six publishers to introduce a commission-style pricing system in order to wrest pricing power from Amazon.

The new filing, posted below, says that the CEOs of Macmillan, Hachette, Harper Collins, Simon & Schuster and Random House will testify about various aspects of Apple’s role in the alleged conspiracy. All of these companies with the exception of Random House were also named in the antitrust lawsuit brought by the Department of Justice and agreed to settle the case last year.

The government’s new filing says Macmillan CEO John Sargent is expected to testify that:

“[T]he deal that 5 of us did with Apple meant someone was gonna have to do it. Just luck of the draw that it was me. . . . The optics make it look like I stood alone, but in the end I had no doubt that the others would eventually follow.”

Such evidence could prove damaging to Apple, which is also expected to confront testimony from Amazon executives. Apple will also be forced explain a growing list of possibly incriminating comments and emails. One of these, cited by the government to show Apple played an active role in the price changes, describes SVP of internet software and services Eddy Cue telling Jobs:

“In the end, they want us and see the opportunity we give them but they’re scared to commit! It [has] less to do with the terms and more about the dramatic business change for them. . . . They just have to get some balls.”

The new filing also includes the views of other prominent executives, including News Corp’s Rupert Murdoch. According to Harper Collins CEO Brian Murray, Murdoch was “pissed at Amazon” and wanted to “screw Amazon.”

In its own filings, Apple maintains its long-held position that it is not a “ringmaster” of a conspiracy, as the government alleges, but that it simply offered the same pricing system, which is based on a 30 percent commission, that it offers to any company that sells through its iTunes store. Apple also maintains that it helped to create competition at a time when Amazon dominated the ebook market.

The next important step of the proceedings will take place on May 23, when the parties meet before U.S. District Judge Denise Cote for a pre-trial conference.

Here’s the filing (all 156 pages of it!) with some of the key points underlined:

DOJ Motion of Facts and Law

The charts show how iTunes content revenue has been steadily growing upward and to the right. But they also show that Apple saw an increase in iTunes net sales by $300 million just from the holiday quarter (when Apple always sees its biggest concentrated pop in downloads) to the March quarter, making $2.4 billion in sales. This is also up from $1.9 billion during the same quarter a year ago.

Relatively, this is still very tiny compared to the $23 billion in net sales Apple derived from its most essential business, the iPhone. And to the $8.7 billion from the iPad last quarter. But iTunes alone is close to half of Mac net sales, which were $5.4 billion.

The reason for the increase is mostly due to Apple’s steady expansion of the iTunes Store to new countries around the world in recent quarters. iTunes Music sells in 119 countries, videos in 109 countries, while the App Store and iBookstore are both in 155 countries.

According to Asymco’s calculations, this wider availability in the store has driven up the amount the average user is paying Apple for content:

In March Apple reported that they have 500 million iTunes [users] so one way to think about the iTunes business is to say that  iTunes users purchase content and services at the rate of about $40 per year.

This is really interesting in the context of the long-rumored Apple video subscription deal and the still-being-hashed-out “iRadio” service for subscription music content. Imagine if just in just some of those countries Apple introduced a $10 per month streaming solution. So instead of $40 per year from a user, Apple started getting more like $120 per year. And that would be just music. If there was a separate video package some day that figure would get even larger. Plus, that doesn’t include money spent on and within both Apple’s own iOS and Mac apps and third-party apps.

iTunes has always been more of a bonus source of revenue than a meaningful contributor to Apple’s bottom line — the songs were originally there to sell iPods, in the way mobile apps are there to sell iOS devices. But software and services — from iCloud and Maps to Siri — have begun to play a more prominent role at Apple, and in its customers’ experiences. A subscription service of digital content, if deployed and priced correctly, could actually turn into a meaningful new source of revenue for Apple.

If current trends continue, with software and content sales going up and laptop and desktop sales dropping off, it’s not impossible that Apple’s content business could someday soon outpace the Mac segment as its third-largest business.

The partnership, which comes a year after a similar deal between Flipboard and the New York Times, will grant full access to FT subscribers while casual visitors will be able to read a smattering of FT blog posts and cultural stories.

Rob Grimshaw, managing director of the FT.com, said by phone that the deal will involve the FT and Flipboard sharing advertising revenue, but would not disclose what the exact revenue split is. In the past, the ad splits have been a source of contention for some publishers, including Condé Nast, which pulled back its advertisements from titles like New Yorker and Wired. (A Flipboard spokesperson said the company has an “excellent relationship” with Conde and is partnering on ads for six other titles).

Grimshaw also said that the FT is exploring selling subscriptions through Flipboard, and would be willing to share some of the proceeds with the platform. This is significant because the FT made waves by leaving iTunes in part due to the 30 percent commission (or “vig,” as the Brits call it) that Apple takes from every publisher.

So why is the FT willing to partner up with Flipboard so soon after leaving Apple? Grimshaw says the difference lies in how the two platforms treat customer relationships.

“The issue is not so much a percentage, it’s the relationship between publisher and audience. Paying a 30 percent finder’s fee is okay. Paying 30 percent in perpetuity and not knowing who the customer is not okay.”

The Flipboard partnership also reflects the fact that the FT and other publishers are keen to get their stories in as many places as possible at a time when readers are consuming more and more content on mobile. As for the future role of Flipboard, which some describe as a “giant iceberg” in the way of publishers, Grimshaw had this to say:

“I think the really interesting aspect to the platform is the way they’re giving readers the ability to create a bespoke user experience. I personally think this is going to be a strong strand in publishing and consumption of news in the digital space.”

Correction: This article was updated at 2:40pm to state that Conde Nast titles had pulled ads from certain titles; Conde did not, as previously stated, break off the relationship.

The case began in 2011 after Black Tower Press, a publisher of sci-fi and fantasy titles, filed a trademark suit in response to Apple’s announcement that it would use the word “iBooks” to describe software that allows users to purchase online books. Here’s a look at the two marks:

Black Tower came into possession of the “ibooks” mark in 2006 by purchasing the assets of another publishing company that had used the word for an imprint that sold millions of sci-fi and horror books in the early 2000′s. Neither Black Tower nor its predecessor, however, obtained a registered trademark for the word.

Apple, on the other hand, did obtain registered trademark rights. It first obtained a license to use “iBook” from another software company in 1999 to describe a line of colorful computers; in 2010, Apple bought the other company’s trademark entirely.

In a detailed decision, U.S. District Judge Denise Cote explained that the word “ibooks” was simply descriptive of books sold on the internet, and that Black Tower had not acquired any distinctive meaning in the word — only in the word and lightbulb logo used together.

Cote also wrote that she was granting summary judgment to Apple for a second reason: that no consumers would be confused by the two companies’ products:

iRadio, as the service has been called by some, will reportedly mimic the functionality of Pandora, offering users continuous streaming with limited interactivity. The company is negotiating directly with record labels as opposed to relying on the type of compulsory licenses that are at the core of Pandora’s business model. That means that Apple might offer its users slightly more functionality and fewer restrictions when it comes to music selection and song skipping.

However, iRadio won’t offer on-demand streaming of complete albums like users have come to expect from full-blown music subscription services like Spotify and Rdio. That’s because the Spotify model directly competes with Apple’s music download business. Pandora, on the other hand, actually helps Apple sell more music.

The NPD Group noted Tuesday that 38 percent of U.S. consumers still think it’s important to own their own music. However, among Pandora users, that number was even higher. Here’s how NPD put it in its press release:

“Among consumers who listened to music on Pandora and other free music-streaming services, 41 percent reported that owning music was important to them; in fact, many free streamers attributed buying more downloads to their discovery on a radio or via an on-demand service.”

The company didn’t make any data available about people who pay for a streaming subscription, but I wouldn’t be surprised to see significantly lower interest in music ownership amongst users who pay for unlimited access.

That’s why it’s smart for Apple to invest in iRadio. The goal is not to kill Pandora, but to actually bring that type of radio service to more users, and keep them from switching to a full-blown access model. In other words: It’s not about Pandora, and all about Spotify.

Merkoski ran technology departments for a number of companies and headed e-commerce initiatives at Motorola before joining Amazon as a technology manager in 2005. For the next five years, he served at the company in a number of Kindle-related roles, helping to launch the first two Kindle models and the Kindle DX. “I first joined a team that built the electronic books for Kindle, but I went on from there to do it all,” he writes. “I invented some of the technology used in ebooks and launched the first few Kindles. I’ve traveled to book fairs in New York and London and Frankfurt to evangelize ebooks. I’ve watched ebooks being made in the Philippines and supervised the assembly of Kindles in China. I’ve talked to the White House, former presidents, and astronauts about ebooks.”

I found Burning the Page the most interesting when Merkoski discusses his experience at Amazon, working directly for CEO Jeff Bezos. “I worked in a modern version of Gutenberg’s workshop,” he wrote. But he can’t share much:

• “I believe Jeff [Bezos] wanted Kindle to be his legacy to history. He wanted it to succeed.”
• “The Kindle organization was in some ways a startup within Amazon and benefited from Jeff Bezos’s venture capital infusions, long-range vision, and full support.”
• “Jeff originally wanted the Kindle code names to come from Star Trek, since he’s such a Trekkie, but more literate minds prevailed.”

While Merkoski describes himself as “the closest there was to an ebook shaman, a tribal elder who could talk to all the people who joined Amazon after me about the early days of Kindle, provide the inside scoop,” he doesn’t (and may be legally unable to) provide any inside scoops in this book. So the next best thing is when he can speak specifically about e-reading platforms — including the advantages of Amazon’s competitors. The development of the Kindle was highly secretive: “No outsiders had seen the Kindle because it was created in a perfect vacuum from the very beginning,” Merkoski writes. That resulted, in 2007, in a $399 device that sold out in five and a half hours, remained out of stock for months and got a lot of mixed reviews (facts that Merkoski doesn’t mention).

Kindle’s flaws — and what competitors did better

Future versions of the Kindle improved on some flaws: Merkoski calls the Kindle 2, introduced in 2009, “truly an incredible device.” But “in fits of wakefulness, I thought about how Kindle lacked nuance, style, fonts, and things like multimedia…Kindle’s success made new ideas paradoxically difficult, as if everyone was walking around on stiletto heels on a glass floor, careful not to run, not wanting to take the wrong risks.”

Kindle competitors, he says, have done better in lots of ways. Take Barnes & Noble: “Out of all the retailers who sell dedicated e-readers, they’re the most innovative. They’re the first to release new book-reading features and to innovate on the hardware side. They were the first to have touch-sensitive e-ink screens…They totally get the social experience of books in the way that it crosses over from the real world to the digital. They can innovate so fast because they’re not burdened with their own R&D group.” Likewise, “companies with more humanistic sensibilities than Amazon will win the e-reader war by making the experience more human, more playful…let’s face it: there’s still something emotionally bereft about a Nook or a Kindle.” The winner on that front, he says, is Apple’s iPad.

Ultimately, Merkoski believes, “Amazon is winning the ebook revolution, but it may lose the war…Competitors like Barnes & Noble and Apple have successfully blurred the lines and proven that they can provide a great media experience, so Amazon’s brand matters less in the eyes of readers now.” He says “it’s hard to love Amazon…at best, you respect Amazon for its obsession to detail, for its cheap prices, and for how it achieves the promised arrival dates for its products.”

Oddly, Merkoski doesn’t mention the Nook division’s terrible performance these days, or the company’s inability to cut into Amazon’s market share. Nooks, he claims, are “downright futuristic.” And that’s really where he wants to go in this book: How will ebooks, reading and writing change?

What’s next: High-speed head plugs and a “Facebook for books”?

Let’s be clear: Merkoski loves books. An endless number of sentences like “Books are priceless,” “Books can inspire us toward greatness,” “Books hold the repository of human knowledge, and then some,” “Reading is an act of bathyspheric descent into the depths of an inky-black ocean,” “For me, it really is about books. They’re not commodities, but soulful voices that actually speak to you” become increasingly irritating as the book goes on and weigh down Merkoski’s ideas on what the future of reading could actually look like.

Once you cut through the platitudes, Merkoski envisions some specific innovations that are interesting and imaginative. For instance, “the future might hold some sort of high-speed plug that goes into an author’s head, some way of taking an author’s imagination and converting it directly into a digital format. The same high-speed cables will connect you to the author’s original experience.” That sounds horrible to me, but another idea — a screenless e-reader that uses a pico projector to project an ebook onto a blank surface (like a ceiling or the pages of a blank book), pulls ebooks from the cloud and is navigated by voice commands — seems like something that could actually exist in a few years.

Ultimately, Merkoski believes there will be

“just one book, a vast book that includes all the others inside it, which I call the Facebook for Books. You’ll be able to start reading from an ebook and naturally segue into a different one, just by following a link. It could be a bibliographic link, or just a link to a book that influenced the author and that’s been annotated as such by a reader like you or me. You will be able to link forward or double-back and keep reading…The more content you get, the more cumulative the connections are between books, and the more intertwined and rich the network becomes.”

The company best situated to make this dream a reality is not Amazon, Merkoski believes, but Google — thanks to its knowledge of search engines and the vast number of titles it’s scanned for Google book search, “Google has digitized more of human culture than any other retailer or library.”

For now, rights issues are in the way, and so books, “our greatest repository of knowledge and inspiration, aren’t participating in conversations with us online, with the exception of public-domain books that lag by at least ninety years.” It will take “a sea-change in opinion about ebook pricing models,” Merkoski acknowledges, before such a hyperlinked database of books can legally exist — even though we have the technology to put it in place now.

In a short order issued on Thursday, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit granted the media groups fifteen minutes to participate in a hearing scheduled for March 26. The groups also include Bloomberg, the Washington Post, Dow Jones and the First Amendment Coalition.

At the hearing, the tech companies will ask the Federal Circuit to overrule a lower court’s order that granted the media companies’ initial request to unseal various filings in the patent dispute. The documents are significant because they are likely to disclose sales and revenue figures that Apple and Samsung would prefer to keep secret while they hash out damages figures related to a massive $1 billion jury verdict.

Although court filings are public, companies sometimes ask to file confidential information under seal. In recent years, however, Apple has asked to seal documents on a nearly routine basis, which led the Reuters news agency to mount a successful court challenge this summer.

The controversy over the sealed documents has led other news agencies to take an interest in the issue. The media outlets’ participation at the upcoming hearing is likely to draw more attention to the Apple-Samsung documents, an unwelcome development for the companies.

This week’s order is below. Here’s the full list of media outlets who signed the application to attend the hearing: the New York Times, Bloomberg, the Washington Post, Gannett Co., Dow Jones, the First Amendment Coalition, Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press, the Society of Professional Journalists, and the American Society of News Editors. The filing was first spotted by Reuters.

Fed Circuit Grants NYT Permission to Intervene in Apple Samsung

Apple hadn’t wanted Cook to testify, writing in a letter to the court on Monday (PDF) that the government’s original complaint didn’t mention him (it only refers to former CEO Steve Jobs) and that Cook — who was previously the company’s chief operating officer — doesn’t possess any “unique knowledge about Apple’s decision to enter the ebooks market and recalls no relevant ‘private conversations’ with Mr. Jobs.”

However, according to Reuters, Judge Cote said in a teleconference Wednesday that because of Jobs’ death, “I think the government is entitled to take testimony from high-level executives within Apple about topics relevant to the government case.” Court documents supporting her decision have not yet been posted to PACER.

The DOJ sued Apple and five book publishers last April for allegedly conspiring to set ebook prices. All five publishers in the case have settled.

The report by Kantar Media also found that Samsung outspent the company it frequently mocked in its ads: Apple. The iPhone was the best-selling smartphone in the U.S. during the last three months of the year after the iPhone 5′s launch, but Apple didn’t increase its spending nearly as much in 2012 as its rival did. Kantar reported that Apple spent $333 million on iPhone ads in the U.S. last year, up from the $253 million the company spent the year before. HTC, which was third behind Samsung, spent $46 million, followed by BlackBerry, which spent $35 million, and Nokia, which spent $13 million on U.S. ads.

Samsung clearly has a lot of money to spend and it spreads it around too: The Wall Street Journal, in talking to unnamed wireless carrier executives, found that Samsung also helps to foot some bills for its strategic partners:

The heavy ad spending is only the most visible of Samsung’s investments. Some wireless carrier executives said the South Korean company also spends more on “below the line” marketing than any device maker. Those funds help pay for in-store advertising, promotions and training for carrier sales representatives that help close the sale.

The discrepancy in spending between the only two companies who are making any money at all in smartphone sales wasn’t just in quantity of dollars spent. In terms of quality, Samsung’s television advertising got people talking, especially “The Next Big Thing” ads that poked fun at Apple’s typically long lines on iPhone launch days and the people who wait in them.

Apple, meanwhile, had an ad campaign that got people talking in 2012 (remember the “Genius” ads?) — but for another reason: for how surprisingly un-Apple-like they seemed in quality of execution and tone.

According to figures reported by CNET and confirmed by Spotify, the company now has 24 million active users and 6 million paying subscribers across the world. Spotify is also growing rapidly in the United States, where it arrived in July 0f 2011 and is this week hosting musicians at its “Spotify House” at the SXSW festival in Austin, Texas.

Despite the hype, the underlying economics of Spotify’s business model remain uncertain. The service is beholden to musicians and studios, which request a 70 percent cut, and it must contend with a growing list of competitors that include Pandora, Rdio and SoundCloud. Meanwhile, YouTube is expected to launch a subscription service of its own in coming months and even Apple is expected to get into the streaming game too.

This competition validates the underlying premise of Spotify — that people want access to a giant catalog of music instead of buying it piecemeal through iTunes — but the arrival of deep-pocketed rivals may hurt Spotify’s ability to compete in the longterm.