The fact that this could very well prove to be a Pyrrhic victory I think is actually extremely relevant to this case, since the fundamental guiding principle here is "is this in consumer's best interest."
Paying more for eBooks because Apple didn't want to compete on price is not in the consumer's best interest.
The fundamental import of Apple's actions was that it significantly increased prices for eBooks without fundmentally altering the value proposition (i.e., eBooks before Apple's price-fixing are no different than eBooks post-price-fixing). The difference in price is the "harm" that consumers have suffered--it represents the increased prices they have to pay over the prices they would have paid had Apple not colluded to artificially increase prices in a way the market did not support.
>eBooks before Apple's price-fixing are no different than eBooks post-price-fixing
That's not true. Apple eliminated windowing. I.e. pre-Apple some ebooks were being delayed for some time after their print releases. Apple's scheme guaranteed they'd be released at the same time. That's a major difference and a major value-add.
That's not entirely accurate; the publishers already knew windowing was stupid and a short term measure. Not every publisher was using windowing. You can read about it on page 25 of the Judje's report.
