THERE is where you are making your mistake, Tex. You are mis-parsing that sentence legally.
The contracts Apple had did not "form a trust or otherwise." In fact, Tex, the DOJ and the court found Apple's contracts with the publishers to be completely legal. A trust is a specific form of agreement. That did not exist here. There was such an informal agreement between the publishers, but Apple was NOT in any way a party to the agreement of collusion between the publishers. Apple acted independently with each of them, and other publishers OUT SIDE of that collusion which just happened to assist them in their goals, but also worked toward Apple's independent goals. Apple never worked in concert with the publishers or even met with them as a group.
You also misconstrue "in restraint of trade or commerce."
Where was the "restraint of trade or commerce" when the sales of eBooks more than doubled after Apple entered the eBook market? What, exactly, was restrained when it actually was set free to bound ahead like an unfettered market should be, instead of kept fenced into a single retailer, bottlenecked on one retailer's devices, sold only through one source; demonstrably constrained by a retailer who would, at the raise of a rebellious publisher's wholesale prices, turn off the "Buy" buttons on that publisher's products, both eBooks and hardcovers, starving them of sales until they kowtowed to the demands of the overwhelmingly powerful, monopolist retailer?
Was not turning off the "Buy" buttons of any publishers who raised their wholesale prices a "restraint of trade of trade or commerce" when the monopolist had 90% power in the market and could starve a supplier of sales? Yet the Obama Justice Department declined to take action because they "felt" that such below cost prices were some how beneficial to consumers. . . against all rational economic theories or facts. . .or the law. Could it be they made their decision to not go after Amazon's predatory practices at every level be based on the fact that its CEO was one of Obama's primary political, financial, and policy supporters?
No, Tex, it is NOT irrelevant. "Harm to the consumer" is what the law was written to prevent. If there is no harm to the consumer, or if the benefit to the consumer overwhelms the cost, then there is no harm. That was the entire point of the US Supreme Court's teaching in it's 2007 Leegin decision reversing the conviction of just such a vertical participant as Apple, which went entirely ignored by Judge Cote and the two 2nd District Appellate judges. . . and what so incensed Judge Jacobs.
The more than doubling of the market despite the increase in prices shows that invisible hand of the economic market, comprised of millions of eBook consumers, spoke and found Apple NOT GUILTY of harming them.
Interesting that you selectively parsed so as to NOT contain the keyword that I have used time and time again and was used in the judgement!
Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal.”
“No, Tex, it is NOT irrelevant. “Harm to the consumer” is what the law was written to prevent.”
Hey, if it is not in the law, it is not in the law!
And that is NOT in the law.
“Was not turning off the “Buy” buttons of any publishers who raised their wholesale prices a “restraint of trade of trade or commerce” when the monopolist had 90% power in the market and could starve a supplier of sales? “
Those actions would be outside the scope of the Sherman act as described in 15 U.S. Code § 1.