Apple and publisher Simon & Schuster are appealing decisions in a case that found Apple guilty of conspiring with S&S and other publishers to raise the price of ebooks.
As part of the verdict, the Department of Justice proposed several measures to prevent Apple from fixing prices in the future, including different rules for ebook apps on iOS, restrictions on what publishers Apple can enter into contracts with and putting in place a third party monitor - paid for by Apple - to make sure Cupertino follows the rules.
When the DOJ came forward with the plan, Apple called it "a draconian and punitive intrusion into Apple's business, wildly out of proportion to any adjudicated wrongdoing or potential harm."
But even before that, Apple announced it would appeal the ruling, accusing Amazon of being the real villain.
Apple followed through on Oct. 3 by filing a notice of the appeal with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
The company reportedly has through early 2014 to file its formal arguments.
Apple isn't waiting until the new year to get the ball rolling, however. In a previous letter to the judge that oversaw the case, Apple already laid out what some of those arguments could be.
In the letter Apple questioned the credibility of certain witnesses for Google and Amazon and bemoaned the fact that certain "internal business deliberations" within Amazon were disregarded during the trial.
Let's talk about this
Oddly Simon & Schuster will also appeal.
Like the other publishers named in the case, it settled up with the DOJ relatively early. However, S&S is has decided to appeal a Sept. 6 injunction that extended the amount of time that it and four other publishers will be required to allow Apple to discount their ebooks.
That same injunction also prevents Simon & Schuster from negotiating new contracts with Apple for three years.
The publisher previously made similar arguments to ones made by Apple, essentially saying that the punishments don't match the crime.
Meanwhile, the Department of Justice in August expressed something that resembles disappointment over Apple's refusal to accept the consequences of its perceived actions.
Article continues below