FORTUNE -- What started as a small "gotcha" moment last week in the cross examination of a mid-level Apple (AAPL) executive grew into a federal case -- literally -- on Monday, the ninth day of testimony in U.S.A. v. Apple.
The latest McGuffin in the Department of Justice's antitrust case against Apple is an e-mail signed by Steve Jobs and addressed to Eddy Cue -- the Apple senior vice president whom the government alleges was the ringleader of a conspiracy to raise the price of e-books in 2010.
The evidence was first sprung on Keith Moerer, the head of Apple's iBookstore, by Dan McCuaig, a DOJ attorney, in the last hour of the sixth day (last Tuesday). Moerer and his colleague Kevin Saul had both testified that Apple was "indifferent" to what kind of agreement the publishers signed with Amazon (AMZN), then the dominant e-book seller with a 90% market share. But in an e-mail in response to some price cap changes proposed by Eddy Cue, Jobs had written on Jan. 14, 2010:
"I can live with this as long as they move Amazon to the agent model too for new releases for the first year. If not, I'm not sure we can be competitive..."
Does that, McCuaig asked Moerer, reflect "indifference"?
"No," Moerer reluctantly admitted.
Orin Snyder, Apple's chief counsel, wasted no time trying to disarm the new evidence.
"Are you aware," he asked Moerer, "that the e-mail was never sent?"
The government immediately objected, and the judge ordered the question stricken from the record. See Did Steve Jobs give the DOJ an antitrust smoking gun?
But you knew it wasn't going to end there.
Snyder came back to the topic the next day, introducing a longer version of the e-mail stamped with the same date, suggesting that the e-mail the government had shown the court was a discarded draft. See Did the DOJ pull a fast one?
The government returned to topic last Thursday. With Eddy Cue on the stand. Larry Buterman, another DOJ attorney, asked him what it meant and whether he'd ever received it. Cue said he hadn't and Buterman -- apparently lacking proof that he had -- had to accept Cue's word for it.
Then, on Monday, things got a bit out of control.
Synder started the ball rolling by introducing five different versions of the Jobs e-mail. In four of them the "move Amazon to agent model" language had disappeared. In its place were variations of the price-matching clause that ended up in Apple's contract. The strong implication was that Jobs' thinking had evolved in the process of drafting the e-mails. The problem for Snyder -- which he skipped right over -- was that the version the government had introduced was time-stamped later than the other four.
The government wasn't going to let Apple's lawyer get away with that. In his re-cross, the DOJ's Buterman had Cue read the time stamps one by one, demonstrating that the "smoking gun" version was dated five minutes after the first.
Snyder in his re-re-cross got Cue to testify that time stamps didn't prove anything. If you have several windows open on the screen of a Mac, Cue said, the last window you close will have the latest time stamp.
Buterman in his re-re-cross pointed out that the government's preferred version not only had the latest time stamp, but was the only one that Jobs had signed in his usual manner: "Steve."
When the two attorneys had finally run out of questions for Cue, U.S. District Judge Denise Cote -- who will decide the non-jury trial -- picked up the ball.
"So you probably don't want to see those five documents again," she began. She then proceeded to subject Jobs' words to the kind of close textual analysis an English major might lovingly perform on an Emily Dickinson poem. When Cue pointed out that the signed version of the e-mail -- the one with the last time stamp -- contained a remnant of an earlier version, she responded (from the transcript):
THE COURT: "Believe me, I've noticed, and that one first appeared on [Plaintiff's exhibit] 687, the second version. And, well, I shouldn't say that. It first appeared on the first version, 688, but as part of the paragraph, part of the text, and then for the second version it's like he hit a return and it ended up like the beginning of a new paragraph, and then he started completing the sentence and then never deleted. Anyway, so it's like hanging down there just sort of riding at the bottom of the e-mail for the rest of the chain, which, to me, is additional confirmation that this is the last in the series.
CUE: I agree with you, your Honor.
So it was determined, at least in the mind of the person who matters most in this case, that the government's version was indeed the last one.
Judge Cote had several theories about what that meant. Perhaps Jobs hadn't made a mistake, as Cue had suggested, when he used the word "wholesale" when he should have used "agent." Or perhaps he was concerned that Apple couldn't turn a profit on e-books if it had to match Amazon's prices.
No and no, Cue responded. And then, speaking as someone who was closer to Jobs on the iBookstore project than anyone, Cue explained what he thought had happened in a way that seemed to satisfy Judge Cote:
CUE: He's writing that first one, he's confused about it because he wasn't clear about wholesale, retail, agency, non-agency. And then he changes it to this, but realizes, you know what, I don't really know what the right thing is, and that's why he never sent the e-mails to me... Based on my experience with Steve over the 17 years, I can tell you I'm a hundred percent positive that's what happened because Steve would never have sent an e-mail if he was not sure about it.
THE COURT: Thank you.
What made the whole detour into the provenance of Jobs' e-mail so absurd was that the thing wasn't really a "smoking gun" at all. Cue had already testified that he and Jobs had originally planned to get the publishers to move Amazon from the wholesale model (where Amazon was selling New York Times bestsellers for $9.99) to the agency model (where the book publishers could set their own, higher prices).
The critical testimony on that point was the explanation Cue gave last Thursday about why he abandoned the "move Amazon to the agent model" language that appeared in an e-mail from Jobs written the week Cue changed his mind. See The DOJ's last best chance has passed.
If Judge Cote accepts Cue's explanation, Jobs' unsent e-mail is irrelevant.
For a drawing of Judge Cote questioning Eddy Cue about Jobs' e-mail, see Elizabeth Williams' courtroom illustration.
For background on the case, see:
On the day the U.S. is to close its antitrust case, Apple evokes the memory its late CEO.
FORTUNE -- "Once Steve decided he wanted to pursue the e-bookstore, he got more and more excited."
That was Apple (AAPL) senior vice president Eddy Cue, the alleged "ringmaster" of the conspiracy to raise e-book prices at the heart of U.S.A. v. Apple, being steered toward the end of his cross examination to talk about MOREPhilip Elmer-DeWitt - Jun 17, 2013 1:56 PM ET
The DOJ will rest its case. Apple will present its defense. Summations on Thursday.
FORTUNE -- Eddy Cue, the alleged "ringmaster" of a conspiracy to raise e-book prices in 2010, returns to a Manhattan federal court Monday in the final four days of the Department of Justice's antitrust case against Apple (AAPL).
Having sailed through a grilling Thursday by the government's lawyer, the star witness of U.S.A. v. Apple will complete the friendly MOREPhilip Elmer-DeWitt - Jun 17, 2013 5:47 AM ET
That's when Apple and Macmillan hatched a plot to sandbag Amazon, says the DOJ.
FORTUNE -- In its effort to prove that Apple (AAPL) "knowingly participated in and facilitated a conspiracy to raise prices of e-books" -- to use the judge's own words -- the Department of Justice has spent an inordinate amount of time cross-examining witnesses in the Apple e-book trial about a dinner that took place in Manhattan on MOREPhilip Elmer-DeWitt - Jun 16, 2013 8:36 AM ET
If the government couldn't nail Eddy Cue -- and it didn't -- how's it going to win?
FORTUNE -- The Department of Justice spent a little over three hours Thursday cross-examining Apple senior vice president Eddy Cue -- the alleged "ringmaster" of an illegal conspiracy to raise the price of e-books -- and when it was over it wasn't clear whether the government had let its last best chance slip through MOREPhilip Elmer-DeWitt - Jun 14, 2013 7:30 AM ET
Cue was at the center of what the DOJ calls an illegal scheme to fix the price of e-books.
FORTUNE -- Did Apple (AAPL) take advantage of the turmoil in the digital book market in late 2009 to negotiate favorable deals with five of the six biggest book publishers? Or was it, in fact, the "ringmaster" of an illegal conspiracy that reshaped the industry, forced Amazon (AMZN) and other retailers to MOREPhilip Elmer-DeWitt - Jun 13, 2013 7:20 AM ET
E-mail evidence the government introduced on Tuesday could backfire on Thursday.
FORTUNE -- Plaintiff's Exhibit 55, which U.S. attorney Dan McCuaig introduced with a flourish at the end of the day Tuesday, was almost too good to be true.
It was a Jan. 14, 2010 e-mail from Steve Jobs himself, and not only did it seem to support the central theory of the government's antitrust case against Apple (AAPL), but it suggested for the MOREPhilip Elmer-DeWitt - Jun 13, 2013 5:00 AM ET
On day 5, the government uses HarperCollins's words against it.
FORTUNE -- Plaintiff's Exhibit 865, introduced for the Department of Justice by attorney Larry Buterman after he spent an hour cross examining HarperCollins CEO Brian Murray -- examination that was like pulling teeth -- illustrates as well as anything the gap between the government's case and Apple's (AAPL) defense.
It consists of four quotes from HarperCollins executives -- two from Murray himself MOREPhilip Elmer-DeWitt - Jun 10, 2013 1:15 PM ET
A Google exec, an Apple exec and the only publisher who stayed loyal to Amazon.
FORTUNE -- We got a peek at the witness list in U.S.A. v. Apple, the e-book antitrust trial scheduled to begin its second of three weeks Monday in a Manhattan federal courthouse.
On deck for today, according to our notes:
Thomas Turvey: The Google (GOOG) director of strategic partnerships whose written testimony was demolished Thursday by Apple's (AAPL) MOREPhilip Elmer-DeWitt - Jun 10, 2013 8:26 AM ET
Between WWDC and the e-book antitrust trial, Apple's digital dealmaker has a busy week.
FORTUNE -- If the trade press reports are true, Eddy Cue will take the stage Monday at Apple's World Wide Developers Conference in San Francisco to introduce a new music streaming service that reporters have dubbed -- probably with good reason -- iRadio.
Three days later, Cue is scheduled to appear in a Manhattan federal court as the star witness MOREPhilip Elmer-DeWitt - Jun 9, 2013 6:57 AM ET
|Chrysler relents, agrees to recall 2.7 million Jeeps|
|Google files First Amendment court case against NSA surveillance secrecy|
|China's fastest-growing cities for millionaires|
|Immigration bill could cut deficits by $175 billion - CBO|
|Why Apple's new MacBook Air is the ultimate road warrior's notebook|