FORTUNE -- "I have no opinion."
That was Orin Snyder's first reply after U.S. District Judge Denise Cote questioned him early in his closing arguments in U.S.A. v. Apple, the antitrust case the Department of Justice filed against Apple (AAPL) and five publishers in April 2012.
We'll deal with what Apple's lead counsel said in his summation after we've heard the government's closing arguments, scheduled to be delivered after the lunch break. Suffice it say that the main points Snyder made will be no surprise to readers who have been following our coverage of the trial.
But we thought it was interesting that Judge Cote -- who presided over the settlements that removed the publishers from the case -- interrupted Snyder to ask, more than once and in several forms, whether Apple disputed that the five publishers had in fact conspired to raise the price of e-books.
"I literally have no idea," Snyder replied, the second time she asked it.
There was no evidence, he continued, that Apple knew of any such conspiracy. Apple's Eddy Cue, whom the government alleges was the ringleader of the plot, had never met the publishers before Dec. 15. Cue also testified that if he'd found out that they were talking amongst each other about his deal, he would have broken off negotiations. Given that they all made different demands -- and in two cases actually broke off talks -- they certainly didn't act like they were negotiating collectively.
Is Apple disputing that it knew or expected the publishers would raise the prices of e-books? Cote tried again.
"We don't concede any aspect of the government's burden of proof of conspiracy," Snyder replied. "Apple was not aware in December  and January  of a conspiracy to raise prices."
Finally, one last time (from the transcript):
THE COURT: But at this trial, you did not contest and are not now contesting that during that period the publishers themselves were, in fact, by themselves engaged in a conspiracy to raise prices?
MR. SNYDER: Right. We have not endeavored to prove or disprove that. But what we have, I think, demonstrated clearly is that the government has not met its burden of proof that any preexisting conspiracy existed, that Apple joined or facilitated. That, obviously, is our position.
THE COURT: I understand you are disputing Apple's knowledge and intent with respect to a conspiracy. Does that summarize it?
MR. SNYDER: Yes.
THE COURT: Thank you.
MR. SNYDER: Thank you.
Court drawings: Illustrations by Elizabeth Williams
Remarks made after the iPad introduction are now evidence in the Apple antitrust trial.
FORTUNE -- Long-time Apple (AAPL) watchers will remember this golden oldie from 2010.
Steve Jobs had just wrapped up his Jan. 27 introduction of the iPad and iBookstore when the Wall Street Journal's Walt Mossberg got his ear in the post-keynote press scrum.
Why, Mossberg asked Jobs, would anyone buy an e-book from Apple for $14.99 when they could buy MOREPhilip Elmer-DeWitt - Jun 5, 2013 1:56 PM ET
Nearly 14 months after the DOJ sued Apple, the e-book antitrust case is going to trial.
FORTUNE -- One of the big unanswered questions about the trial that opens Monday in a Manhattan federal courthouse is why Apple (AAPL) CEO Tim Cook hasn't already settled the case.
When Attorney General Eric Holder sued Apple and five book publishers in April 2012 for allegedly conspiring against Amazon (AMZN) to raise the price of e-books, three of MOREPhilip Elmer-DeWitt - Jun 3, 2013 5:14 AM ET
The DOJ's e-books "ringmaster" theory dates back to the days of the railroad cartels.
FORTUNE -- The first federal antitrust trial in almost a decade -- U.S.A. v. Apple Inc. et al. -- is scheduled to begin Monday in a Manhattan courthouse.
The et al. in the title are five book publishers accused of conspiring in late 2009 and early 2010 to raise the prices of e-books.
The publishers -- Penguin, HarperCollins, Simon & Schuster, MOREPhilip Elmer-DeWitt - Jun 2, 2013 5:30 AM ET
Shares opened higher, despite news the company may have stepped in legal quicksand
Having Justice Department lawyers around, veteran tech watcher Dana Blankenhorn reminds us in a Seeking Alpha post this morning, "is bad for any company. Especially antitrust lawyers. Especially tech companies."
"Every tech company the Justice Department has ever gone after -- IBM (IBM), the former AT&T (T), and (most especially) Microsoft (MSFT) can attest to this fact. All were transformed and MOREPhilip Elmer-DeWitt - Apr 11, 2012 11:20 AM ET
A flurry of last-minute music industry deal-making, a cloud of confusion
You might think that Apple (AAPL), having labored for more than a year to get its new music and video streaming service -- dubbed iCloud -- ready for prime time, would have nailed down the necessary digital rights before making any public announcements.
But that's not the way negotiations work, especially in the entertainment industry. So it wasn't until Thursday, with MOREPhilip Elmer-DeWitt - Jun 3, 2011 6:38 AM ET
|What stumps Warren Buffett? Minimum wage|
|Water becoming more valuable than gold|
|GM's $1.3 billion recall cost wipes out profit|
|Will 7 Apples a day keep the bears away? - The Buzz|
|Ex-Wal-Mart CEO Duke retired with $140 million|